Changing public space

were laid out in the 1950s as parts of the large-scale plan to reconstruct the heavily bombed
city centre of Rotterdam. The latter two were connected to each other by the construction of a
new retail underpass named the Beurstraverse in 1996. Similarly, the Van Heekplein came into
existence when Enschede was bombed during the war. The square was later enlarged due to the
demolition of a textile mill when de-industrialisation set in. The Grote Markt and Statenplein
in Dordrecht and the Loeffplein in ’s-Hertogenbosch resulted from demolition activities in the
1960s. Deteriorated residences were demolished to create access routes to and parking spaces in
the city centre.
The origin of these six redesigned research objects thus differs from the ‘average’ Dutch
medieval square. This implies that recent redevelopment tends to occur in public spaces located
within or very close to the historic fine-grained city centre, yet lack historicity themselves. In line
with the metaphor of the urban organism, these squares are redeveloped with the intention to
turn them into the new heart of the city. They were not regarded as such prior to redevelopment.
Consequently, they could be thoroughly upgraded without much resistance from the local
population, historic preservation groups, and the like. These squares thus offer more freedom to
the actors involved in the redevelopment to create spaces that fit the current characteristics of
society. In contrast, medieval squares are often seen as the main public spaces of the city whose
historic structures should not be exposed to large-scale redevelopment activities. Refurbishment
of these medieval public spaces mostly consists of modest adaptations such as repaving the square
and improving its lighting. The dynamic relation between a changing society and changing public
space thus seems most present in non-historic squares that are subject to more rigorous changes
in urban design and management.
9.3 Current trends in public space
The historical overview of city squares needs to be extended to developments of contemporary
Dutch public space. To this end, two sub-questions were formulated in Section 1.4: What are the
current trends in the design and management of Dutch public space? Which socio-cultural, economic,
and political dynamics have induced these trends? Literature analysis and observations revealed that
major investments were made in the last two decades to reinvigorate dilapidated public spaces.
Each of these redesigned sites seemed to take one of two directions. The redevelopment led
to the creation of secured public space, taking steps to increase safety and reducing fear. Or it
induced themed public space, focusing on urban entertainment and evoking fantasy. Fear is used
in the present study as an indicator of current safety trends in public space, including the rise of
surveillance, restraints on loitering, and strict regulation. These trends are visible in the design
(e.g., the presence of CCTV and the use of so-called sadistic street furniture) as well as the
management of public space (e.g., controlling the behaviour of users by imposing ‘house’ rules).
Similarly, fantasy is used as metaphor to indicate spatial trends like the organisation of events
and the growing number of sidewalk cafés in public space.
Section 3.4 traced the societal antecedents of the development of secured and themed
public space. They can be categorised in three groups of dynamics: socio-cultural, economic,
and political. Socio-cultural dynamics include the growing differentiation of lifestyles and
consumption patterns, but also the increasing fear of others and of victimisation. The interests
of people become increasingly diverse and can even become competitive. By controlling and
185