Changing public space

More documents

Recommendations

Info

to improve the liveability of cities (Zonderop, 2007). In academic circles, numerous studies were published on public space (e.g., Oosterman, 1992, 1993; Van der Wouden, 1999a, 1999b; Burgers, 2000, 2003; Hajer & Reijndorp, 2001, 2003; Meyer et al., 2006). Yet only a few deal specifically with the redevelopment of public space. This is a regrettable gap in the literature, because these processes have had a strong impact on how Dutch city centres look and function. Given the scanty reflection on this process of change, the present author focuses on the redevelopment of Dutch public space. The central theme of the research is the relation between a changing society and changing public space. We do not need to dwell on the connection between society and space, as that has been articulated previously (e.g., Gregory & Urry, 1985; Hubbard, 2001; Iveson, 2007). According to MacLaren (2003: 1), “… cities mirror the character of the society that creates and sustains them. They are therefore as multifaceted as the range of social complexity which engenders them … ”. The link between society and public space becomes clear when comparing characteristic differences between countries. For instance, the Latin cultures of Southern Europe display wealth and power in palaces, town halls, and churches including the surrounding public spaces (Herzog, 2006). In contrast, the Muslim cultures of North Africa have only a limited number of public spaces apart from markets and shopping streets, but rather display wealth and power within the more private domains of the home and mosque (Carr et al., 1992). Other cultures have different uses and designs for public space. There is also an enduring correlation between societal development, on the one hand, and the actions of governments, institutions, companies, and citizens, on the other (Spit & Zoete, 2003). The relation between society and public space may thus be examined from two angles: which societal developments and whose actions are behind the increasing redevelopment of public space in the Netherlands? This study seeks to uncover the backgrounds of urban redevelopment – the underlying social antecedents as well as the actors involved – and to chart the effects on public space. 1.2 Definitions of public space The academic literature does not give a general definition of public space (Burgers, 2000). In fact, there are multiple and sometimes even contradictory meanings of the concept. Staeheli and Mitchell (2007) have analysed 218 geographical books and journal articles on public space that appeared between 1945 and 1998. They show that many authors refer to the physical setting (27% of the publications) or regard public space as a site of negotiation, contest, or protest (23%). Yet most emphasise its social meeting function (37%). The simplest way to define public space is in terms of the physical setting – a street, boulevard, sidewalk, square, or park (Carr et al., 1992; Meyer et al., 2006). An urban geographer, Iveson (2007), calls this the topographical approach, which is used to denote a particular physical place in the city. Although this approach might seem self-evident, the current debate takes the definition a step beyond the physical structure. Some authors point out new forms of public space that are not physical but virtual, such as Internet chat rooms (Crang, 2000; Van der Wouden, 2002; Taipale, 2006). These new spaces do not make ‘real’ public space redundant, but broaden the concept of public space. In contrast to the topographical approach, the procedural approach allows for a non-physical public realm. It also emphasises the function of public space as site of power and protest. Thus, a procedural definition of public space is grounded in the function of hosting common action that is coordinated through speech and persuasion. Actually, 16
23 per cent of the geographical publications on public space covered in the analysis mentioned above also emphasise this function. In essence, by merging the topographical with the procedural approach, several authors have highlighted the social meeting function of public space; these include Lofland (1973), Sennett (1978), Carr et al. (1992), Zukin (1995) and Goheen (1998). They define public space as a range of places where people from all kinds of backgrounds can congregate and learn from each other, resulting in new insights, social ties and tolerance – and ultimately in cosmopolitan citizens (Brunt & Deben, 2001). This is the so-called Olmstedian view, in which open public space comprises places of social contact and civic pride (Banerjee, 2001). The stance is named after Frederick Law Olmsted, who designed many American parks and wrote about creating order and structure in industrial cities. The social meeting function is closely linked to accessibility. After all, people from different backgrounds are only able to meet if the space is not bound to opening hours or entrance fees and is not reserved for a specific group but can be accessed and used by everyone. However, according to Atkinson, it is doubtful whether any public space actually meets this standard: “If public space is defined as space to ‘which normally people have unrestricted access and right of way’ it is difficult to make the argument that any space has ever held such a status …” (Atkinson, 2003: 1830). The text box shows a selection of definitions found by the present researcher. Two defining elements predominate on this list: the physical setting (e.g., Van der Plas, 1991; Brunt & Deben, 2001) and the social meeting function (e.g., Mentzel, 1993; Cybriwsky, 1999; Van Aalst & Bergenhenegouwen, 2003). While accessibility is also frequently mentioned (e.g., Carr et al., 1992; Boyer, 1993; Zukin, 1995; Hajer & Reijndorp, 2001; VROM, 2001), few definitions refer to public space as a site of negotiation, contest, or protest. Some definitions are ideal-typical depictions of public space. Brunt and Deben (2001: 13), for example, admit that their definition is hard to find in reality. When applying its criteria, most seemingly public spaces will turn out to be semi-public. The crux of the matter is to formulate a definition which is not too exclusive but at the same time describes the characteristics of public space as specifically as possible. Dessouroux (2003) tries to solve this problem by using a cube with three axes: property, access, and regulation. Public spaces can be found at any point within the cube. In other words, they do not necessarily have to be public property, universally accessible, and have a permissive regulation. This ‘definition’ also allows for publicly owned spaces with a more restrictive regime as well as for privately owned but publicly accessible spaces (comparable to Yücesoy’s definition in the text box). This is important because such spaces might function as public space: Since the mall is privately owned, it is not a public space in the same way that a town plaza or street might be. Nevertheless, people in Syracuse think of the mall as being equivalent to downtown, making it a de facto public space in the ways they want to use it and the ways they think about it …. (Staeheli & Mitchell, 2006: 990) Interestingly, only few of the definitions specify ownership as a distinguishing factor (except for Madanipour, 2003; Meyer et al., 2006). This suggests that the authors either assume that public space is publicly owned by the local government or consider ownership – be it public or private – irrelevant to a definition of public space. Needham (2007: 197) states in this context that public space is for the public, not necessarily of the public. Public space is often directly linked to its antonym, private space (Low & Smith, 2006; Taipale, 2006). The boundaries between the two are constantly shifting, leading to more hybrid forms and making it almost impossible to formulate a conclusive definition. The one cannot be seen without the other: 17
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: 1 Changing role of public space in
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 and 182:
In addition to a longer duration, p
Page 183 and 184:
In a similar vein, one informant em
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?