Changing public space

More documents

Recommendations

Info

its short-term participation – is involved for a longer period of time. Consequently, it becomes more interested in the quality and use of public space. Intersecting interests arise: municipal governments aim to capture capital flows, while developers and investors want to diversify their portfolio structure and seek investment opportunities. Not only the division of labour between the public and private sector becomes more diffuse, but also the roles of the private sector itself. The developer is expected to have a stronger presence in the post-redevelopment phase, while the private investor will become increasingly active during the early stages of redevelopment. Investors get involved earlier, thereby reassuring property developers that they will be able to sell the finished structure. Ties with investors can also assure developers of higher prices, since investors tend to pay more if they can influence the outcome. Moreover, investors can assist developers with designing buildings and public spaces. Crucially, they often have more practical experience with property management and maintenance. This experience has even induced some investors to take on the redevelopment themselves using in-house staff. The opposite is also occurring, as some developers decide to not sell their project after completion but manage it themselves. As a result of the changing roles of actors involved in public-space redevelopment, the co-operation between the local government and the private sector is expected to shift from unicentric to pluricentric (Table 9.1). In this future situation, the actors have parallel interests and none of them is dominant in the redevelopment process. However, this expectation is not confirmed by our empirical results; the four PPP research objects in which the private sector was involved show no signs of this transition. It is true that the municipal authorities of the case-study cities have shared tasks in the different stages of redevelopment and are no longer the only actor responsible for public space (see Tables 8.2-8.4). But the roles of the developer and investor still prove to be rather traditional. The developer is mainly active in the (re)development phase, the investor after the (re)development is finished. There are some exceptions such as the investors who (re)developed their own property at the Table 9.1 Changing roles of actors involved in public-space redevelopment Stage Actors Past/present (unicentric) Future (pluricentric) During (re) development After (re) development Municipality Responsible for development of public space Still often initiator of development of public space, but not necessarily the only responsible actor Responsible for development of buildings and increasingly of public space Developer Responsible for development of buildings Investor Not actively involved Sometimes involved as developer, expert, principal or financier (in case of future ownership) Municipality Responsible for the management of public space Responsible for the management of public space, sometimes in co-operation with other organisations (e.g., civil safety guards, police, private security companies) Developer Not actively involved Sometimes involved as manager of buildings Investor Responsible for the management of buildings Responsible for the management of buildings and increasingly of public space Source: Interviews with advisory team, 2005 188
Van Heekplein (i.e., Foruminvest, Holland Casino, VendexKBB, and Powinko), but this does not seem to have had much effect on the design and management of public space. In general, the co-operation between the local government and the private sector in the case-study cities was rather unicentric. Except for the Beurstraverse, the role of the municipal authorities was still extensive regarding all redevelopment tasks, especially concerning process and maintenance. The tasks were shared more equally among the public and private sector with regard to the design and financing of public space. Overall, however, the role of the private sector was limited in Dordrecht, Enschede, and ’s-Hertogenbosch; at least regarding the redevelopment of urban public space. Possible explanations expressed during the interviews are the fear of (semi-) privatisation and the lack of municipal experience with public-private partnerships and/or largescale redevelopment projects (Section 8.4). If these issues are not addressed, local governments might well desire an entrepreneurial approach to public-space redevelopment but fail to bring about successful PPP projects in reality (see also policy implications in Section 9.5.1). 9.4.2 Effects Although the involvement of the private sector proved to be limited in the redevelopment of the research objects, its participation has still influenced their design and management. Based on the literature review in Section 4.4, we have formulated four possible effects of private-sector involvement: 1) an increase in the available budget for the design and management of public space, 2) a decrease in the free access of public space, 3) more coherence between public space and the surrounding buildings, and 4) a more complicated redevelopment process (i.e., longer duration, more compromises). The interviews with the key actors involved in the redevelopment of the PPP squares revealed that the private sector indeed contributed to the budget for the design and management of the Beurstraverse in Rotterdam. However, this direct contribution turned out to be exceptional as it did not occur in the other three PPP squares. The private sector’s financial involvement in these projects was limited to indirect contributions via the price paid for the land. Interestingly, private-sector representatives regarded these indirect contributions as tangible financial payments, while the public sector did not. The different interpretations of the financial contribution of the private sector do not seem to have led to miscommunication and resentment among the actors in our research objects. However, hypothetically they could hamper redevelopment processes (see also Section 9.5.1). With respect to the freedom of access to public space, the informants stated that private-sector involvement leads to restricted accessibility, but only in areas that are private rather than public space. This mostly concerns shopping malls that are closed at night and are subject to strict regulation such as the Beurstraverse and the Arena at the Loeffplein. Outside these areas, public space is still public; that is, without extra regulation in addition to the local ordinance and accessible to all. According to the informants, private-sector involvement improves the coherence between buildings and public space and has no negative effect on the duration of redevelopment processes. Co-operation between the public and private sector does not lead to compromises but rather improves the overall quality of public space. The informants generally agreed that private-sector involvement does not automatically lead to the development of secured or themed public space. To check this statement, we have compared the six-dimensional diagrams of the publicly realised squares (i.e., the Schouwburgplein, Grote Markt, Oude Markt, and Markt) to the PPP research objects (i.e., the Beurstraverse, Statenplein, Van Heekplein, and Loeffplein) in Figure 7.5. Without exception, the PPP research objects – all of them retail squares – have high ratings on the dimension 189
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 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: ‘supply side’. This includes th
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?