Changing public space

‘funshopping’. At the same time, they tend to have low ratings on ‘sidewalk cafés’ and ‘events’,
and can thus not be regarded as typical themed public spaces. The publicly realised squares have
more varied intensities on themed dimensions depending on their main function; the café square
Oude Markt has high ratings on ‘sidewalk cafés’, while the cultural Schouwburgplein has low
ratings on this dimension but high ones on the dimension ‘events’.
With regard to the level of security, there are no obvious differences between public and
PPP squares. The Beurstraverse rates high on secured dimensions, while other PPP squares such
as the Van Heekplein and Statenplein do not. Similarly, some publicly realised squares have
low intensities regarding secured dimensions like the Markt, while others have a medium to
high intensity of surveillance or regulation (i.e., the Oude Markt and Schouwburgplein). These
publicly owned spaces also seem to be increasingly monitored. We can therefore conclude that the
development of secured and themed public space is not an effect of private-sector involvement.
It is rather the outcome of a general tendency towards greater control and predictability of
activities in both in PPP and publicly realised spaces. As such, fear and fantasy cannot only be
seen as indications of trends in the design and management of secured and themed space, but
also as metaphors of the objective of those involved in urban redevelopment: to manipulate the
public realm by creating safe and spectacular spaces in order to attract the desired consumers.
9.5 Policy implications
The study’s central notion of a changing society and changing public space does not necessarily
argue in favour of constant adjustments of public space to societal changes. It can be argued
that public space should have a neutral character, allowing it to be durable and flexible at the
same time. After all, user profiles and lifestyles change quicker than the physical environment.
Redevelopment of public space is necessary to comply with these changing demands, but is it
possible or desirable if meanings and uses are so liable to change, and if the individual demands
in fact prove to be conflicting? It is also questionable whether physical changes will actually result
in the desired behaviour and use of public space. Urban policies should take these considerations
into account and carefully examine how and for whom public space needs to be adapted over
time, and how potential conflicts can or should be spatially separated.
The involvement of the private sector in the redevelopment of public space also needs further
questioning in urban policy. In addition to the possible effects discussed above, private-sector
involvement could effectuate two seemingly contradictory processes: the differentiation and
homogenisation of the city centre. The empirical study has shown that the private sector mainly
participates when the redevelopment involves the construction of a new retail complex. Because
the new construction is expected to yield high returns, the private sector is willing to also invest
in the associated public space. In contrast, it does not participate when the redevelopment only
entails repaving and other cosmetic changes in the design of public space. This is an important
finding because it suggests that private-sector investment may be limited to a certain type of
public space: the retail square. The involvement of the private sector at one location and its
absence at another might lead to a differentiation of quality between urban spaces in terms
of investment. This did not occur in our case-study cities because the redevelopment was not
limited to the PPP research objects only. As discussed in Section 6.6, the four cities applied
a comprehensive approach and redeveloped their centre as a whole rather than piecemeal. The
190