Changing public space

more restricted due to private-sector involvement – but for whom and at whose expense? We
agree with Atkinson (2003), who argues that it would be too simplistic to assert that securing
and animating public space only benefits the affluent. Groups that are excluded from one public
space might actually be the desired users of another. In Rotterdam, for example, skateboarding
is not allowed in the Beurstraverse and Schouwburgplein, but welcomed in the nearby skate
park Westblaak, a telling example of the fragmentation of urban society and the allocation of
public space to a particular public to separate potentially conflicting uses. According to Allen
(2006), closure in some of the more recently privatised public spaces is achieved in decidedly
modest ways through a ‘logic of seduction’ rather than gates and guards. He therefore argues
that research on the effects of private-sector involvement should take into account all the more
subtle ways of managing who visits public space and should focus on processes of inclusion
rather than exclusion: “Without the usual measures of social control and spatial exclusion –
CCTV, uniformed staff, behaviourist principles of design and such – power works through the
experience of the space itself, through its inclusive ambience …” (Allen, 2006: 452). Private-sector
involvement can thus influence the design and management of public space in ways alternative
to the ones described in the present research. As the private sector’s role in urban redevelopment
projects is likely to increase in the future, these alternative methods also need to be closer
scrutinised.
In addition, more variation in the actor composition is desirable in future public-space
research. As described in Section 5.3.1, the limited diversity of the actors was an unintended
outcome of the selection procedure. The dominance of Multi, T+T Design, and some other
parties (West 8, ING Bank) might have influenced the research findings. To verify whether
this has occurred, future research objects should include other developers, investors, architects,
landscape architects, and other kinds of stakeholders. The idea is not to simply involve a larger
number of actors in the research, but to obtain a broader recognition of who is involved in urban
redevelopment. This also includes the participation of housing associations and local residents,
which have not been analysed in the present study. Some of our informants as well as a number
of publications (e.g., Lohof & Reijndorp, 2006; AIR, 2007) have argued that these actors are
increasingly involved in the design and management of residential neighbourhoods at the edge of
the city. Are local residents of the city centre also inclined to become involved in redevelopment
projects, or is citizen participation in the design and management of public space difficult to
establish here due to the many conflicting interests, higher levels of anonymity, and fear of the
freeriders problem?
In general, future research should provide more insight in how public spaces function and
which user groups they attract and facilitate. By doing so, future research can contribute to the
important question how public space can be improved. After all, human organs cannot function
without the connecting tissue. In the same vein, the city centre needs good public space for the
built environment, including retail, housing, and offices, to function properly. The private sector
can play an important role in this, since the successful redevelopment of public space does not
only depend on urban planning by the municipality, but also on market knowledge of shopping
and walking routes. More academic research on the effects of the private sector on this ‘urban
tissue’ is therefore indispensable.
193