Changing public space

at redeveloped derelict sites that would otherwise be removed from the city’s cultural heritage or
render profitless (Mommaas, 2004).
Investing in public space thus appears to be an economically lucrative option, not only for
the government but for the business community as well (see Chapter 4). Punter (1990) has
observed a growing awareness among property developers and investors that it can be in their
own interest to invest in the quality of the public realm. Doing so would enhance both the value
of the scheme and its long-term potential. The focus on safe and entertaining public spaces can
thus also partly be explained by the economic ambitions of the local government and other actors
involved in the development of public space.
3.4.3 Political dynamics
Lastly, political dynamics can induce the development of secured and themed public space. Figure
3.3 lists democratisation, the changing role of the nation state, and the rearrangement of the public
versus the private as main political dynamics. Democratisation can be interpreted as the wish to
involve the public in decision-making processes, both nation-wide and local. Examples are the
referendums held regarding the EU constitution in 2005. While in most other EU members, the
parliament had voted in favour of the EU constitution, both France and the Netherlands held
referendums. The population of these countries voted ‘no’, which slowed down the constitution’s
ratification. With regard to public space, democratisation is achieved by involving local
entrepreneurs and residents in the redevelopment process, as has occurred in Groningen. Since
2000, the local government is trying to formulate a new design for its central square (the Grote
Markt), but the redevelopment plans were delayed due to referendums. During the first one in
2001, the population of Groningen voted against the plans. In a second referendum in 2005, a
small majority voted in favour but the turnout was too limited to make the outcome official.
Despite these relatively negative examples, referendums have become increasingly popular both
from the side of the government and citizens. Citizens seem to have become more assertive and
involved, while the government needs their support to legitimise its policy and – in some cases –
to ask for their financial co-operation (for example by means of tax payments).
The changing role of the nation state and the rearrangement of the public and private are
closely linked. The sociologist Saskia Sassen stated in this regard: “The distinctive features of
the new, mostly but not exclusively private institutional order in formation are its capacity to
privatize what was heretofore public and to denationalize what were once national authorities
and policy agendas …” (Sassen, 2006: 21). The Netherlands is known for its top-down spatial
planning tradition, which gives the national government a central role (Priemus, 2002; Section
4.1). However, like elsewhere the Dutch nation state has shifted many of its responsibilities
either to provincial or local governments, or the private sector. This started in the early 1980s
with the adage ‘more market, less government’ and is continued today with the 2006 spatial
memorandum (Nota Ruimte) that claims ‘de-central what is possible, central what is necessary’
(Lohof & Reijndorp, 2006). According to Sharon Zukin (1998: 836), the retreating role of the
nation state can be regarded as one of the main reasons for the privatisation of public space: “…
streets, parks and even entire districts have been derogated to control by private associations of
property owners and patrons …”. She argues that the lack of available state-money is the main
cause of privatisation. Private companies, such as property developers and investors, have a vested
interest in developing public space (Loukaitou-Sideris & Banerjee, 1998; Zukin, 1998; Banerjee,
2001; Carmona et al., 2003), and are therefore willing to be involved in the redevelopment of
61