Changing public space

5.2.2 Inventory of Dutch city squares
To be able to select the research objects, we needed an overview of redeveloped city squares
in the Netherlands. Although a number of authors have published on Dutch squares (e.g.,
Khandekar, 1988; De Vries, 1990; Veenendaal, 2003; BMC, 2005), no such list had been drawn
up. Therefore, we made our own inventory by asking the experts on our advisory team (Section
5.3.2). We supplemented their list by searching the Internet using the Dutch words for redesign,
redevelopment, refurbishment, upgrading, and city square as keywords for the search engine. The
list was then used to select research objects; the rationale behind the selection criteria is set forth
below.
First, the aim was to identify at least one redeveloped square in each of the 50 largest Dutch
cities; smaller Dutch municipalities were not included in the inventory. The private sector was
first involved in the redevelopment of public space in the largest cities, because these locations
offered the best commercial opportunities. Today, the private sector is also increasingly involved
in smaller municipalities. However, many of these redevelopment projects are still underway,
making it difficult to draw conclusions on the effects of private-sector involvement. Moreover,
large cities display more functional differentiation in their squares. In smaller cities, a limited
number of squares differ in time with respect to their function (i.e., single heterogeneous squares).
In bigger cities, a larger number of squares differ in space with respect to their function (i.e.,
homogeneous squares that are complementary to each other). Maastricht is a good example: each
one of the three central squares is relatively homogeneous. The Vrijthof has a consistently civil
character, with a theatre, the old government building, and a cathedral, the Markt is consistently
retail-oriented, and the Onze Lieve Vrouweplein is dominated by sidewalk cafés. But because of
their close proximity to each other, these three squares together combine most of the possible
functions that squares can have. The interconnectedness of urban squares is also recently pointed
out in Publics and the City: “While many kinds of ‘public space’ exist, none exists in isolation –
rather, these spaces develop and mutate in complex relation to each other …” (Iveson, 2007:13).
Second, the selected city squares are located within the city centre. Urban public spaces are
more complex than neighbourhood spaces in terms of functions and actors. Therefore, central
squares are more appropriate to an inquiry about who is involved and how their involvement
affects public space. Moreover, the entrepreneurial ‘agenda’ has focussed on downtowns. Those
areas have generally suffered mostly from deindustrialisation processes (MacLeod, 2002) and
have therefore been prime targets of redevelopment.
Third, the selected city squares were redesigned recently (after 1995) or will be in the near
future. As indicated in Section 1.5, in-depth interviews with key actors are the main source of
information in the empirical chapters. Because a person’s memory tends to become less accurate
over time, it would be impossible to accurately reconstruct a redesign process that occurred long
ago. In addition, most urban redevelopment projects were only carried out after 1995.
After the redeveloped squares were identified, information on them was gathered by means
of document analysis (e.g., municipal websites and policy documents) and observations (e.g.,
with regard to the function and size of the square). The procedure yielded a list of 55 redeveloped
squares (see Appendix B).
5.2.3 Choice of cases
The new typology and inventory of redeveloped city squares served as inputs for the selection
of research objects. As set forth in Section 5.2.1, the aim was to investigate every cell within
89