Ruimte voor een democratische rechtsstaat - RePub - Erasmus ...

Spatial analysis
A first part of the answer to subquestion 2 is given in chapter 5, where the ideal type models of
democracy are identified in the Dutch system of spatial planning. A second part of the answer to
subquestion 2 is given in the chapters 7 and 8, with the empirical cases. Preceding that empirical
study meanings given to space are extended onto the frame of analysis.
In policy discussions it becomes clear that actors have different views on space and
conflicting desires concerning spatial arrangements. ‘Spatial quality’ can be considered as an
umbrella for discussion and action. Subquestion 3 regarding the meanings of the spatial context of
policy-making that are relevant in the light of democracy, is answered at various levels. First, the
meanings of urbanity, plurality and public nature are distinguished. Urbanity is the start for the
democratic ‘Rechtsstaat’. Plurality is the consequence of urbanity and it is a necessary condition
for the democratic ‘Rechtsstaat’. The public nature of space is the central meaning for this study.
The versatile, public city creates and is made by the political action of actors. Second, three facets
of spatial quality are distinguished, each made up of three strata. Taken together these nine
elements can be used as a magnifying glass to bring into view and understand the spatial
orientations of actors. If urbanity, plurality and public nature are inward meanings of space, the
nine elements are outward meanings of space (see figure 3).
Governance not only takes place in and from institutional politics. How much broader
the public realm is depends on one’s view of democracy, though. In the model of representative
democracy the public realm is concentrated in state organs, notably parliament, and in bourgeois
drawing rooms, leaving public space to traffic. In the model of participatory democracy, however,
a considerable part of the public realm is situated in the public space where citizens without office
play their daily part in politics. In late modernity the plural and public character of cities is
pressured by urban sprawl and urban decline, consumerism, mediatised and virtual life. Spaces
where people are confronted with the ideas or material needs of fellow citizens, spaces where
actors meet and act in concert are driven back.
The facets of spatial quality can be thought of at different levels of abstraction. From
most real to most abstract those levels are activity domains, quality domains and domains of
meaning (see table 5). Activity domains are spatial networks dominated by the notion of place,
transport networks dominated by the notion of flow, and governance networks. Quality domains
are the values of experience, utility and durability, or Vitruvius’ venustas, utilitas and firmitas.
Domains of meaning are Henri Lefebvre’s representational space, representations of space and
spatial practices. Spatial quality can be sought in innovative, urban use of space, particularly if
that use of space combines elements of place and flow. Such innovation constitutes a challenge to
organisation and management of multiple parties, interests and values. Governance networks may
meet that challenge.
282