Aaaannndd we're done. Exactly 6 minutes after the deadline, but still. This is kind of what our desks looked like all this time. We're proud of what we've accomplished. After weeks of hard work this is our paper: "Implications of Property-led Wealth Creation: A case study of Het Eilandje, Antwerp and Kop van Zuid, Rotterdam", existing of 30 pages. Enjoy!
The Wealth-Creation group.
Implications of Property-led Wealth Creation: A case study of Het Eilandje, Antwerp and Kop van Zuid, Rotterdam
This research presents the successes and failures of 2
two different Public-Private-Partnerships, located in Antwerp and Rotterdam,
two cities which are both governed with policies that involve neoliberal
principles. Wealth creation through entrepreneurial oriented flagship projects
in Antwerp and Rotterdam started in a similar environment (a port-area), but
with different approaches towards it, causing different outcomes. The
developments and impacts of the PPPs on the surrounding neighborhoods have been
investigated and compared. In order to achieve proper, purposeful conclusion,
the research was structured by the implementation of the following research
question:
How is the
principle of property led wealth creation implemented in Rotterdam and Antwerp,
and what are the outcomes of both projects?
Public-Private-Partnerships are property-led regeneration
projects with the purpose of boosting the local businesses and social
regularities, which urban governments can use to interfere with the capitalist
environment of entrepreneurial cities. The starting points for the flagship
projects are the changes in the global local changes in the economy and the
roles of cities. In these changing characters of cities the origin in the
processes of wealth creation is found.
“Wealth creation is the annual produce of land and
labor of society” (Adam Smith). The ‘produce’ involves the all that is needed
to satisfy human needs and wants. The combination of material, labor, land and
technology, used in such a way that it produces profit is seen as the creation
of wealth.
As the world witnessed the transition from feudal
systems to free markets created by merchants, and from industrial revolution to
post Fordism, the roles of cities in national economic development has changed
enormously. Cities have developed and urban areas and population have increased
rapidly since the rise of the industrial revolution and its aftermath. After
all, cities do not just accumulate individuals, but as well knowledge,
innovation, talent and capital. The assembly of knowledge and innovation offers
the networks and the environment necessary for the creation of wealth. Cities
provide spaces for production activities. Series of technological innovations
have paved the way for the transition from pre-industrial to industrial, and
now to post industrial urban structure, based on services. The shift from
blue-collar to white-collar has given rise to the idea of post-industrialism.
So, “the shift to post Fordism has replaced economies of scale to economies of
scope” (Blair Badcock, 2002).
The more flexible ways of production and labor
developed further in medium sized businesses that operate to capture the
benefits and profits of flexible specialization, also known as entrepreneurs. As
many different individuals are involved in their own processes of creating
profits, the inner city becomes a place where competitive advantages of new
business organizations rule. The competition
to capture more investment capital in the city enhances entrepreneurship and
its economic arrangement: capitalism.
In the world of today, the city is the national
economic generator. “Cities, supporting wealth creation, have the opportunity of becoming a
powerful economic force. After all, wealth is the engine that powers
community prosperity. The urban wealth creation industry exists out of
successful entrepreneurs” (Matt Laherty, 2012). Entrepreneurs grow into enterprises and the influences of these
businesses have grown rapidly. In order to keep up with the global competition
of cities and regions, cities are obliged to promote entrepreneurship towards
property led urban development, in indirect ways, and encourage investment
partnerships between public and private actors (Swyngedouw
et al.2002a, p.
200). “There has been
an increasing mobilization of local politics in support of economic development
[. . .] This shift in emphasis between different policy fields has often been
labelled as a shift towards the ‘entrepreneurial’ city and it goes hand in hand
with a restructuring of the provision of social services. Both in the local
economic interventionism and in the reorganization of public services the local
state now involves other, non-governmental, actors in key roles” (M. Mayer,
2008).
“Neoliberal urban policies of these entrepreneurial
cities are confronted with the uneasy task to match local competitiveness with
collective provision and social cohesion” (Maarten Loopmans, Toon Dircx). The
difficulty of this task is visible in the significant differences in the social
and economical situations of the residents in various neighborhoods. Due to the
range of private and semi-public actors that entered the sphere of local
political actions, the goals and interests of these actions have altered. As
private enterprises seek ways to increase profits, and as investment
opportunities vary from place to place, the economic base of neighborhoods
varies from wealthy to below the national average.
In order to stimulate investment in disadvantaged
areas, in the case of Rotterdam and Antwerp: abandoned port areas, urban
governments employ Public-Private-Partnerships or ‘flagships’. “These projects,
defined as ‘significant, high-profile and prestigious land and property
developments which play an influential and catalytic role in urban regeneration
(Bianchini et al, 1992), become the new image of the city, frequently serving
as icons in a global marketplace of inter-city competition” (Doucet, 2011). Besides
this, public stakeholders view the
projects as methods for ‘economic and social restructuring via spatial intervention’
(T. Tasan-Kok, 2008).
The strategy provides a stage on which private and
public parties play an almost equally important role in planning. This formula,
on one hand, is necessary and usable to increase the benefits and positive
outcomes of the project, but usually results in becoming a source of issues in
the development. The stakeholders and their expectations and interests conflict
and ignorance of the actions of other fellow stakeholder are often not clear to
all. besides the difficulties experienced within the planning and development,
the impact of these projects on their locations are – obviously - large and the
perception and acceptance of the local residents varies, as the main goals of
the projects vary. In the ideal
Public-Private-Partnership, not just the private profits are acknowledged and
achieved, but also, the benefits for the
city(zens) must be concrete, and beneficial for all residents,
not a selected group. The must add up to life-improvement not in a superficial
or temporary way. A mix of goals can be perceived positively by the greatest
range of citizens.
Each
urban government has different views and approaches urban property development
in different ways, due to the local politics on regional and national level.
The fragmented government of Belgium has definitely had significant impact on
the organization and development of the ‘Eilandje’ Project, in Antwerp, meant
to revitalize a large port area, left in decay in the 70s and left behind in social
and economic improvement in the 80s, and transform it into a flourishing
culture-oriented area, attractive for outside investors and wealthy residents
and tourists.
The results of this project may be seen as rather
disappointing: in Antwerp, the capitalistic interests of private stake holders
were established first, at costs of the governmental goals of improving the
social structures in the neighborhood by the creation of social housing blocks
and other necessary facilities. The vagueness of Belgium planning may have been
holding the progress back, but, it also left space for flexibility in the
planning. But despite this flexibility, gentrification and re- and displacement
of the former residents are not uncommon phenomena (in all Public-Private-Partnerships,
as well in Eilandje) as the dwellings for the low-income residents were the
last concern in the schedule of developers and stake holders.
In Rotterdam, the influence of the municipality was
significantly larger, as the economic and social situations of the city were
problematic at the time. In the 70s there was high unemployment and even today
still, the income is lower than the national average. In the 80s the idea of
redeveloping the South, was launched, with the creation of the Erasmus bridge
linking 2 parts of the city over the Maas. This initiative was meant to unify
the city socially, economically and physically, and encouraging future
investors, making them believe in the potentials of the city. This seems to
have been successful, considering the improvement of the city today. Kop van
Zuid is a highly mixed use neighborhood, with impressive architecture implied,
to add up to the skyline of Rotterdam. As it was a municipally-led project,
also the social improvements are very well visible: goals of all stakeholder
parties have been accomplished.
As Doucet has already mentioned in his research paper
on Kop van Zuid, the reactions of locals had not been investigated thoroughly.
By comparing the two projects, on which will be elaborated further on in this
paper, we attempt to show the difference between the approaches of the Antwerp
and Rotterdam governments and conclude why and how one functions better than
the other.
Methods
As the inhabitants of the areas surrounding Eilandje
and Kop van Zuid, were the matter of interest in this research, two fieldtrips,
to both areas were organized. These fieldtrips gave the opportunity to get
closer to the residents, through personal interviews and made it possible to
look closer into the finished parts of the projects and, in case of Antwerp,
the progress of the developments. The interviewees were randomly chosen
residents, encountered in the streets of the specific areas. Most of the interviewees
showed to be well willing to elaborate on the situation of the neighborhoods.
The interviews were conducted with a loose semi-structure,
containing several main questions that addressed the extent to which the
residents were happy in their neighborhood and how the projects had changed the
overall neighborhood in a positive or negative way. Examples of such questions
could be: ‘how long have you lived here?’; ‘Do you believe that the
restructuring of your neighborhood has achieved its goals?’; ‘Have there been
many changes, since the building started/was finished in the neighborhood,
concerning safety and economical and/or social structure?’
Besides approaching the local residents ‘available’ on
the streets, also several real estate agencies were questioned about how the
projects have (had) impacts on their businesses of selling and marketing the
neighborhood. The contents of their answers and ideas were combined and the
general impressions they gave, were written down.
However, at the moment this fieldwork took place, the
two projects were in different stages of development: Antwerp still was/is in
the middle of the (slow) process of regenerating the decayed port area, whereas
Kop van Zuid, Rotterdam was completed in 2002. The fact that Kop van Zuid was
completed already, gave the opportunity to evaluate the project according to an
already confirmed, theoretical structure. Rotterdam and its accomplishments
were evaluated with to the seven goals of Flagship projects, set up by Brian
Doucet, in 2009.
In Antwerp, the government’s fragmented strategies
caused the progress to slow down and made Eilandje area a large, quite chaotic
construction site. As the project was only halfway done, it could not be
evaluated according to these theories, as some parts of the plan weren’t
implemented yet. Therefore the already implemented parts of the project were
assessed to their accomplished social results.
Eilandje: case
study 1
Antwerp, throughout its vast history, has always been
a flourishing port city, with the harbor ever increasing as the centuries roll
past. Fast-forward to the present, and Antwerp hosts the second largest port in
the world with a huge influence in trade between Europe and the rest of the
world. Although the sheer size and scale of the port has also means that it is
ever evolving, relocating, and re-inventing its structural functions in
relation to space. Within this changing environment, Eilandje has been the perfect
example.
Eilandje is located in the north west region of
Antwerp, it was established in the 16th century and was tagged with
the name, Eilandje, due to its location being surrounded by docks. Although
since its establishment the port has grown tremendously leaving Eilandje
behind, half way through the 20th century it was clear Eilandje was
not able to keep up with immense growth of the newly established areas of the
port. Eilandje used to be the heart of the port, yet today most port activities
have left. Since the port activities stopped Urban and Port developers have
gained interest in developing a new future for Eilandje. It took quite some
time for the municipality to come to a consensus. Talks about redevelopment of
the area started in the late 1980’s.
Until in the 1990’s a contest was set up to make a design and plan for
Eilandje. The winner was Manuel de Sola Morales (Daniëls, Ariel). Morales’
design was original and modern yet would not change the special port character
Eilandje has. In 1998 the Municipal executive had granted a contract that
approved the organization “Mens en Ruimte” to make a structural design and
master plan for the future of Eilandje (Daniëls, Ariel). Two years later the
Municipal Executive also approved Phase 1 of the construction plan. In 2002 the
main points of phase 2 - thought out by yet another stakeholder: Buro 5
Maastricht - were also approved. These
plans were developed in coordination with an image quality plan, developed by
Atelier J-P.L.X. This plan presented the outdoor decoration and furnishing of
Eilandje, but also put forth the guidelines to restructure the public areas in
Eilandje (Daniëls, Ariel). These developers have joined together to form “Stad
aan de Stroom.”
To be able to investigate the plans it is necessary to
have an understanding of the considerations of the local Antwerp government.
The regeneration project in itself was an initiative by the municipality and
the Port authority of the city. The area was used for multiple purposes, which
made the project rather complex. Not only the old port infrastructure like
railways and docks needed to be taken care of, also the broken-down residential
buildings needed to be redeveloped. It was too big of a project for the both
initiators, and they decided to include private parties, according to the
wealth-creation strategy that was just about to come up in the late 20th century
(Tasan-Kok, 2004). These kinds of public-private-partnerships (PPP’s) are often
already complicated enough. All sorts of conflicts can occur during the
development process because of the multiple stakeholders involved. Especially
private property-market parties can acquire much power over such projects
because of their financial input and knowledge of property-market processes. This
leads to juggling with public and private interests (Tasan-Kok, 2008).
In the case of Het Eilandje specifically the PPP
agreement led to difficulties. “The Antwerp city government wanted to redevelop
the area to maximize public use and protect the structure of the old ports. The
port authority, in contrast, wanted to maximize its profits from the
redevelopment due to pressing financial troubles concerning the pension
payments of port workers” (Tasan-Kok, 2008). The argument was settled by the
city government leaving the ownership rights of Het Eilandje to the port
authority. Who sold the lots off to private investors. With this knowledge, we
can take a closer look at the Masterplan.
Phase 1:
Re-developing Eilandje Master-plan
Eilandje is structured in five districts, the
Cadixwijk (East), Montevideowijk (West), and Oude Dokkenwijk(South) are the
first three districts to be redeveloped in Eilandje. Several independent
companies have been associated with the re-development of the districts, these
companies include, Porche, La Riva, and Hessel – Noord Natie (Gazet Van Antwerpen).
Cadixwijk
This district used to be the port’s living area mixed
in with occasional warehouses. These warehouses gave the streets in Cadixwijk
its very typical perpendicular blocks. The redevelopment of Cadixwijk will help
strengthen this characteristic; this also includes retaining the small-scale
houses, which will alternate between the warehouses. Some of the warehouse
blocks will be redeveloped into residential blocks. The residential buildings
will be extended closer to the water. Although the existing road structure will
be maintained, yet the main focus of the redevelopment of Cadixwijk lies on
“Londen straat.” The changes taking place will include the narrowing of the
street, which will hopefully re-instate the relationship between Cadixwijk and
Oude Dokkenwijk. Londen straat will be a green boulevard, which in the center
has a pedestrian path. The second major development in Cadixwijk is the
construction of a tower on “Kempische Burg.” The tower will be a major landmark
and will also serve as a socio-spatial link to the Montevideowijk, the next
district in the Phase 1 master plan.
Montevideowijk
Montevideowijk is known for its vast open spaces
alternating between warehouses and various other single buildings. Each of
these areas has a different development plan in Montevideowijk. Although the
existing building blocks will remain mostly the same, the only adjustment made
here is a small extension of the buildings by adding narrow towers along the
side of them. This will be done around the Rijnkaai and Kattendijkdok-Westkaai.
This detail is added to decorate the cultural axis, which runs from the MAS-plein
along these buildings. The cultural axis is hopefully going to strengthen the
relationship with the city and Eilandje.
In Montevideowijk the open space play a key role in
the rejuvenating of the area. The open spaces will help underline the
importance of public meeting places, often forgotten in densely built urban
areas. Furthermore the most dense redevelopment will happen in the southern
part. This area will see the ground floors being dedicated to commercial and
cultural activities, helping facilitate the success of the cultural axis. The
northern area of the district will see less redevelopment allowing for more
frequent and wider public spaces, especially as you approach the water. The
spaces will also serve as place to host special events. The final structure of
Montevideowijk will be warehouses alternating with multifunctional open space.
The warehouses will help keep that “port feeling.” The street structure will be
fairly similar to that of Cadixwijk, although the street will be somewhat
wider. The boulevard being developed in Cadixwijk will continue into the
Amsterdamstraat in Montevideowijk, this helps unify the various districts in
Eilandje. The last of these districts in phase 1 is known as The Oude Dokken.
The Oude
Dokken
The Oude Dokken is an area, which will not undergo as
extensive redevelopment as the other two areas. The key development project is
the building of a new museum, known as the MAS (Museum aan de Stroom). This
building towers high above Eilandje and is a significant landmark of the area.
The MAS is built between the two docks in The Oude Dokken. This location was
chosen, as it will help act as a pivot point towards the cultural axis. The MAS
was designed by the organization “Neutelings Riedijk Architects,” who viewed
the MAS as a building that will help unite all of Antwerp’s residents. The MAS
will most definitely help attract more tourism to the former abandoned port
area, due to it housing the collection of three urban museums. The walking
areas and public spaces will be focused on the edges of the district where
traffic will be banned.
Phase 2: Re-developing Eilandje
Master-plan
The first phase of the Eilandje master-plan was
approved 12 years ago, in 2000, two years after this the second phase was
approved, or the majority of it. This phase of the re-development of Eilandje
consists of 2 districts, Droogdokken Eiland (West), and Mexico-Eiland (North).
These districts fit more with the rest of the port then with the inner city,
which the phase 1 districts had more in common with.
A very important detail is still being investigated,
is whether or not the Oosterweel connection will be running through Droogdokken
Eiland or Mexico-Eiland, as this decision will greatly impact the development
possibilities of each area.
Droogdokken
Eiland
The redevelopment in this district is based upon a
three-part zoning strategy, a hard zone, transition zone, and a green zone. The
hard zone represents the buildings on the dry docks themselves. These buildings
will gradually be replaced or redeveloped to give new functions to the area.
The transition zone will help facilitate various the activities that will take
place in the hard zone and green zone. Furthermore the transition zone will
acts as a lengthy area, which will allow for a peaceful transition between the
hard and green zones. Lastly, the green zone located along the Schelde will
serve a much larger public than just the visitors and residents of Eilandje, as
it will be one of the few green environments found in Antwerp.
Mexico-Eiland
Mexico-Eiland is a district, which hosts various
buildings with historical value, these include, the fire station, the grain
silo, and the old pump house (which has recently become a restaurant). These
buildings will of course remain the same and will be integrated within the
development of Mexico-Eiland. However, the development of the rest of
Mexico-Eiland heavily depends on whether or not the Oosterweel connection will
be built through this district or built to run along it’s edges. If the
Oosterweel connection does run through this area then Mexico-Eiland will most
likely become an area of road-side shops with the extension of the inner city
belt. Although if the Oosterweel connection does not run through Mexico-Eiland,
then urban developers will be keen to develop this area into a key part of
Antwerp’s urban tissue, although exact details of these developments will be
largely based on the progress and development of the Cadixwijk.
So
far, these five projects have been finished:
1.
Felix archive
2.
Willemdok: luxury yacht
docks
3.
Museum aan de Stroom (MAS)
4.
Underground Parking
5.
Oude dokken: “Social docks
for houseboats” (Stad Antwerpen, n.d.)
Since 2006 the old warehouse complex called ‘The
Saint-Felix Warehouses’ are shelter to the city’s archive. The building also
serves to “connect the Antwerp city center with the trendy Eilandje
neighbourhood” (Felixarchief, n.d.). Surprisingly, the second project, the
harbor for luxury yachts, was already finished and welcoming its first guests
in 2000. The Antwerp municipality aimed to attract especially tourists with the
development of these docks. The main advantage of the Willemdok is that it is
near to the historic city center.
Clearly the idea worked, because in 2004 and 2010 the docks needed to be
enlarged due to the enormous demand (Stad Antwerpen: Willemdok n.d.)
It is striking
that one of the first projects to be finished was the luxury harbor, and it
also reveals the regeneration strategy the Antwerp municipality applied. By
investing in these docks, they aimed to attract middle- and upperclass people
that would trust their recreational boats and yacht to the Eilandje area. As
soon as they would start coming, this would upgrade the whole area, because new
investors might see new business opportunities. Money generates money.
The third project that was finished can righteously be
called a flagship project. According to
Bianchini et al. (1992) they are “significant, high-profile and prestigious land and property
developments which play an influential and catalytic role in urban
regeneration”. The prestigious Museum Aan de Stroom (Museum at the river), MAS
in short, meets all these descriptions. It took thirteen years and quite some
millions to be developed. The museum opened in 2011 and its theme is “the
influence of the world on Antwerp, and of Antwerp on the world”. It has ten
floors with different expositions and a ‘panoramic roof’ that allow visitors to
have a nice view over the city of Antwerp (Museum aan de Stroom, n.d.). When asked about the developments in their
neighborhood, inhabitants of Het Eilandje frequently started talking about the
positive effects of the MAS on the area. The museum is seen as the number one
reason for the area to attract more and more tourists. And with the tourists,
they say, more high-brow services are coming. Indeed, the MAS is functioning as
“a catalyst in the urban regeneration of the Eilandje area”, exactly as the
municipality had planned (Stad Antwerpen: Museum Aan de Stroom, n.d.).
The new underground parking lot shows that the
neighborhood is prepared for the new flow of people visiting the area. One of
our interviewees mentioned the parking was free and this caused the area to
become busier. Antwerp has problems with traffic jams and the new parking in
the north has become a service that visitors of the center gladly use. It was
also part of the refurbishment of the ‘Oude Dokken’. These old quays were
opened up and turned into promenades, “to enable a nice view at the water”. One
of the docks called ‘Kempisch Dok’ has been reconstructed to be the ‘social
marina’, where house boats are supposed to be. The surrounding area, called
‘Cadixwijk’, is planned to become the
‘social’ part of Het Eilandje. The housing there is planned to be less
expensive (Stad Antwerpen: Oude Dokken, n.d.).
However, closer investigation teaches that the development of this
neighborhood will only start in 2014, instead of 2009. In addition to that, the
port authority made only four spots for house boats available (Gazet van
Antwerpen, 2008). It is clear that these projects yet have to yield their
social returns.
But what did the implemented projects already change
for the inhabitants of the area? As stated before, The Eilandje was a port neighborhood
that declined throughout the late 20th century. It was a place for
the lower and working classes and also quite some questionable things such as
prostitution were going on (Tasan-Kok, 2004). At the moment, the whole area has
been turned into a construction site. There are a lot of empty lots, but also
quite some old houses that haven’t been torn down or redeveloped yet. An
explanation for this, that was given by a real estate agent, is that the owners
wait to sell their parcels, because they know the prices – that have already
increased dramatically – will only rise. This is a perfect example of how
markets in urban redevelopment work. The astronomical prices that the real
estate agents need to pay drive up the prices that they would sell the lots
for. The only economically interesting project to develop there would indeed be
luxury housing because of the profit it would yield. Due to this commercial
basis of the PPP, there was limited space for social objectives in the plan as
provided by the Buro 5 Architects (Tasan-Kok, n.d.).
It seems like the objectives of the plan are being
met. More and more up market businesses settle in the area. One of the hotels
in the area reported to have more business people staying during the weeks.
Also the tourists seem to find their way to Het Eilandje now. As stated before,
not much residential buildings are already developed. When asked, a few
youngsters hanging around their school told us they all came from surrounding
suburbs and villages. It was a school for arts and handicrafts. The school
itself was also an example of the priorities set by the Eilandje PPP. The
building looked rundown, however, it is the only school at Eilandje.
Kop van Zuid: case study 2
Rotterdam is the second largest Dutch city with over 600,000 residents
and is one of the largest ports in the world. It is part of the larger Randstad
conurbation, which consists of The Hague, Amsterdam, Utrecht, and Rotterdam. (Rotterdam
Tourist Office) Originally a working class port city much has changed both with
regards to attitudes and architecture in Rotterdam. Kop Van Zuid is an ex-port
area located on the south bank of the river Maas directly across from the
Rotterdam city center. It was once a flourishing port area, but fell into
disuse in the 1960s and 1970s due to the relocation of port activities
downstream. Kop van Zuid is bordered by Feyenoord, an area which has been characterized
by a low level of income, low educational achievement, high unemployment rates
and poor residential housing estates initially constructed for dock workers. (van
Hoek, 2007)
After port activities moved from Kop van Zuid, the area quickly became
derelict and had a very poor image- it was hidden from the water by warehouses
and cut off from neighboring boroughs by railway lines, in addition to being
poorly connected with the city center and surrounded by areas which had a poor
image. The City Council is responsible for all development of the city-
economically, socially, and spatially- and currently aims to build port and logistics
strength, diversify the economy, and expand existing facilities in order to
attract knowledge industries. In 1986, a Masterplan was drawn up by the City
Council in cooperation with Randstad to achieve a renewal of the conurbation
and a complete regeneration of Rotterdam, with one of the main goals to open up
the south side of the city through Kop van Zuid. (van Hoek, 2007)
Compact, vibrant cities play an important role in Dutch’s neoliberal
approach to economic prosperity, where they are seen as dynamos for the greater
city-region. Urban sprawl is discouraged in all Dutch cities in order to
promote and facilitate walking, biking, and the use of public transport. The
Dutch focus on balanced development, which puts an “emphasis on working
together for the common good and balancing economic, social, and environmental
considerations in order to diminish the gaps between the rich and poor.” (van Hoek,
2007) This development is achieved through policies and attitudes which
encourage urban renewal, decentralization, cooperation and collaboration in a
relatively classless social welfare state.
Original urban renewal efforts to tackle housing shortages created by
the Second World War focused on renewal of housing in Rotterdam, but also
brought to the attention of policymakers the need for tackling unemployment and
other social aspects in the city. The four mayors of Randstad lobbied for
government funding, leading to the “Grote Steden Beleid” (Major Cities Policy).
This policy emulates the idea of balanced development, and focuses on creating
a whole city through a bottom-up approach which addresses social, spatial, and
economic concerns. Three 5-year agreements have been reached since 1994, and
the program has gone from benefitting the four Randstad cities to 30
municipalities. The agreements consist
of two parts: a strategy and financial commitment from the national government
and an implementation program with set targets from the municipality. (van Hoek,
2007) Ultimately the plan’s success and implementation is the responsibility of
the municipality itself.
This neoliberal decentralization of governance and focus on local
collaboration is key to Dutch governance structure. The national welfare state
creates policies, but it is the local government’s responsibility to decide how
these policies work best in their area. Local governments are most familiar
with the pertinent issues in their locality, and therefore best suited to make
changes to improve upon these issues. This “more proactive and entrepreneurial
approach” (van Hoek, 2007) to governance can be seen in the “Integrated Areas
Approach” in Rotterdam. The council
works together with all stakeholders (residents, landowners, businesses, local
politicians, local agencies, housing authority, etc.) to focus on improving
certain key areas with respects to local employment and quality of life,
showing that the council values social inclusion and communication.
Coordination and communication between stakeholders and decision-making
bodies facilitates urban regeneration which can benefit all society. Not only
are government bodies working within official partnerships, informal voluntary
partnerships have also evolved, such as that between the municipalities which
make up Randstad. There are three tiers of government in the Netherlands: the
national level, the regional level, and the municipal level. (van Hoek, 2007)Although
no fourth city-region level of government exists, neighboring municipalities
often work together in order to promote economic competitiveness.
This appreciation for communication within government is also reflected
in the communication of the stakeholders of the Masterplan across sectors, both
public and private, in order to assess local problems and achieve satisfactory
solutions on a large scale. Although run
directly by the Rotterdam City Council, many different councils were involved
to consider different aspect of the project, such as the Rotterdam City
Development Corporation, who are the landowners of Kop van Zuid, the Planning
and Housing Department, the Rotterdam Transport Company, the Public Works Department,
and the Port Authorities. (van Hoek, 2007) There is also a Project Team which
works to boost communication and benefits for all stakeholders, who then
reports to the Council Steering Committee, who also oversees a Quality team.
The Masterplan of 1986 hoped to tackle not just a spatial degeneration
of one area but target Rotterdam as a whole, both spatially and socially. They
did not only want to change the city’s image to outsiders in order to promote
investment or enterprise, but to change the city’s image to residents. The
southern bank of the Maas, was seen as a ‘no-go’ area to many in Rotterdam,
both psychologically because of the marked difference between living standards
in north versus south and physically due to the lack of direct transport
between north and south. The city center was also targeted for regeneration in
order to make it big, exciting and of high quality in order to attract knowledge
industries. (Doucet, 2010) The Masterplan seeks to address all of these
problems through a set of measures and projects around Rotterdam. Kop van Zuid
was to be linked to the center via the Erasmus Bridge, the new boulevard, the
new Metro station, and the extension of tramlines. The plan sought to create a
mixed-use district providing office, leisure, education, and residential
facilities characterized by high quality design and execution. Modern
architecture is mixed with refurbished landmark buildings. The Masterplan has
become Rotterdam’s flagship project, recreating the city’s image while putting an
emphasis on the mutual benefit of all parties involved and ensures that
residents of poor areas benefit equally from the project.
Social impacts of Kop van Zuid
1.
“Paper
clip” social housing
|
|
|
|
2.
Shopping
centrum
3.
Playground
and primary school
4.
Docks
5.
Higher
income housing
According to Doucet (2010), flagship projects have
seven goals;
1.
Image
enhancement
2.
Increase
in city investment and growth
3.
Expand
tourist industry and tourist attractions
4.
Gentrification
5.
Becoming
more urban prominent
6.
Trickling
down the profits of all sectors of society
7.
Direct
social benefits
Using Doucet’s seven flagship
goals the results of the Kop van Zuid regeneration project in Rotterdam’s port
area can be evaluated accordingly. The first goal is in relation to “former
industrial cities that want to re-launch themselves as leisure, culture or
consumption-based cities” (Doucet, 2010). The regeneration of the port area in
Rotterdam city boosted the city image by creating a connection between the
South and North parts. Rotterdam south has a reputation of poor status, as well
as problematic and high crime rates. With the renovation of Kop van Zuid the
city’s southern part was now introduced to higher income residents, reducing
crime rates and problems within the area thus improving the general image of
the city of Rotterdam.
Kop van
Zuid acts as a catalyst to Rotterdam’s investment and growth thanks to the new,
more expensive housing, the shopping centre and the boat docks (zones 2, 4, and
5 on Figure 1). The different price of houses allows a variety of people to
choose Kop van Zuid as their place to live. The shopping centre and its
surroundings offers investment opportunities for businesses to open up. The
docks in Kop can Zuid open the boat market and make it possible.
The idea behind the third goal is to
“make tourists feel safe and secure in a sanitised and secure location”
(Doucet, 2010). This goal is achieved thanks to the decline in crime that the
regeneration project has brought to Kop van Zuid. With cleaner streets and a
more peaceful environment, the neighbourhood does not inspire any kind of
dangerous feeling; on the contrary, it has a solid family atmosphere to it.
The
goal of gentrification is mostly true for industrial cities, which have
suffered from a decline in a population. The new project successfully attracted
new residents to the area with the new housing thanks to the variety in prices.
The higher-class households vary in price depending on the location, varying
from the most expensive ones located around the playground in zone 3 shown in
Figure 1 to more affordable houses towards the edges of zone 5. Building higher
income housing in Kop van Zuid increased the value of the neighbourhood. With
the regeneration of the housing the streets were cleaned and the public space
was also renovated. The more expensive housing boost the overall image of the
area, as found out conducting interviews. The area has been re-valued by the
new public spaces such as playgrounds and green spaces, as well as the
renovation of schools.
As
Doucet explains, these four goals are related to the fifth, “climbing the urban
hierarchy.” Through the Kop van Zuid project Rotterdam has earned its spot in
the Randstad area of the Netherlands as something more than just an industrial,
working city. Kop van Zuid helped change the image of a problematic Rotterdam
South into a new and developing neighbourhood with mixed classes and cultures.
The
last two goals are focused on the local population of Kop van Zuid, rather than
the impact of the project on the city as a whole and wealth creation. The sixth
goal aims to trickle down the profits of all sectors of society, achieved by
the Rotterdam project. The lower-income area of Kop van Zuid was greatly
improved after the regeneration of the area. During the fieldwork interviews
were conducted with residents of the social housing who confirmed the
improvement of their neighbourhood. A non-Dutch resident of the paper clip
social housing (zone 1, figure 1) since 2007 stated “there used to be a lot of
crime and police was recurrent. Most of the neighbours were Suriname and
Antillean and since the renovation it is a lot more multicultural.” After the
renovation the streets were clean and the crime had diminished so the
municipality and the people were then willing to maintain the place clean.
Students were introduced to the social housing. This decision made the
neighbours feel like the government is paying more attention to them and that
they raised the standards and value of the neighbourhood by introducing more
educated people.
Lastly,
the Kop van Zuid regeneration project resulted in direct social benefits. The
development of the project had a great impact on the social aspects of the area
because it was put into work with its residents and its common use in mind and
it is an aspect that can be recognise when walking through the neighbourhood.
The social housing has been improved after the regeneration, increasing the
quality of life of the lower class, as stated by some when interviewed. This
was due to the decrease in crime and to the better image of the streets in general
because they were (and kept) clean, as well as having renewed green spaces and
safe playgrounds for the youngest.
Conclusion
Het Eilandje and Kop van Zuid are two flag ship
projects set up by two different governance bodies to help increase the status
of both locations. There were two different approaches to complete both these
projects, including a difference in the final achievements set. These
approaches ultimately resulted in a different outcome for each project. In the
case of Het Eilandje, Antwerp, the conflicting interests of the port
authorities, private investors, and Municipality, led to an extensive struggle
towards a master-plan. Due to the port authorities selling their land to
private investors the final master-plan left little room for social returns.
They met the objectives that they had though: attracting upperclass families
and having the original (poor) residents out of the area. This was very evident
when visiting Het Eilandje, as various areas where being redeveloped, a
strategy the developers called “acupuncture redevelopment”(Vrom-Raad, 2009).
Although this to be seemed more of an excuse to back up the private investors.
Lack in unity has made Het Eilandje a project which seems to have no real end.
What made Kop van Zuid a successful project was that
the Government took charge of the project from the beginning, still giving the
private investors freedom to develop their ideas and participate. The project
was set up from a social point of view and took the original residents into
account. According to Doucet’s seven goals (2010) the project has all the
ingredients to be successful benefitting both, the city and the local
population of the regenerated area. Another important explanation of the
success of the Kop van Zuid project is that the plan was woven into the
original structure of the area. To quote Blair Badcock (2002) here: “The
strategy has to be appropriate to local circumstances and conditions.” Due to
this, the project truly succeeded in connecting the southern, formerly secluded
part of the city to the rest of the city. In addition to that, by the subtle
merge of income levels and the placement of students into the lower class area
the PPP managed to give the lower class residents a new sense of confidence
about their neighborhood.
To conclude, in average urban geography literature
capitalist regeneration projects are criticized for not taking into account the
needs of the lower-income class. However, as seen in the Kop van Zuid project,
when the government takes charge of such a flagship project and sets key
objectives the wealth creation can be beneficial for the lower-income
residents. Thus, property-led wealth creation does not have to be a bad thing
as long as it not only pursues profit, but also takes into account social
wellbeing of the population of the area.
References:
Achterhuis, H. (2010). De Utopie van de Vrije Markt. Lemniscaat,
Rotterdam.
Badcock, B. (2002). Making
Sense of Cities. Hodder Education, London.
Brenner,
N., Theodore, N. (2001). Preface: From the “New Localism” to the Spaces of Neoliberalism. Retrieved from: http://sociology.fas.nyu.edu/docs/IO/222/Brenner_and_Theodore_Preface_2002. pdf
Bianchini,
F., Dawson, J. & Evans, R. (1992) Flagship projects in urban regeneration.
In: Doucet, B. (2010) Rich cities
with poor people, p. 15.
Daniëls,
Ariel, and Claire Mertens. "Het Eilandje - Masterplan
Fase 1."Stadsontwikkeling. Web. 22 Apr.
2012. Derived from: http://www.antwerpen.be/docs/Stad/Bedrijven/Stadsontwikkeling/SW_Beleid/Mas terplanV2fin.pdf>.
Dirckx, T.,
Loopmans, M. (2012). Neoliberal Urban Movements?: A Geography of Conflict and Mobilisation over Urban
Renaissance in Antwerp, Belgium. GeoJournal Library, 2012, Volume
102, 99-116, DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-8924- 3_6
Felixarchief.
(n.d) Sint-Felixpakhuis. Retrieved April 17, 2012 from http://www.felixarchief.be/Stad-FelixArchief/Publicatiekanalen/Stad/Stad- FelixArchief/Website-FelixArchief/Website-FelixArchief-Hoofdnavigatie/Sint- Felixpakhuis.html
"Gazet Van
Antwerpen." Gva.be. Web. 22 Apr. 2012. <http://www.gva.be/regio- antwerpen-stad/antwerpen/met-een-knipoogje-naar-porsche.aspx>.
Gazet van
Antwerpen. (2008) Woonboot Tom Waes moet weg uit Kempisch Dok. Retrieved
April 17, 2012 from http://www.gva.be/regio-antwerpen- stad/antwerpen/woonboot-tom-waes-moet-weg-uit-kempisch-dok.aspx
Gough, J. (2002). Neoliberalism and
socialization in the contemporary city: opposites, complements and instabilities. Antipode - Wiley Online Library.
Hackworth, J., R. (2007).The neoliberal city: governance, ideology, and development in American urbanism. Cornell University
Press.
Van Hoek, M. Urban and Economic Developmnet Ltd., (2007).
Regeneration in european cities: making connections.
A Case study of Kop van Zuid, Rotterdam. Retrieved from website: http//:www.urbed.com/cgi-bin/get_binary_doc_object.cgi?doc_id=277&fname=extra_pdf_4.pdf
Hubbard, P. (1996). Urban Design and City Regeneration: Social
Representations of Entrepreneurial
Landscapes. Coventry University, Priory Street, Coventry CV1 5FB, UK
Laherty,
M. (2012). Derived from: http://www.smartconnectedcommunities.org/people/MattLaherty;jsessionid=3625 89A3205AB029439683453F5F2050.node0
Leitner,
H., Peck, J., Sheppard, E., S. (2007). Contesting
neoliberalism: urban frontiers. Guildford
press, A division of Huilfors Publications Inc. New York, NY
Mayer, M. (2008)
Post-Fordist City Politics, in Post-Fordism: A Reader (ed A. Amin), Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford, UK.
doi: 10.1002/9780470712726.ch10
Museum aan de
Stroom. (n.d.)Ontstaan. Retrieved April 17,
2012 from http://www.mas.be/MAS-NL/Publicatiekanalen/Stad/Musea/Musea-MAS/MAS- NL/Startpagina-MAS-NL/Startpagina-MAS-Hoofdnavigatie/Startpagina-MAS- Hoofdnavigatie-Over-het-MAS/Ontstaan.html
Stad Antwerpen.
(n.d.) Het Eilandje. Retrieved April 17,
2012, from http://www.antwerpen.be/eCache/ABE/80/90/553.html
Stad Antwerpen.
(n.d.) Jachthaven Willemdok. Retrieved
April 17, 2012, from http://www.antwerpen.be/eCache/ABE/23/723.Y29udGV4dD04MDkwNTYx.html
Stad Antwerpen.
(n.d.) Museum aan de Stroom. Retrieved
April 17, 2012, from http://www.antwerpen.be/eCache/ABE/23/004.Y29udGV4dD04MDkwNTYx.html
Stad Antwerpen.
(n.d.) Oude Dokken. Retrieved April 17,
2012, from http://www.antwerpen.be/eCache/ABE/23/026.Y29udGV4dD04MDkwNTYx.html
Tasan-Kok,
T. (2004) Complexities of multi-level governance in Antwerp: Case of Het Eilandje project. KU Leuven and University of
Antwerp.
Tasan-Kok, T. (2008) Entrepeneurial Governance: Challenges of Large-scale Property-led Urban Regeneration
Projects. Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG.
Tasan-Kok,
T. and Sungu-Eryilmaz, Y. (n.d.) Exploring Innovative Instruments for Socially Sustainable Waterfront Regeneration in Antwerp and
Rotterdam. In: Desfor, G., Laidley, J.
and Schubert, D. (Eds.) Transforming Urban Waterfronts: Fixity and Flow (pp. 257-271). New
York, Routledge.
VROM-raad
(2009). Acupunctuuur in de Hoofdstructuur; naar een betere verknoping van verstedelijking en mobiliteit. Den Haag.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten