22 april 2014, theater Zuidplein Rotterdam
prof. dr. Derk Loorbach
R. van Raak, M. Verhagen, M. Lodder
G.J. Peek, M. Meije...
Burgerkracht and Luchtsingel
• ‘Stadsinitiatief’ to support ‘stadskracht’
– As part of new form of governance?
• The city ...
Who
DRIFT (Dutch Research Institute for Transitions)
• Research Institute Erasmus University
• Research and consultancy so...
THE TRANSITION PERSPECTIVE
Symptoms of unsustainability
Signs of transition
20-5-2014
Transition = regime change
Long-term (one or two generations) fundamental change of
structure, culture and practices in a ...
Transition levels
Macro-level: landscape
Sustainability, ICT, ageing
population, economic crisis
Meso-level: regime
Growth...
Transition phases
predevelopment
tipping phase
reconfiguration
stabilisation
Based on Rotmans et al, 2001
Sustainable
Soci...
Urban transitions
Transitions in (Urban) Area Development
1950-1990 Government driven focused on
building production
1990-2010 Governance dr...
Transitions in governance
1950-1980 Government creates society
top-down
1980-2000 Governments facilitates
markets and form...
Rotterdam’s current regime
• Fossile, stoney and large scale
– Little diversity, green and small scale
• Blueprints, plans...
Vision city development
20-5-2014
20-5-2014
Luchtsingel
20-5-2014
Elements
• Pedestrian bridge
• Dakakker
• Parkpompenburg
• Boxingschool
• Hofbogendak
• ‘Accelerating’
development
(‘aanzw...
Luchtsingel was elected by cross-section
of the citizens
20-5-2014
New ‘burgerpanel’
survey indicates
support
from citizen...
Why this research
• Research into impact of all city initiatives
• Learning for policy innovation, area
development and ne...
How: methods
Combination of methods (triangulation):
• Previous studies/date
• Interviews
• Questionnaires (firms in the a...
4 stories + 2 reflections
• Story of gradual area transformation
• Story of city branding and image
• Reflection from the ...
PERSPECTIVE AREA DEVELOPMENT
20-5-2014
Gradual area transformation
• Strong bottom-up development in the area, driven by
a vision on long-term value development
...
20-5-2014
Source: ZUS
Question to firms in
the area:
How big do you
estimate the impacts
of the Luchtsingel are
on the local economy
and real es...
…in different ways
AREADEVELOPMENT
Source: Burgerpanel gem. R’dam/COS
Tangible indicators for economic impact and
future development:
• Co-investment
– Lower than originally proposed
• Spin-of...
expected effect on own firm’s turn-over and/or value
Indicators for impact LS
AREADEVELOPMENT
Source: DRIFT/online survey ...
Iconic function?
Broad impact across various media
– Traditional and new professional media
– General media (paper, TV, in...
Awareness in city
20-5-2014
IMPACT
Citizen panel: do you know
the city initiative of the
Luchtsingel?
Source: Burgerpanel ...
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
PERSPECTIVE
20-5-2014
Stadsinitiatief: citizen participation
on enormous scale
• Adaptive Luchtsingel versus ‘one-shot’
Stadsinitiatief
• Larger...
Citizen’s satisfaction with LS
20-5-2014
CITIZENPARTICIPATION
Question to citizen panel: how satisfied are you with the St...
Local firms see unique opportunities
Local firms on Stadsinitiatief:
20-5-2014
CITIZENPARTICIPATION
The approach has resul...
Doubts and criticism
• Very diverse criticisms, both on Stadsinitiatief and
Luchtsingel
• Broader debates can be considere...
Dissatisfied Rotterdammers voted
differently or not…
20-5-2014
DOUBTSANDCRITICISM
AGREE DISAGREE
“LS has no added value fo...
REFLECTIONS
20-5-2014
Transition in Urban Area Development
• Move away from a process of city-making to city-being
• Although cities will keep g...
Lessons from the Luchtsingel
• Investment in urban infrastructure might lead to a dispersal of scarce
property development...
Participatory governance?
• Unorthodox approach created breakthrough
– Working SMART and based on consensus could not have...
Conclusions
• Luchtsingel exemplifies the dilemmas and
possibilities of a new style urban area development
• Luchtsingel c...
Conclusions
• Government struggles with participation if not
supporting policy
• Participatory governance requires redefin...
Thank you for your attention
Voor meer informatie en publicaties:
loorbach@drift.eur.nl
www.drift.eur.nl
www.ksinetwork.or...
zomerhof
/ ZoHo
“PlanMER”
Central
District
(structuurvisie)
C.S. kwartier
(buurt) Oostelijk
Central District
Luchtsingel
g...
20-5-2014
Enquete gebied
Source: KvK (own grouping of categories)
Burgerkracht 220414 eng
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Burgerkracht 220414 eng

400 views
317 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Real Estate
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
400
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
33
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Burgerkracht 220414 eng

  1. 1. 22 april 2014, theater Zuidplein Rotterdam prof. dr. Derk Loorbach R. van Raak, M. Verhagen, M. Lodder G.J. Peek, M. Meijer Learning from the Luchtsingel
  2. 2. Burgerkracht and Luchtsingel • ‘Stadsinitiatief’ to support ‘stadskracht’ – As part of new form of governance? • The city as the testing ground for transitions – Government and society reinvent themselves • ‘Luchtsingel’ as urban transition lab – For new type of area development and participation • How to reinvent the city – And the role of government, civil society and business 20-5-2014
  3. 3. Who DRIFT (Dutch Research Institute for Transitions) • Research Institute Erasmus University • Research and consultancy societal transitions • Interdisciplinary and cross sectoral research, education and experimental governance Hogeschool Rotterdam • Lectoraat Gebiedsontwikkeling & Transitiemanagement • Research and education new forms of area development • Integral approach sectors, life-cycle fases, sustainability and economy
  4. 4. THE TRANSITION PERSPECTIVE
  5. 5. Symptoms of unsustainability
  6. 6. Signs of transition 20-5-2014
  7. 7. Transition = regime change Long-term (one or two generations) fundamental change of structure, culture and practices in a societal (sub)system – culture: collective set of values, norms, perspectives (shared orientation), paradigms – structure: physical infrastructure, economic infrastructure, institutions, rules, regulations, collective routines – practices: behavior, operation, implementation  Periodic, non-linear systemic shift common in ecological and socio- economic systems  Paradigm to analyse and influence complex societal change
  8. 8. Transition levels Macro-level: landscape Sustainability, ICT, ageing population, economic crisis Meso-level: regime Growth orientation, planning, specilisation, top- down Micro-level: niches innovative ideas, projects, technologies, niche actors Based on Geels and Kemp, 2001
  9. 9. Transition phases predevelopment tipping phase reconfiguration stabilisation Based on Rotmans et al, 2001 Sustainable Society? enhanced lock-in decline Time
  10. 10. Urban transitions
  11. 11. Transitions in (Urban) Area Development 1950-1990 Government driven focused on building production 1990-2010 Governance driven focused on development profits 2010- Participation driven focussed on dealing with temporality
  12. 12. Transitions in governance 1950-1980 Government creates society top-down 1980-2000 Governments facilitates markets and formal participation 2000- Governance with increased civil society initiative 20-5-2014
  13. 13. Rotterdam’s current regime • Fossile, stoney and large scale – Little diversity, green and small scale • Blueprints, plans and project development – Planned city made by professionals • Always changing, rebuilding, destroying and doing – Little vision, reflection, learning and balance 20-5-2014
  14. 14. Vision city development 20-5-2014
  15. 15. 20-5-2014
  16. 16. Luchtsingel 20-5-2014
  17. 17. Elements • Pedestrian bridge • Dakakker • Parkpompenburg • Boxingschool • Hofbogendak • ‘Accelerating’ development (‘aanzwengelen’) • ‘Communication- platform’ 20-5-2014
  18. 18. Luchtsingel was elected by cross-section of the citizens 20-5-2014 New ‘burgerpanel’ survey indicates support from citizens of all age groups, educational levels and ethnicities Source: uitslag verkiezingen Stadsinitiatief / analyse COS
  19. 19. Why this research • Research into impact of all city initiatives • Learning for policy innovation, area development and next phase Luchtsingel • Reorienting complex spatial development Central District
  20. 20. How: methods Combination of methods (triangulation): • Previous studies/date • Interviews • Questionnaires (firms in the area, citizens) • Documentanalysis – Plans, policy documents – Media analysis, online blogs and debates • Expert- & stakeholder session
  21. 21. 4 stories + 2 reflections • Story of gradual area transformation • Story of city branding and image • Reflection from the perspective of area development • Story of civil society initiative on major scale • Story of doubt and criticism • Reflection from new governance perspective
  22. 22. PERSPECTIVE AREA DEVELOPMENT 20-5-2014
  23. 23. Gradual area transformation • Strong bottom-up development in the area, driven by a vision on long-term value development • Luchtsingel builds upon, connects and accelerates these developments • Crucial question whether Luchtsingel sustains and strengthens local scale bottom-up initiative or creates springboard for next phase of a new type of area development AREADEVELOPMENT
  24. 24. 20-5-2014 Source: ZUS
  25. 25. Question to firms in the area: How big do you estimate the impacts of the Luchtsingel are on the local economy and real estate prices now and in the coming years? AREADEVELOPMENT Majority of local firms observes and expects impact…. Source: Burgerpanel gem. R’dam/COS
  26. 26. …in different ways AREADEVELOPMENT Source: Burgerpanel gem. R’dam/COS
  27. 27. Tangible indicators for economic impact and future development: • Co-investment – Lower than originally proposed • Spin-offs – Already visible on modest scale • Expectations turn-over growth local firms – Over 80% expects positive impact on business in area, 40% on own firm. Indicators for impact LS AREADEVELOPMENT
  28. 28. expected effect on own firm’s turn-over and/or value Indicators for impact LS AREADEVELOPMENT Source: DRIFT/online survey local firms
  29. 29. Iconic function? Broad impact across various media – Traditional and new professional media – General media (paper, TV, internet) Various target groups – Urban planning and project development (office space location) – Tourism – Creative industry Talk of the town AREADEVELOPMENT
  30. 30. Awareness in city 20-5-2014 IMPACT Citizen panel: do you know the city initiative of the Luchtsingel? Source: Burgerpanel gem. R’dam/COS
  31. 31. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PERSPECTIVE 20-5-2014
  32. 32. Stadsinitiatief: citizen participation on enormous scale • Adaptive Luchtsingel versus ‘one-shot’ Stadsinitiatief • Larger scale means more impact? – Emphasis on elections – Initiative in the public space – Different phases and scales of participation • Before and after elections • City and direct area CITIZENPARTICIPATION
  33. 33. Citizen’s satisfaction with LS 20-5-2014 CITIZENPARTICIPATION Question to citizen panel: how satisfied are you with the Stadsinitiatief LS? Source: Burgerpanel gem. R’dam/COS
  34. 34. Local firms see unique opportunities Local firms on Stadsinitiatief: 20-5-2014 CITIZENPARTICIPATION The approach has resulted in a positive change, which conventional parties could not have realised The approach is a good way to develop from citizen’s initiatives Source: DRIFT / online survey local firms
  35. 35. Doubts and criticism • Very diverse criticisms, both on Stadsinitiatief and Luchtsingel • Broader debates can be considered form of impact – Well-founded debates and criticisms related to governance and area development, spending public money • Extreme expectations and ambitious-realistic plan – Polarising all-or-nothing debate – Enormuous ‘public participation’ budget, but quite modest ‘public-space’ budget, no iconic budget • Seemingly toned-down plan because of budget control • Perception of only ‘elite’ support, at least not true for voters DOUBTSANDCRITICISM
  36. 36. Dissatisfied Rotterdammers voted differently or not… 20-5-2014 DOUBTSANDCRITICISM AGREE DISAGREE “LS has no added value for the city” Those who voted for LS Those who did not vote Those who voted different Source: Burgerpanel gem. R’dam/COS
  37. 37. REFLECTIONS 20-5-2014
  38. 38. Transition in Urban Area Development • Move away from a process of city-making to city-being • Although cities will keep growing in numbers of inhabitants, workers and visitors, most of the real estate is already built • Development turns into redevelopment as (vacant) supply, such as office-buildings, does not match demand • Temporary use is key in the redevelopment process of a city district; keeping it alive and altering it’s image • Temporary use allows start-ups and creative class to A- locations they otherwise could not afford and, as such, supporting their growth AREADEVELOPMENT
  39. 39. Lessons from the Luchtsingel • Investment in urban infrastructure might lead to a dispersal of scarce property development potential, yet it stimulates bottom-up urban development • Involvement of professional civil-servants is essential for success • Investments in city-making upfront prevent districts from ‘dying’ during a lengthy redevelopment process • Investments in public space can be kick-starter of a bottom-up regeneration process, rather than as finally spending some of the development’s profit AREADEVELOPMENT
  40. 40. Participatory governance? • Unorthodox approach created breakthrough – Working SMART and based on consensus could not have • Local government internally divided and confused – Participating, ´gedogen´, facilitating, directing, legitimizing, blocking, …? • Underestimated potential for learning and experimenting – More a continuous struggle • Area developing coalition sub-optimal – Low-levels of participation and transparency in the process • Luchtsingel as experiment demonstrates potential – But also the need for synergetic top-down and bottom-up forces NEWGOVERNANCE
  41. 41. Conclusions • Luchtsingel exemplifies the dilemmas and possibilities of a new style urban area development • Luchtsingel connects, strengthens, opens up • Impact already noticeable, expectations for the future high and ambiguous • New phase requires broader vision and new style of governance 20-5-2014
  42. 42. Conclusions • Government struggles with participation if not supporting policy • Participatory governance requires redefining every role as well as playing multiple roles • Stadsinitiatief should be complemented by other (smaller scale) innovative instruments • Rotterdam should more consciously organize and experiment with such spaces as urban transition labs 20-5-2014
  43. 43. Thank you for your attention Voor meer informatie en publicaties: loorbach@drift.eur.nl www.drift.eur.nl www.ksinetwork.org www.twitter.com/drk75
  44. 44. zomerhof / ZoHo “PlanMER” Central District (structuurvisie) C.S. kwartier (buurt) Oostelijk Central District Luchtsingel gebied Shell toren Hof- bogen Schie- kadeblok Schie block Stedebouwkundig Plan 2007 RCD Noord (wijk) Centrum (wijk) Rubroek (buurt) Agniesebuurt (buurt) Provenierswijk (buurt) Delfsepoort Pompenburg Centraal Station Diverse afbakeningen Source: various project plans and policies
  45. 45. 20-5-2014 Enquete gebied Source: KvK (own grouping of categories)

×