Living next to a flagship development (graduation presentation)

Living next to a flagship development
Research on creating mutual, local benefits between the residential neighbourhood
Van der Pekbuurt and the contemporary flagship area Overhoeks Amsterdam,
in socioeconomic and spatial terms

Robin Boelsums
Author 2011 Graduation presentation

About...
How the strategic plan and urban design can create mutual, local benefits between the residential
neighbourhood Van der Pekbuurt and the contemporary flagship area Overhoeks Amsterdam,

tegic Urban
Stra design
plan

3/57

Content
INTRO

Flagship development Context Problems/aims
RESEARCH

Benefits & disadvantages Strategic plan Urban design
CONCLUSION

Implications &
future research

Flagship development Context Problems & aim Benefits & disadvantages Strategic plan Urban design Implications

INTRO
FLAGSHIP DEVELOPMENT


5/57

Flagship development

“significant, high-profile and prestigious land and property development
which plays an influential and catalytic role in urban regeneration”
(Bianchini et al., 1992, p.252)

Rationale

De-industrialisation
Neoliberalism
Globalisation
“x”

6/57

Examples
Canary Wha
rf - London
- 1980s
990s
Kop van Zuid - Rotterdam - 1

Lisbon - former EXPO
Docklands - Dublin - 1990s - 1990s


7/57

Flagship development

Positive Negative

Create wealth Benefits unevenly distributed
Create jobs Fragmentation
Housing Areas unwelcoming
Attract tourists appearance
Attract investors


INTRO
CONTEXT


9/57

Amsterdam

Volendam
Purmerend

Zaanstad
Beverwijk

IJmuiden Monnickendam

Zaandam

Bloemendaal

Haarlem
Almere
Amsterdam

Diemen

Hoofddorp Schiphol Amstelveen Weesp Naarden
Hillegom

Bussum
Nieuw-Vennep
Lisse
Uithoorn Laren

Author 2011


10/57

Amsterdam

Author 2012 (source: Geoloket TU Delft, 2011)


11/57

Overhoeks & Van der Pekbuurt

Overhoeks

Van der Pekbuurt

border


12/57

Overhoeks

Author, 2011

Author, 2011

Since 2004

Shell moved out

Film museum

2008

13/57

Overhoeks

High income households

Expensive apartments

Elite

2012

14/57

Overhoeks

Plans for 2017

More housing

Prestigious office towers

2012

15/57

Van der Pekbuurt
1 Tolhuistuin

2 Van der Pekplein
Author, 2012 Author, 2011

high percentage 0-18 years
high percentage not-western 100 high percentage one-parent families
immigrants 80

low ratio jobs/labour force 60 Valuation of Immovable
40
Property Act (WOZ)
high share of 20
high percentage
2
minima households
0 social housing

high percentage unemployed low rate satisfaction
looking for work
with neighbourhood

low Cito-score low objective safety
low percentage with low subjective safety
start qualification
1
Volewijck Noord Amsterdam

Attention area


16/57

Van der Pekbuurt

Since 1920

Low income
households

95% Social
housing

50% Foreign
background


INTRO
PROBLEMS & AIM


18/57

Problem statement

Negative effects

Disbalance local and
global needs


19/57

Aim

Let the residential neighbourhood Van der Pekbuurt benefit from the
adjacent contemporary flagship development Overhoeks and vice
versa, in spatial and socioeconomic terms.


RESEARCH
BENEFITS & DISADVANTAGES


21/57

Effects of flagship development

Strengths
Bo ost civic pride References
References
ers Loftman, Nevin:303
hip develop
Boost business confidenc
: 101 e
s Doucet 2009
Aims of flag
Raising property values Loftman, Nevin:303
y S myth 1995
lth for the cit 167 Raising developm9; Grodach:353 Loftman, Nevin:303
Cre ate more wea Ro driquez et al: Ar , Ne
en
vin 1995:29 t activitiy in adjoining areas
nging local p
erceptions 92; Loftmanrest the spiral of decline in urban area rodach:353 Loftman, Nevin:303
Cha Bian chini et al 19 Benefits for all residentsucet 2009:162; Gs Loftman, Nevin:303
ities on the map 1995 1995:303; Do : wealthnjobsvin aces5:299
, , Ne , pl 199
Put c Smyth ; Loftman, Ne
vin Loftman, Nevin:304
se regenerati
on
ini et al 1992 1992; Loftma
Cataly Bianch og lu and Healey
anic” growth 1992; Tavsan
Weaknesses
Promotic “org B ianchini et al
g
P lace-marketin Doucet 2009 Social polarisation
vate se ctor finance 09:102
Attract pri Doucet 20 Fragmentation of cities Loftman, Nevin: 300; Do
Inter-city c ompetition Loftman, Ne vin 1995:299 dividu
In Loftman, Nevin: 305; Do
ucet 2009:104
nts al planning, not integrat
come reside ed ucet 2009:105
Attract high in evelopment Grodach:353 Concentrate investmen Wilkinson in Loftman, Ne
Local econom
ic d in 1995:304 gh t on few places only vin:306
Loftman, Nev Hi financial risk
nchin i et al 1992 Doucet 2009
Attract visito
rs
b al hierarchy Grodach:353 Alien, Nevin 1995ing3; Bia
m a n, unwelcom
:30
apearance Loftman, Nevin:307
Defend p osition in glo Doucet 20 09: 103; LoftNo public re Loftman, Nevin
es sources for deprived ne
Boost mun icipal revenu city ighbourhoods Loftm
image for the Benefits are unevenly di an, Nevin
Revit alising an attractive Residents distrust expe
stributed
Loftman, Nevin:309; Tem
nces of government elova:3
w uc
LoDoecon et,omic9re
200 Eisinger:323
ouncil in turns
ms Manchester C
Municipal ai
Temelova:3; Eisinger:331
oucet, 2009
L ocal quality a
nd benefit
y
Threats
D
D oucet, 2009 et: no reliable regeneration
References
Loftman, Nevin:306
out of povert Instability ,of evin 1995:304
mark
He lping people m munities Loft man N
s deprived co cts Delay, curtailment, failure of projects Loftman, Nevin:306
Atte ntion toward ing flagship proje
tion in plann Oversupply of prestigious projects Loftman, Nevin:307
Resid ent participa

Opportunities Loftman, Nevin:312
Generate socially just outcomes
Create more inclusive spaces Doucet 2009:106
Inclusive aims of key actors Doucet 2009:106
Provide possibilities for housing career for residents Wille:2010
Amenities, transport, recreational facilities, jobs, housing Doucet et al, 2010


22/57

Local effects of flagship development

Benefits/opportunities Disadvantages/threats
1 Attention towards deprived communities 1 Fragmentation of cities
2 Resident participation in planning flagship 2 Social polarisation
projects
3 Raising development activitiy in adjoining 3 No public resources for deprived
areas neighbourhoods

4 Inclusive aims of key actors 4 Residents distrust expences of government
5 More inclusive spaces 5 Alien, unwelcoming appearance of flagship
6 Provide possibilities for housing career area
7 Amenities 6 Delay, curtailment, failure of projects
8 Possibilities for transport 7 Individual planning, not integrated
9 Recreational facilities
10 Housing
11 Urban places
12 Economic opportunities (jobs)


23/57


1 Attention towards deprived communities 1 No public resources for deprived
2 Resident participation in planning flagship neighbourhoods
projects 2 Residents distrust expences of government
3 Raising development activitiy in adjoining
areas 3 Delay, curtailment, failure of projects

4 Inclusive aims of key actors 4 Individual planning, not integrated

1 More inclusive spaces 1 Fragmentation of cities
2 Provide possibilities for housing career 2 Social polarisation
3 Amenities
3 No public resources for deprived
4 Possibilities for transport neighbourhoods
4 Residents distrust expenses of government
6 Housing
5 Alien, unwelcoming appearance of flagship
7 Urban places
area
6 Delay, curtailment, failure of projects


24/57

Opportunities & threats Overhoeks & Van der Pekbuurt
€350 social housing
€550
€650 market rent
for sale - mid prices
for sale - high prices

No possibilities housing career Unwelcoming appearance

Spatial fragmentation

Flagship development Context Problems & aim
“Residents of Van der Pekbuurt look at
Overhoeks with suspicion”

Benefits & disadvantages Strategic plan
”
(Stuart, 2012, chairman housing association Van der Pekbuurt)

Residents distrust municipal spending “x

Urban design Implications

RESEARCH
STRATEGIC PLAN


26/57

Stakeholders

Municipal board Atelier Shell
Amsterdam North
Urban
design
Geurst and
ING Real Estate Schulze arch.
Ymere

Architects

Shell Vesteda Branding group

Projectbureau
EYE
Noordwaarts

Instructing parties
Developers Overhoeks
Tolhuistuin team Developers Van der Pekbuurt
Urban designers
Instructing
Guiding


27/57

Benefits for key actors

Corporate Social Responsibility
• Positive for company’s reputation
• Attractive employee
• High demand for companies applying CSR

Viability

Public approval and enthusiasm


28/57




3 Amenities
6 Housing
7 Urban places
area


29/57

Strategic plan

Goal 1: Inclusive aims 1 Attention towards deprived communities

2 Resident participation in planning flagship projects

3 Raising development activitiy in adjoining areas
Goal 2: Inform local community

4 Inclusive aims of key actors

5 No public resources for deprived neighbourhoods
Goal 3: Local community participation

6 Residents distrust expences of government

Goal 4: Integrate plans
8 Individual planning, not integrated


30/57

Strategic plan

Goal 1: Inclusive aims 1 Attention towards deprived communities

2 Resident participation in planning flagship projects

3 Raising development activitiy in adjoining areas
Goal 2: Inform local community

4 Inclusive aims of key actors

5 No public resources for deprived neighbourhoods

6 Residents distrust expences of government

Goal 4: Integrate plans
Target group at Overhoeks
8 Individual planning,der Pekbuurt
Target group at Van not integrated
Area to create benefits


31/57

Goal 1: Inclusive aims
Municipal board Atelier Shell
Amsterdam North
Urban
design
Geurst and
ING Real Estate Schulze arch.
Ymere

Architects

Shell Vesteda Branding group

Projectbureau
EYE
Noordwaarts

Tolhuistuin team

Cooperation when framing the aims

Monitor goals throughout process

Align rhetorical frames and action frames


32/57


1 Questionnaire
2 Workshop programme

Target group at Overhoeks AIM: frame socioeconomic and spatial needs
Target group at Van der Pekbuurt and wishes of the local communities of Van der
Area to create benefits
Pekbuurt and Overhoeks


RESEARCH
URBAN DESIGN


34/57

Urban design


35/57

Three areas

Residential area
Facilities area
Green area


36/57

Phasing

Phase 1 (2012)
Phase 2 (2015)
Phase 3 (flexible)

Phase 1

2012


37/57

Phasing

Phase 1 (2012)
Phase 2 (2015)
Phase 3 (flexible)

Phase 2

2015


38/57

Phasing

Phase 1 (2012)
Phase 2 (2015)
Phase 3 (flexible)

Phase 3

flexible


39/57

Phasing

Phase 1 (2012)
Phase 2 (2015)
Phase 3 (flexible)


40/57




3 Amenities
6 Housing
7 Urban places
area


41/57

Design goals
1 More inclusive spaces

Goal 1: Create social returns 2 Provide possibilities for housing career

3 Amenities

4 Possibilities for transport

Goal 2: Housing career possibilities 5 Recreational facilities

6 Housing

7 Urban places

Goal 3: Amenities, facilities, transport 8 Jobs

9 Fragmentation of cities

10 Social polarisation
Goal 4: Inclusive, outward focus 11 No public resources for deprived neighbourhoods


13 Alien, unwelcoming appearance of flagship area
Goal 5: Connect neighbourhoods 14 Delay, curtailment, failure of projects


42/57

€
€

€ Goal 2: Housing career
possibilities
€350 social housing
€550
€650 market rent
for sale - mid prices
for sale - high prices

Goal 1: Create social
returns


43/57

Goal 3: Facilities, amenities
1

2

5
6 3

housing
companies
4
offices
societal
leisure
retail
gastronomy
mix offices/housing


44/57

Goal 4: Inclusive, outward focus

Main attractors
Sightline to main attractor
Network of public squares
Public green space

Network of public places and sight lines to
main attractors


45/57

Residential block sight
lines concept


46/57



47/57



48/57

Goal 5: Connect neighbourhoods

Aligning buildings
Pedestrian-, cyclebridge
Bridge (all traffic)

Architecture

Krierkohl


49/57


Section at canal between Overhoeks and Van der Pekbuurt


50/57


Section at canal between Overhoeks and Van der Pekbuurt


51/57



52/57



CONCLUSIONS
IMPLICATIONS &
FUTURE RESEARCH


54/57

Implications

Amsterdam Western Europe

• Developers at Ymere, Vesteda and • Raise awareness
Noordwaarts have shown their interest in
the implementation of local benefits at • Show possible research method
the area of Overhoeks.
• Show possible altering of planning
• Developers see their benefits in strategic process
plan and thus implement local benefits
better • Inspire urban designers on how to include
mutual, local benefits
• Urban designers can be inspired by the
implementation of mutual, local benefits
(ING RE no longer commissioner)


55/57

Future research
• Interview persons with most influence

• Several case studies

• Comparing planning processes


56/57

Recap...
How the strategic plan and urban design can create mutual, local benefits between the residential
neighbourhood Van der Pekbuurt and the contemporary flagship area Overhoeks Amsterdam,

tegic Urban
Stra design
plan

Thank you!

Questions?

Presentation and thesis available online:
www.slideshare.net/RobinBoelsums

Living next to a flagship development (graduation presentation)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Featured

Featured (20)

Living next to a flagship development (graduation presentation)