Learning from the Luchtsingel

(1)

22 april 2014, theater Zuidplein Rotterdam

prof. dr. Derk Loorbach

R. van Raak, M. Verhagen, M. Lodder G.J. Peek, M. Meijer

(2)

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

(3)

Core messages

• We live in an era of change

– Socially, ecologically, economically and institutionally

• The city is the testing ground for transitions

– Government and society reinvent themselves

• ‘Luchtsingel’ as urban transition lab

– For new type of area development and participation

• ‘Burgerkracht’ requires organizational power

– Bottom-up and top-down need each other

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

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

(9)

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

(10)

Transition phases

predevelopment tipping phase reconfiguration stabilisation Sustainable Society? enhanced lock-in decline

(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)

Transitions in governance

1950-1980 Government creates society

top-down

1980-2000 Governments facilitates

markets and formal participation

2000-

Governance with increased civil

(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

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

Elements

• Pedestrian bridge

• Dakakker

• Parkpompenburg

• Boxingschool

• Hofbogendak

• ‘Accelerating’

developments

(‘aanzwengelen’)

•

(19)

‘Communication-Luchtsingel was elected by cross-section

of the citizens

30-4-2014

New ‘burgerpanel’

survey indicates support from citizens of all

age groups,

educational levels and etnicities

Source: uitslag verkiezingen Stadsinitiatief / analyse COS

(20)

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

(21)

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

(22)

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}

(23)

PERSPECTIVE AREA DEVELOPMENT

(24)

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

ARE

A DEVEL

OPMEN

(25)

30-4-2014

(26)

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?

ARE

A DEVEL

OPMEN

T

Majority of local firms observes and

expects impact….

(27)

Luchtsingel, March 7 2014.

…in different ways

ARE

A DEVEL

OPMEN

(28)

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

ARE

A DEVEL

OPMEN

(29)

expected effect on own firm’s turn-over and/or value

Indicators for impact LS

ARE

A DEVEL

OPMEN

T

(30)

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

ARE

A DEVEL

OPMEN

(31)

Awareness in city

30-4-2014

IMP

A

C

T

Citizen panel: do you know the city initiative of the Luchtsingel?

(32)

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION

PERSPECTIVE

(33)

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

CI

TIZEN

P

AR

TICI

PA

TION

(34)

Citizen’s satisfaction with LS

CI

TIZEN

P

AR

TICI

PA

TION

(35)

Local firms see unique opportunities

Local firms on Stadsinitiatief:

30-4-2014

CI

TIZEN

P

AR

TICI

PA

TION

_{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

(36)

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

DOUB

TS

AND CRITIC

IS

M

(37)

Dissatisfied Rotterdammers voted

differently or not…

30-4-2014

DOUB

TS

AND

CRI

TICI

SM

AGREE DISAGREE

“LS has no added value for the city”

Those who voted for LS

Those who did not vote

Those who voted different

(38)

(39)

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

ARE

A DEVEL

OP

(40)

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

A DEVEL

OP

(41)

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, …?