Post on 14-Aug-2020
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
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
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
30-4-2014
THE TRANSITION PERSPECTIVE
Symptoms of unsustainability
30-4-2014
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
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
Transition phases
predevelopment tipping phase
reconfiguration
stabilisation
Based on Rotmans et al, 2001
Sustainable
Society?
enhanced lock-in
decline
Time
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
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
30-4-2014
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
30-4-2014
Vision city development
30-4-2014
30-4-2014
Luchtsingel
30-4-2014
Elements
• Pedestrian bridge
• Dakakker
• Parkpompenburg
• Boxingschool
• Hofbogendak
• ‘Accelerating’ developments (‘aanzwengelen’)
• ‘Communication-platform’
30-4-2014
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
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
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
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
Luchtsingel, March 7 2014.
PERSPECTIVE AREA DEVELOPMENT
30-4-2014
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
AR
EA D
EVEL
OP
MEN
T
30-4-2014
Source: ZUS
Luchtsingel, March 7 2014.
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? A
REA
DEV
ELO
PM
ENT
Majority of local firms observes and expects impact….
Luchtsingel, March 7 2014.
…in different ways A
REA
DEV
ELO
PM
ENT
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.
Luchtsingel, March 7 2014.
Indicators for impact LS A
REA
DEV
ELO
PM
ENT
Luchtsingel, March 7 2014.
expected effect on own firm’s turn-over and/or value
Indicators for impact LS A
REA
DEV
ELO
PM
ENT
Source: DRIFT/online survey local firms
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
Luchtsingel, March 7 2014.
AR
EA D
EVEL
OP
MEN
T
Awareness in city
30-4-2014
IMPA
CT Citizen panel: do you know
the city initiative of the Luchtsingel?
Source: Burgerpanel gem. R’dam/COS, preliminary results
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PERSPECTIVE
30-4-2014
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
CIT
IZEN
PA
RTI
CIP
ATI
ON
Luchtsingel, March 7 2014.
Citizen’s satisfaction with LS
30-4-2014
CIT
IZEN
PA
RTI
CIP
ATI
ON
Question to citizen panel: how satisfied are you with the Stadsinitiatief LS?
Source: Burgerpanel gem. R’dam/COS, preliminary results
Local firms see unique opportunities
Local firms on Stadsinitiatief:
30-4-2014
CIT
IZEN
PA
RTI
CIP
ATI
ON
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
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
DO
UB
TS A
ND
CR
ITIC
ISM
Luchtsingel, March 7 2014.
Dissatisfied Rotterdammers voted differently or not…
30-4-2014
DO
UB
TS A
ND
CR
ITIC
ISM
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, preliminary results
REFLECTIONS
30-4-2014
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 A
REA
DEV
ELO
PM
ENT
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
AR
EA D
EVEL
OP
MEN
T
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
Luchtsingel, March 7 2014.
NEW
GO
VER
NA
NC
E
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
30-4-2014
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
30-4-2014
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