· Web view2015/10/03 · This introduction is followed by the presentation of a...

JPI - JHEP JOINT PILOT TRANSNATIONAL CALL

for Joint Projects on Cultural Heritage

3rd Briefing Paper of SHUC Project, NetherlandsWout van der Toorn Vrijthoff6370 words

1. IntroductionIn the Netherlands the differences in local government policies concerning the historic urban core, within the range of medium sized cities, are very small. This is due to:

1. The cities have the same historic structure. The historic urban core is about 2 to 5% of the urban area

2. A considerable amount of buildings in the historic urban core is listed. That makes it to an area in which the manifestation and location of a lot of buildings is fixed over a long period of time.

3. Because of that also the urban structure which is characterised by narrow winding streets is not adaptive to the demands of modern traffic

4. For the historic urban core it is an accepted invariable that it is the territory of the pedestrian and the cyclist

5. The functional adaptation of the historic urban core is restricted by the above mentioned characteristics. Therefor original functions in need of larger floor spaces moved out. Small scale functions, fitting the small scale of the buildings and not dependent on the direct accessibility of the car, moved in.

Despite or maybe thanks to its stubborn inflexibility in combination with a growing public interest in cultural heritage, the historic urban core gained the status of flagship for the city as a whole. Before the financial/economic crisis of 2008 the local government was the major player in safeguarding the historic urban core. That role was supported by the input of financial funding of projects which were not fully profitable according to private sector standards. The public funding support was political legitimized based on arguments related to the common good characteristics of the historic urban core. After 2008 the financial resources of the local public sector shrinked, dried up or even turned into a deficit. In combination with that development local governments were tackled about their responsibilities to take care of the growing number of unemployed, to stop the decreasing quality of the public space etc.After the crisis local governments stood for the impossible challenge to do more with less resources. That caused a major shift expressing itself in:

1



Cutting down expenses related to interventions on buildings and urban areas, existing as well as new developments

Cutting down the amount of civil servants Choice of a different role to play. No longer the role of risk taking participant in

initiatives concerning functional and spatial interventions. Selling the real estate in possession of the local government Creating less strict regulations in order to stimulate and facilitate the private

sector to take over what the local government could not do anymore.

Hereafter the Dutch situation is a bit more specified in the following paragraphs:1.1 Changed resources Dutch local governments

This paragraph is specific explaining the effects of European treaties and related national legislation for the economy of cities in Europe. These effects concern restrictions for local governments to invest.

1.2 The common good characteristics of the historic urban coreThe historic urban core can be considered a common good because of its meaning for the identity and collective memory of all the citizens. The local government is the guardian of that common good. By facilitating a stronger position of the private sector that guardian role is weakened.

This introduction is followed by the presentation of a SWOT analysis of the local government strategy for Dutchtown concerning the historic urban core. (Paragraph 2)

In paragraph 3 a preservation toolbox is presented and explained. The toolbox is a compilation of the strategies applied by the cities studied in this project. Some strategy means, originated from the minds of the participants in the project, are added to the toolbox.

2



1.1 Changed resources Dutch (and European) local governmentsThe expenses of municipalities can be categorized in two main groups:

Current expenditure. This is the expenditure which occurs on a regular basis with fixed intervals. Salaries of civil servants, benefits for social care, street cleaning and waste disposal, public space maintenance etc. In economic times which are stable and steady going up, the level and the structure of these expenditures does not fluctuate much.

Capital investment. Investment for a new school, renewal of local infrastructure, a new computer infrastructure for the whole civil servant organization etc. In general it concerns investments for goods with a life cycle covering several years or even decades. To cover the costs of these kinds of investments municipalities in general take a loan. The effects of a loan are always current capital costs (interest and yearly repayment) but also yearly current expenditure for maintenance. For a long time it is considered obvious that capital expenditure projects should be financed by loans. ‘Local authorities should be able to borrow in order to finance their capital expenditure projects. Such projects are intended to benefit future generations, and recourse to borrowing may therefore make possible to spread the burden fairly among generations’ (Council 2009)

There is a classical golden rule of public finance saying that the budget should be balanced for reasons of equity as well as efficiency (Dafflon 2002).

The Council of Europe revised the golden rule (Council 2009) saying:

1. current expenditure must be paid by current resources, mainly taxation and user charges (borrowing for current expenditures is prohibited);

2. investment expenditures can be financed through loan;3. interest and amortisation of the debt should be repaid out of current resources,

since they are recurrent costs of new projects financed by loans.There appears to be a strong interrelation between current expenditures and capital investments. The capital costs of investment puts a claim on current resources.

Shrinking current resources in combination with raising current expenditure levels reduces the ability of local government to contract more loans for investment projects. This phenomenon occurs, besides in the Netherlands, in most countries that are part of the European Union. Current resources are shrinking because central government are cutting down funding to local governments. At the same time local current expenditures are rising because, for example, an increasing number of unemployed in need for financial support.

In addition to these kinds of developments new European regulations on debt control will have drastic effects on the ability of the local government to take the responsibility for financing capital investment through loans. Hereafter a more detailed exploration of local government finance and the future perspectives.

3



Local government current resources

Tasks and competences of municipalities in the Netherlands have grown since 1850. The arguments for intervention by local government were initially based on maintenance of public order and safety. After 1870 an expansion of local tasks and duties took place due to industrialization and urbanization and due to the growth of the urban population. This expansion concerns unemployment care, education, health care, care for the poor and supervision of labor circumstances. The need to deal with the causes and effects of poverty were the main issue to legitimize the local government interference. Duties and responsibilities were formalized in central government regulations. After the Second World War the intensity of government interference in society accelerated. The welfare state was developing for which increasing public budgets were needed. (Verhoudingen 2011) In a response to that and also due to the financial crisis in the 1980’s government tasks were decentralized. That is the context in which the administrative and financial relations between central and local governments, as explained hereafter, were developed.

Within the yearly recurring regular revenue there are the following three groups in the Netherlands:

1. the general payment from the central government municipality fund;2. the specific purpose related payments from central government;3. own municipal resources (taxes, rent of museums, commercial activities etc.).

(Financien 2010, Financien 2011) (Koninkrijksrelaties 2011)Each group roughly stands for one third of the total revenues.The availability of low rent loans from the bank of Dutch municipalities is a facility with a reducing effect on the capital costs of investments

Table 1 shows the development of Dutch municipal resources over the years 2008, 2009 and 2010 including all municipalities in the Netherlands. Development in Dutch municipal estimated resources 2008-2009-2010-2012

2008 2009 2010 2011mln euro % mln euro % mln euro % mln euro %

Real Estate Tax 2.700 6% 2.900 5% 3.000 6% 3.060 6%

Other local taxes (fe parking taxes) 804 2% 900 2% 900 2% 920 2%

Local levies 3.700 8% 3.900 7% 4.000 7% 4.040 8%

Other own resources 9.711 20% 10.100 19% 10.200 19% 9.500 18%

Payment central municipality fund 15.600 32% 17.000 32% 17.800 33% 17.900 33%

Specific central government subsidies 16.500 34% 18.100 34% 18.300 34% 18.200 34%

Total 49.015 100% 52.900 100% 54.200 100% 53.620 100%

Total per citizen in euro 2.989 3.206 3.285 3.250

source: Periodiek Onderhoudsrapport gemeentefonds 2010, 2011 and 2012

Table 1 Financial yearly resources for Dutch municipalities over the years 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011

4



The EU constraints for the economy of municipalities. (Verhoudingen 2012)

The 27 member states of the European Union agreed in 1997 on the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP), to facilitate and maintain the stability of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU).

The pact was outlined by a resolution and two council regulations in July 1997. The first regulation" on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies", known as the "preventive arm", entered into force 1 July 1998. The second regulation" on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure", known as the "dissuasive arm", entered into force 1 January 1999. The purpose of the pact was to ensure that fiscal discipline would be maintained and enforced in the EMU. All 27 EU member states are automatically members of both the EMU and the SGP, as this is defined by paragraphs in the EU Treaty itself. The fiscal discipline is ensured by the SGP by requiring each Member State, to implement a fiscal policy aiming for the country to stay within the limits on government deficit (3% of GDP) and debt (60% of GDP). With active support of the Netherlands the agreements of the 1997 stability- and growth pact were elaborated and sharpened in 2011. As a result two European agreements were established. The first one concerning a package of legal regulations, the so called governance package which came into force the 13th of December 2011. The package includes a guideline for the minimum demands concerning national budget frameworks. The second agreement was established during the European Council of 24 and 25 March 2011. That agreement is about the decision of the EU member states that the requirements of the SGP will be laid down in national legislation. This agreement is re confirmed during the Euro top of 26th October 2011. The European Council of 9th

December 2011 decided to establish this political agreement in the form of a treaty.(Jager, Spies et al. 2012)

On the 10th of December 2013 a bill was passed in the Netherlands concerning sustainable finance for the collective sector . The main principles, as far as important for local governments, are:

The budget deficit of any European country is not allowed to be higher than 3% of the total financial turnover of a country in any calendar year. The Medium Term Objective on this point is a limit between -0,5% and +0,5% of the total financial turnover.

The share of municipalities in this deficit is not allowed to be higher than 0,35%. At the moment (autumn 2012) Dutch municipalities together have a total deficit of 0,8% of the total national financial turnover. [At the end of 2007 the total deficit of Dutch municipalities was € 50 billion. (Kuyten 2010) A small amount of municipalities have together a financial reserve of 5,7 billion euro because they sold their shares in energy companies.]

5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_and_Monetary_Union_of_the_European_Union

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_and_Monetary_Union_of_the_European_Union



As far as municipalities have a higher deficit than what is allowed the central government can apply sanctions.

For the financial balance for each year according to EU regulations the moment of transaction is decisive. The use of financial assets to cover investments immediately charge on the debit side of the financial balance and push the municipality closer to or over the edge of the 0,35% limit

Whatever developments in EU politics and regulations it will result in considerable effects on local government finance. Important aspects of those effects will be that:

Municipalities may need to cut down their regular expenses and to raise local taxes.

They cannot take full responsibility for new investments in fe real estate projects They have to step over to a cash financial balance structure instead of a life cycle

cost/benefit structure related to investments. Or at least they have to modify the life cycle cost/benefit approach

A big involvement of the private sector will be needed to execute projects based on investments, covered by long period future benefits.(the build-operate-transfer concept used for toll bridges and roads)

The Netherlands is maybe one of the first to make up national legislation on this subject. According to the treaty all EU countries have to do the same with considerable effect on local government finance.

1.2 The common good characteristics of the historic urban coreJohn Rawls defined the common good as "certain general conditions that are in an appropriate sense equally to everyone's advantage".(Rawls 1972) To his opinion the government is responsible for the common good. “Government is assumed to aim at the common good, that is, at maintaining conditions and achieving objectives that are similarly to everyone’s advantage” (page 233)

The concept of common good was converted into the concept of merit good or merit wants by Richard Musgrave in order to make it applicable in economics and public finance. In an article about the theory of governmental budgets Musgrave, in 1956, introduced the concept of merit good or merit want. He specified those as areas in the economy in which the government may or should interfere in the preferences of individuals. He distinguishes three different roles for the government: a service role, a distribution role and a stabilization role.In the service role the government is the producer of public goods. The government does that in commission of the community and charges that community in the form of a tax system. In the distribution role the government is the one to arrange that the income of members of the community is allocated in an optimal way. Again taxation is the instrument used to do that. To what extend taxation should result in redistribution of individual incomes is a question to be approached and answered from a social, ethical

6



point of view. The stabilization role imposes the responsibility for the creation of full employment without inflation. (Musgrave 1956) In 1959 Musgrave defined a merit good as a good which is so important that when the competent authorities are dissatisfied with the level of consumption in the free market, they can intervene, even against the wishes of consumers.In daily practice it is to observe that the interpretation of these different roles is constantly changing under the influence of political forces. (Musgrave 1959)Economic theory makes a distinction between private goods (sugar, bread, oranges) and public goods (national defense, pure air, traffic infrastructure) (Head 1975) Musgrave did add the third concept of merit goods.

Scientific literature over a long period of time is apparently showing a strong consensus about the following propositions

There are urban places containing meaningful features which give those places a specific identity

These prominent places are important contributors of individual and collective identities

The individual and collective identity is a construct of individual and collective memory

The collective memory is a knowledge based interpretation of the collective history of a community

The historical urban environment is an important source for that individual and collective memory

Therefore the presence of heritage in these places is a necessity for prominence of these places.

Because the importance as contributors of individual and collective identities these places need to be conserved

The above propositions refer to heritage and historic environments, representing the collective history of a community. These propositions are based on observations and interpretations of people with a scientific background in sociology, environmental psychology, historical geography, tourism etc.

In policy reports concerning the future of the historic urban core similar phrases can be found, meant to serve as objectives and a guideline for actions to take.

7



2 Mapping of trajectories in each town

2.a SWOT analysis.

All municipalities did react on the crisis with short term measures not placed in the framework of a long term vision. The aim of those measures is in the first place to create a positive financial balance for the municipal budget, for this year, next year and the year thereafter. Measures in this category are:

1. Stop all planned investments as far as they are not fixed in legal contracts;

2. Cut down the amount of civil servants with the argument of efficiency improvement;

3. Sell as much as possible real estate now owned by the municipality;

4. Raise all local taxes to the max (real estate tax, cleaning tax, dog tax etc.)

5. Raise the charge for parking and raise the amount of paid parking locations.

6. Intensify the control on social security

7. Cut down financial support on libraries, theatres, elderly care, children day care etc.

Especially Delft is one of the cities in the Netherlands that was forced to implement all these measures to the max. Because of a budget deficit, created by before crisis ambitious political decisions, of about € 85 mln. Delft is placed under surveillance of the regional government and has to give account for every euro planning to spend.

Utrecht and Breda do the same but in a moderate version. Especially Utrecht has a strong economy but still taking the same track in a light version.

The measures mentioned under point 1, 2 and 3 have a considerable effect on the original strategy for the historic urban core. Effects however which are not elaborated and placed in a long term perspective.

In an attempt to create continuity in the outcomes the original was aiming at the following steps are taken:

1. Stimulate non-government organisations, institutions, individuals and private companies to take more responsibility (the participation society)

2. Create more flexibility in regulations

3. Support by advise about procedures, how to combine incentives, permits etc.

There is of course the need for a long term vision in which all steps taken in reaction of the crisis are placed. That long term vision should be placed in the

8



framework of different economic future scenarios. The economic situation is however still very unstable which makes it difficult to set up those scenarios.

2b. On the basis of SWOT analysis, and with respect to the three case study towns, discuss future policy ‘trajectory’

I have the impression that the questions asked in the draft format for this paragraph are answered in what is written before and what follows hereafter in this paper. Therefore, although not strictly following the format, decided to leave it to that

3 Policy transfer assessment

There appears to be a high similarity in visions and objectives in the 9 cities, concerning the future of the historic urban core.The package of means applied in order to meet the objectives is considerable different for cities in each country and slightly different for the cities within each country.The explanation for those similarities and differences are:Similarities

The historic urban core is seen by all as an asset to attract tourists The authenticity of historic urban core is supposed to be a factor for companies

to establish in the city The historic urban core is considered an identity icon for the city

Differences in means: The economy of the cities differ. Ireland has, for the moment, probably the

weakest economy of the three countries and that has an effect on the economy of the cities. In the Netherlands a great number of cities have to deal with losses made on land speculation dating from before 2008. Delft is one of them. Utrecht however is the city with the strongest economy in the Netherlands.

The condition of the historic urban core. In some cities there is still much to be done, in others the historic urban core is in a perfect condition because of actions taken over the past period.

The use of the core. In the Netherlands the housing function in the core is strongly present, which makes the core alive. In Britain and especially Ireland the housing function is weak.

The power of the local government The funding schemes

Based on an overview of the means used under different circumstances a preservation toolbox can be assembled. The means applied or maybe to apply can be placed in categories shown in figure 1. Hereafter an explanation of the components in the toolbox.

9



The last part of the toolbox is concerning actions the local government should not take. Selling out historic urban core real estate in possession of the government is an example. In the present market situation the profits are low and the municipality is giving away her grip on the situation and developments in the core.

Preservation toolbox

government risk avoiding facilitator

private sector initiator

Public space improvement

Intensification of (high standard) use

Preservation by development

Figure 1 Toolbox structure

Public space improvementBecause the local government does exercise restraint, forced by economic developments, the private sector has to take over. A high quality level public space stimulates private initiatives for investments in development and preservation.

• Upgrading the historic urban core public spaceThis was and is the full responsibility of the local government. The maintenance quality level and the quality level of the layout of the public space is however a political decision. In the Netherlands most cities decided to differentiate the quality level and they spend more money on the public space of the core than in other city quarters. The legitimization is that the historic urban core area is more intensively used and that the area is the one with which the city is presenting itself for tourists and others interested in the city. In addition it helps to stimulate the private sector to take initiatives concerning new developments in combination with preservation

• HUC improvement cooperation ( a BID for the core)The BID concept has a wide range of application all over the world and is meant to upgrade the public space quality to a higher level than the municipality is willing to do. A BID is initiated by the private parties with commercial interest in the area.In Delft something like it is developing, initiated by the private parties owning big portions of real estate in the core.

10



Business Improvement District.‘A Business Improvement District (BID) is a geographically defined and mostly inner city area by which property and business owners make a collective contribution to the maintenance, development and marketing/promotion of their commercial district. BIDs typically provide services such as street, sidewalk, park and open space maintenance, enhanced safety and security, marketing, capital improvements, and various development projects. The services provided by BIDs are a supplement to the services already provided by the municipality. The concept of BIDs was started in Toronto, Canada in the 1970s and there are now more than 1.700 BIDs worldwide.’ (Friesecke 2006)

All over the world the BID concept is used. The area size to which the BID concept is applied is widely divergent. The historic urban core fits the size of areas to which the BID concept is applied in several cases abroad.

The UK, parts of the USA (e.g. New York City) and Germany (e.g. Hamburg) have adopted the ‘BID’ Terminology. In other states, BIDs go by many names, including: ‘City Improvement District’ (CID) in South Africa, ‘Business Improvement Areas’ (BIA) or ‘Business Improvement Zone (BIZ)’ in Canada, ‘Public Improvement District’ (PID) in Texas/USA and ‘Special Improvement District’ (SID) in Arizona, New Jersey, Utah/USA.

•

Should be quality level

Actual quality level

Probably future level

Mun

icip

ality

BID

Market oriented Quality level

Figuur 3 BID principle (W. van der Toorn Vrijthoff)

For a successful application of the BID principle it is crucial that there is a commitment about the quality specifications and the division of responsibilities. There is a danger that the grey area in figure 10 is giving reason for different interpretations between participants.

• Removal and reduction of car trafficMany cities and most of the case study cities, have introduced car free zones in the historic urban core. It makes the core area much more attractive for pedestrians. In the Netherlands in these zones also cyclists are allowed and that is something

11



especially tourists are not counting with. It sometimes is raising irritation to high levels (fucking tourists). For the local government it is a means that does not need large investment and from that perspective easy to apply. It should however go together with development of adequate parking facilities just outside the core and on walking distance. Something the private sector can do because there is often a good cost benefit balance for these kind of facilities. Here the government can take its role as risk avoiding facilitator for private sector initiative.

A pedestrian street in York

• Distribution service fitting the scale of streetsBecause of the many shops in the historic urban core there has to be distribution of goods. For that often big trucks are entering the core for which the streets are not fitted but still used. Small traffic jams, noise, pollution are making the core less attractive. In Delft the municipality facilitated the initiative for a distribution service fitting the scale of the streets (see the picture), in order to get rid of the trucks in the core. An initiative which is cost effective and does not need public money. (have to check this to make sure)

12

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2009/nov/24/cheap-eats-york



Small electric cars for the distribution of goods in the historic urban core

Intensification of (high standard) useVacancy in the core is destructive for the market value of the real estate in the area and killing for willingness to invest by private sector parties. A high and growing demand is the booster for developments.

• Stimulate establishment small scale promising enterprises. The buildings in the historic urban core are small scale and many of them are listed. The core buildings cannot adapt to functions in need of high amount of floor space. Therefor only small scale functions are eligible for settling in the core.High potential ICT starters, specialty shops, special restaurants (the one of a kind in the city and not the ones that sell pizzas and burgers, at least not on every corner). The local government can influence this on the one hand by regulations on the other by stimulation. Stimulation by real estate tax incentives, low rents for the first years if it concerns government owned buildings. And the municipality can help by smooth allowance procedures.This can be combined with a more active market approach in the social media. ‘Selling the city’ by an excellent and flamboyant PR campaign. This is something the municipality almost never did and is more something for the private sector. An option for public/private partnership

• Attract HUC living, Irish ‘Living Cities’ fiscal initiativeThe buildings in the core are excellent fitting the housing function qua scale. Often investments are needed for upgrading the interior standards (kitchen, bath room),the energy efficiency, the sound insulation etc. Those investments can cause a to high price only suitable for a too small niche in the market. Lowering the price like the Irish do with their living cities initiative can help.

13



• Use historic buildings for public functionsIn Delft a huge new municipality office was built above the new underground railway station. In the design face the upper floor of the building was skipped because it appears not to be needed. Now the building is finished it again appears to have too much floor space, due to efficiency improvement and because of shrinking the amount of municipal workers.Not only does the new office building cost a lot of money, at the same time a lot of buildings partly in the historic urban core became vacant. In the Netherlands about 7mln square meters of office space is vacant. That makes it difficult to find new owners for specific office buildings.By selling these buildings in the historic urban core the local government is giving away a bit of his grip on what can be done in the historic urban core.So after all it would have been better not to build the new office but consider the historic urban core as the main municipal residence. Would have been better for the economy of the city and for the future of the core.

The new municipal office of Delft, (too big and to pay by the citizens)

• Living above shopsThe floor space above shops is often vacant because the proceeds that can be made by renting out the upper floor space for housing are low. To make that floor space accessible from the ground floor high priced retail square meters need to be sacrificed. The cost benefit balance is very often not supporting a decision to create apartments above shops. Public money is almost always needed to make a financial feasible plan.

Preservation by developmentMany old (listed) buildings are in need of a new function and technical upgrading to keep them alive. That often does result in an a negative cos/benefit balance. That balance can be turned into a positive one by making a combination with new development.

• Government investment with long term low interest rate loans, counter crisis investment

14

http://www.bouwenmetstaal.nl/evenementen/projectbezoeken-1/stadskantoor-delft



Never before the price of money was so low for so long and still lasting. The combination with restrictions for investments by local governments, based on European regulation, is a very awkward one. This is the time to do major public/private investments and lift the quality of the historic urban core to a higher level. That is possible if the local government does not do the investment but only guarantees to cover the yearly capital costs for the not profitable part of the investment. These potential costs can be considered current expenditure not restricted by European regulation.

This needs more elaboration but this is the crowbar to get developments in the historic urban core started.

• Unemployed getting started in conservation (Built Heritage Jobs Leverage Scheme)

In Ireland the National Lottery has launched a Built Heritage Jobs Leverage Scheme that is to be co-funded by the private sector and is designed to deliver new jobs through heritage construction. A public/private partnership initiative. In the city of Utrecht (Netherlands) something similar is initiated. The social security in the Netherlands is paid by the local government. The idea is that a selection of people who are unemployed and dependent on social security get affixed period job (half a year) at a building company working in the conservation sector. For that fixed period the payment by social security is continued and supplement with a small salary paid by the building company. At the end of the period there is a second half year fully paid by the building company.

Government risk avoiding facilitator, private sector initiatorBefore the crisis the local government often took financial risks together with private partners in order to realise interventions on building or area level in the historic urban core. Those kind of risks cannot be taken any more after the crisis.

• Flexible zoning plans and master plansBefore regulations laid down in zoning plans and master plans were very strict and fixed for long periods. With more orientation on non-governmental organisations and private companies a more flexible attitude of the municipality, accompanied by

more flexible regulations is needed. • City Administrative Consultation Board

Administrative procedures one has to go through as a citizen, willing to take an initiative in the historic urban core, are long, complicated and deterrent. In Delft and also in Breda the municipality has chosen to concretize their facilitating function by leading the path through the procedures. The municipality civil servants also advise about legal matters, combination of incentives to use, partners to find etc.

• Greater involvement of diverse civic groups, multi-scalar and multiple-actor governance, democratise the city planning and management process.

15



Because the local governments retreat to the background and chose to play a modest role in the governance of the historic urban core others have to step on the forefront. The shift from the leader of the team to one of the players is often a difficult one.

• Framing and branding the historic urban coreIn order to put a city on the stand, the story the historic urban core can tell, is put forward in the branding and marketing activities of the local government. By mediating the past of the city to popular audiences, the history and identity of the city is ideological framed (Johnson 1999). It is not the story of over population, open sewer system, awful smell, sickening atmosphere and poverty. More likely it is the story which is calling up the scenery for a picturesque, small scale, untroubled, good feeling play, the story which is giving a feeling of comfort, stability and distinctiveness. “Historic preservation’s sense of history is not aimed at telling dynamic stories in which urban life is constructing itself, but instead is aimed at establishing a static Past When Things Were Nicer” (Cromley 1987) The built urban heritage traces, to be found mainly in the historic urban core, are forming the highlights of the story.The framing and branding in order to sell the city is often a low profile activity by the municipality.

• History education by walking aroundIt takes learning to recognize the history in buildings and urban structures. The historic urban core is a history book you can walk through. Reading that history book creates public awareness for the value of the historic urban core and creates public support for safeguarding it. Does not cost anything, makes history lessons more fun and has a positive long term effect.

With reference to the components of the toolbox, hereafter a check on the lessons offered by the nine cities and the lessons to learn from each other. The focus will be on what probably the Netherlands has to offer Britain and Ireland1. Areas of potential mutual learning; (legislation funding and resources;

governance styles )Lessons to learn by all consider clever ways to deal with the effects of European regulations in order to continue with investments in the core. For this lesson specific research has to be done concerning local government finance.

2. Potential for policy transfer between countries (possibilities and barriers)The Netherlands experience which can be interesting for cities in Britain and Ireland:

The design of and experience with a flexible zoning plan (Delft) The working procedures of a city administrative consultation board

(Delft and Breda) Housing in the core. The housing function in the historic urban core

has always been strong in the Netherlands. Housing in the core has a status of being very attractive. The high market demand is

16



pushing up the price for historic urban core living. The explanation for this phenomena is interesting for cities in Britain and Irelend.

City logistics Delft is a concept to adopt in all historic urban cores. 3. Identification of key successes from each country alongside policy deficits

The successes are already mentioned under point 2. The policy deficits in the Netherlands are for sure disasters produced as a result of the land speculation activities. But that was a before crisis activity. The after crisis mistake is to sell the local government owned real estate. (a personal opinion and apparently not shared by Dutch local governments so far) That is even a policy in Utrecht, the city with the strongest economy in the Netherlands.

4. Potential for ‘path creation’ in each national context to secure a more sustainable future for historic centres

Most of the municipalities are slowly recovering after some years of crisis management. Most of them and also central governments, the financial sector and a lot of others were expecting a recovery of the economy soon after the crisis. The path to follow in that context was take a pause and then go back to the old routines. With that perspective there was no reason to create a modified long term strategy (vision/objectives and means) for the future of the historic urban core.Would not say there is potential for path creation but more a need for finding an alternative route along which the vision for the future situation can be reached. Most policy reports needs to be re written taking into account:

A changed relation between public and private The local government as facilitator Very slow growing economy Galling financial restrictions but at the same time historic low priced

money5. Implications for practice and areas for further investigation;

A lot of work to do. A not complete list of jobs to be done: Country specific macro economic scenario’s have to be developed Local governments have to specify and modify those scenario’s for

the local situation Long term strategies for the future of the historic urban core have to

be developed. The before crisis single strategy is no longer adequate Risk analysis by confrontation of the strategies with the scenario’s. Research and elaboration of strategy elements: Innovative structures for public investments within the constraints

of European and national regulation and legislation

17



A BID for the core. Structure, procedures, division of tasks and responsibilities between public and private, quality specifications , cost/benefit calculation etc

City distribution logistics, just in time, energy saving, citizen friendly

References

Council, o. E. (2009). Benchmarking Local Finances. C. o. Europe. Strasbourg.

Cromley, E. C. (1987). Public history and the historic preservation district. Past Meets Present. J. Blatti. Washington, DC, Smithsonian Institution Press: 30–36.

Dafflon, B., Ed. (2002). Local Public Finance in Europe. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing.

Financien, M. v. (2010). Periodiek Onderhouds Rapport gemeentefonds 2010. Financien. Den Haag.

Financien, M. v. (2011). Periodiek Onderhouds Rapport gemeentefonds 2011. Financien. Den Haag.

Friesecke, F. (2006). Revitalization of Urban Areas through Business Improvement Districts

(BIDs) – Trends and Expectations for Shrinking Cities. 5th FIG Regional Conference. Accra, Ghana.

Head, J. G. (1975). Public Goods and Public Finance, Duke University Press.

Jager, J. C., et al. (2012). Wet inzake houdbare financien van de collectieve sector. Finance. The Hague.

Johnson, N. C. (1999). "Framing the past: time, space and the politics of heritage tourism in Ireland." Political Geography 18(2): 187-207.

Koninkrijksrelaties, M. v. B. Z. e. (2011). Septembercirculaire Gemeentefonds 2011. B. Z. e. Koninkrijksrelaties. Den Haag, Central Government.

Kuyten, R. M. (2010). De Wondere Wereld van de Gemeentefinancien. Den Haag, Vereniging Nederlandse Gemeenten.

Musgrave, R. A. (1956). A multiple theory of budget determination. Finanzarchiv N. F. 17. Heft 3.

Musgrave, R. A. (1959). The Theory of Public Finance. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Rawls, J. (1972). A Theory of Justice. New York, Oxford University Press.

Verhoudingen, R. v. d. F. (2011). Verdelen, vertrouwen en verantwoorden. Den Haag.

Verhoudingen, R. v. d. f. (2012). Advies Wet houdbare overheidsfinancien (Wet Hof). Financien. Den Haag.

18

· Web view2015/10/03 · This introduction is followed by the presentation of a...

Documents

Transcript of · Web view2015/10/03 · This introduction is followed by the presentation of a...