Learning from the Luchtsingel
prof. dr. Derk Loorbach
R. van Raak, M. Verhagen, M. Lodder
G.J. Peek, M. Meijer
22 april 2014, theater Zuidplein Rotterdam
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 socioeconomic 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, topdown
Micro-level: niches
innovative ideas, projects,
technologies, niche actors
Based on Geels and Kemp, 2001
Transition phases
stabilisation
reconfiguration
predevelopment
tipping phase
Sustainable
Society?
enhanced lock-in
decline
Based on Rotmans et al, 2001
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-
30-4-2014
Governance with increased civil
society initiative
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’)
• ‘Communicationplatform’
30-4-2014
Luchtsingel was elected by cross-section
of the citizens
New ‘burgerpanel’
survey indicates support
from citizens of all
age groups,
educational levels
and etnicities
Source: uitslag verkiezingen Stadsinitiatief
/ analyse COS
30-4-2014
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
AREA DEVELOPMENT
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
Source: ZUS
30-4-2014
AREA DEVELOPMENT
Majority of local firms observes and
expects impact….
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?
Luchtsingel, March 7 2014.
AREA DEVELOPMENT
…in different ways
Luchtsingel, March 7 2014.
AREA DEVELOPMENT
Indicators for impact LS
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.
AREA DEVELOPMENT
Indicators for impact LS
expected effect on own firm’s turn-over and/or value
Source: DRIFT/online survey local firms
Luchtsingel, March 7 2014.
AREA DEVELOPMENT
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.
IMPACT
Awareness in city
Citizen panel: do you know
the city initiative of the
Luchtsingel?
Source: Burgerpanel gem. R’dam/COS, preliminary results
30-4-2014
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
PERSPECTIVE
30-4-2014
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
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
Luchtsingel, March 7 2014.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Citizen’s satisfaction with LS
Question to citizen panel: how satisfied are you with the Stadsinitiatief LS?
Source: Burgerpanel gem. R’dam/COS, preliminary results
30-4-2014
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Local firms see unique opportunities
Local firms on Stadsinitiatief:
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
30-4-2014
DOUBTS AND CRITICISM
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
Luchtsingel, March 7 2014.
DOUBTS AND CRITICISM
Dissatisfied Rotterdammers voted
differently or not…
“LS has no added value for the city”
AGREE
DISAGREE
Those who voted for LS
Those who did not vote
Those who voted different
Source: Burgerpanel gem. R’dam/COS, preliminary results
30-4-2014
REFLECTIONS
30-4-2014
AREA DEVELOPMENT
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 Alocations they otherwise could not afford and, as such,
supporting their growth
AREA DEVELOPMENT
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
Participatory governance?
• Unorthodox approach created breakthrough
NEW GOVERNANCE
– 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.
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