Forten en vestingsteden Onder water te zetten gebied Name: CONOR COREY Student Number: 10085467 Course: MSc URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING - THESIS Title: “Framing and Reframing of Fortifications on the New Dutch Waterline”
CONTENTS
CONTENTS
Chapter Number Chapter Title Page Number
1 Introduction 3 2 History of the New Dutch Waterline 11 3 Context in the Netherlands 21 4 Theoretical Framework 29 5 Research Design 51 6 Case Study 1: Fort Uitermeer 63 7 Case Study 2: Fort Vechten 75 8 Case Study 3: Slot Loevestein 87 9 Conclusion 99 10 Bibliography 113 Appendices 123
Transcript
1 Alex Bishop 141 2 Koen Raats 151 3 Rob Zakee 164 4 Marieke Muilwijk 179 5 Peter Kuypers 196 6 Ien Stijns 209 7 Jeroen Bootsma 219
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 2 CHAPTER 1 Introduction
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 3 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 4 CHAPTER 1 - Introduction
ABSTRACT
Originally meant for strategically flooding the land to protect the west of the Netherlands, the advent of aerial warfare in World War II has meant that the original use of the New Dutch Waterline is now redundant. The large number of fortifications which were built along the Waterline’s vast expanse have since found new uses which focus on a wide range of activities. A small number of these sites remain vacant, and the government actively seeks new owners.
The New Dutch Waterline presents a fascinating and unique opportunity to investigate the somewhat paradoxical concepts of conservation and development. In order to do this, it is important to understand how these fortifications are framed and reframed by the various stakeholders who are involved in their use, management or protection. These fortifications are highly symbolic and hold a different meaning to each group.
INTRODUCTION
The New Dutch Waterline
The New Dutch Waterline (the Waterline) covers an expanse of eighty five kilometres in the Netherlands, running through five different provinces and twenty five municipalities; and also lies within the jurisdiction of five different water board districts. Despite this, it is one of the best kept secrets in the history of the Netherlands. Adding even more to the intrigue and charm is that it was deliberately designed to be concealed or invisible wherever possible. Originally intended and effectively used to strategically flood the land to impede enemy movement and protect the Western cities for centuries, the Waterline would lose its defensive function after WWII.
Across the Waterline a large number of fortifications were constructed, and as their original military and defence purposes became redundant, most have since found a combination of new uses. Of even more interest to this research project, is that there are four vacant sites for which the government are actively seeking new users. While there are currently no clear decision making processes for who exactly these new users might be, a number of the other sites have some development ongoing or planned for the near future.
This is quite a recent development because after years in the political wilderness, the Waterline would really come to reach the status of national policy agenda in The Netherlands in 1999 with the creation of The Belvedere Memorandum. The Belvedere Memorandum was an attempt to highlight the importance of cultural history in Dutch Planning, and the Waterline was one of the focuses. The bill emphasized the theme of ‘conservation through development’, an argument that the best approach for preserving cultural historical sites, buildings and landscapes for the future was through development and to give them a contemporary meaning. 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 5 CHAPTER 1 - Introduction
Heritage Paradox
Van der Valk (2013) would term this the heritage paradox, arguing that conservation and development are two concepts which on the surface cannot go together, but striking the correct balance may be the best preservation strategy. This consideration of this paradox is an essential element of this research and this will be addressed throughout this document. Indeed, it can also be argued that it is somewhat contradictory to draw attention to the existence of the Waterline as it was deliberately designed to be invisible.
Most of the fortifications have been redeveloped, and with the government wishing to do the same with the vacant sites, by following the intriguing mantra of conservation through development. The effort to balance these contradictory ideals of conservation and development is quite challenging and therefore it would be extremely worthwhile to see if a balance is always sought or if one ideal is favoured at the expense of the other. However, is it possible to defy the heritage paradox by creating a balance between the two ideals? Can it be possible to truly promote the conservation of a site through development and all of the factors that this entails such as heavy construction and the creation of accompanying infrastructure etc.? The converse is also applicable: is it possible to develop a historic fortification while being considerate of its historic and cultural value?
One way of examining this would be to look at an outcome of the decision making process for those sites which are undergoing development or soon to be developed. This outcome is the process of framing and reframing, which will show the framing of a fortification by stakeholders initially, and how they subsequently reframed the fortification during that decision making process.
Why Investigate Heritage?
In the Netherlands, in recent decades there has been an ever growing interest in cultural heritage among public discourse and government policy. Whereas heritage was once handled through development control; which is a more traditional form of spatial planning focused on restrictions and prohibitions; the discourse has shifted to development planning, which focuses more on promoting desired projects and public collaboration.
Doevendans et al. (2007) discuss how the very meaning of landscape as countryside has changed in the Netherlands over the past century, as this land which was once designated for agricultural productivity has now become orientated around recreational use. Land was once interpreted according to two different viewpoints; firstly from a pragmatic view which saw the land as a resource which could be exploited and manipulated for economic and military purposes. The second perspective saw the land as therapeutic and restorative for the human spirit, and the landscape developed as a mystic entity. These two perspectives, the rational and the romantic, somewhat surprisingly, developed at the same times. 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 6 CHAPTER 1 - Introduction
However, the authors examine another interpretation of the caring for and preservation of the land, “The landscape is a construction, a project, a product, an artefact- which includes more intrinsic values than the one time result of a plan or design” (Doevendans et al. 2007: 336). Humanity’s attachment to the landscape is ever evolving; it is constantly written and re-written throughout the ages. The landscape carries physical traces and marks that have accumulated over time, some of which are more visible than others.
In their investigation into landscape structures in Latvia, Nikodemus et al. (2005) stress the importance of understanding the factors that have influenced land use in a particular place at a particular time, particularly the social, economic and environmental aspects. They argue that this will allow for better prediction of the future impact of land use changes.
Stakeholder Involvement
Research has been conducted by Edelenbos et al. (2009) into interactive policy making in the Netherlands. This is a concept where all levels of government (local, provincial and nation) and also NGOs, ordinary citizens and the private sector work together in every stage of policy formulation, implementation and evaluation. This trend is emerging in all Western democracies and appears under labels such citizen participation, community governance and also stakeholder involvements.
Janssen et al. (2012) looked at the events in depth that would lead to The Belvedere Memorandum’s implementation. They identified how the discourse has changed thanks to ten years of academic and practical experiments within the program. The most significant shifts have seen the definition of heritage broadening to encompass more of the in-tangible, a new focus on post-war heritage, the increase in public participation (or ‘non-experts’) and the growing interest in finding new uses for old buildings. At the same time, the Belvedere Memorandum seeks to achieve a balance between conservation and development, and in doing so has created a particular frame for these issues. This framing would be carried over in the publication of the National Waterline Project - Panorama Krayenhoff.
The Belvedere Memorandum also encourages the multitude of actors and stakeholders to co-operate of which there are a very large number of concerned with and affected by any potential uses of these sites in the Waterline. Each of them understands and frames these fortifications in their own unique way through the symbology of what the Waterline and the fortifications mean to them. Any development will require some form of consensus between groups who believe in conflicting ideals, so it is necessary to understand how these groups have framed the fortifications, and how recent economic changes in the Netherlands may have affected this framing and potentially led to reframing of these fortifications in the face of financial uncertainty.
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 7 CHAPTER 1 - Introduction
Global Financial Crisis
The effects of the global economic recession had a very significant impact (which will be discussed in greater detail later in this document), and by mid-2013 property prices in the Netherlands had dropped by twenty percent since 2008 and unemployment was at a nineteen year high (Kreijger, 2013). As a result, government funding would be diverted away from culture (and especially from cultural heritage) to other sectors which were deemed to be of much greater economic importance.
The Netherlands is only just beginning to recover from the effects of the global economic recession. This presents an opportunity to investigate the present day discourse towards cultural heritage in the face of shifting financial priorities and a post industrial economy where cities and regions are engaged in competition with one another through strategies such as place marketing.
The land is not merely a physical object; it is also a social, mental and cultural manifestation. While humanity has a profound effect over nature, the converse is also true, as the natural landscape has an enormous impact upon many different social groups. A multitude of actors and stakeholders; ranging from the government and legislators, industry and business, communities and citizens; all make different demands of the landscape while at the same time contributing to it (Palang et al. 2005). The Netherlands arguably has an even more intimate relationship with the water, which has lasted for centuries and is likely to continue well into the future. Throughout its history the Dutch have managed, manipulated and fought against the water, and it would be interesting to see if any potential marketing strategy of the Waterline or the individual fortifications is likely to reflect this relationship.
Research Design
It would take an incredible amount of time, effort and resources to perform an in-depth analysis of the entire Waterline. Therefore, this research will take the form of embedded case studies of three very carefully selected fortifications along the large expanse of the Waterline, specifically Fort Uitermeer in Noord-Holland, Fort Vechten in Utrecht and Slot Loevestein in Gelderland. The reasoning behind the selection of these three cases and the chosen research method of semi-structured interviews is explained in much greater detail within the body of this document. The research question is:
“How and why did different actors reframe the specific fortifications of the New Dutch Waterline during processes of redevelopment of vacant sites?”
In addressing this research question, it will also be considered how the actors initially framed the fortifications and how they subsequently reframed them during the decision making process. Furthermore, not only is it important to investigate how this reframing took place, but equally important are the reasons why.
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 8 CHAPTER 1 - Introduction
Why Investigate the New Dutch Waterline?
This may seem like a trivial question, but it is important to explain why the Waterline is worthy of research. The Waterline is perhaps unique among historical sites because of the large geographical area that it covers, that it crosses so many different political borders, and there are such an enormous amount of stakeholders with various interests in it. The Netherlands is also in a state of transition and it would be interesting to see how the Waterline is envisioned within the economic recovery of the country.
The Waterline is one of several examples of grouped heritage assets, but this issue has received only limited academic investigation. Laing et al. (2014) investigate how heritage is used as a catalyst for encouraging tourist activity, especially in regional or rural communities. The authors identify a gap in this research, specifically how successful tourist experiences can be created around a set of heritage assets, and attempt to address it by examining the experiential value of various heritage assets in the city of Bendigo, Australia. The city wishes to collectively promote these assets to visitors, but some are more likely that others to be the focus of the tourist experience.
The authors acknowledge the difficulties inherent in trying to create an authentic tourism experience, in that authenticity is arguably entirely subjective and is judged by each individual, rather than it being possible to assess through some objective standard. They also acknowledge that the creation of such an objective standard is also arguably impossible, due to the disagreement among scholars on the concept and that so many different meanings or realities can be linked to events or artefacts (Laing et al. 2014).
Perhaps the most compelling answer as to what makes the New Dutch Waterline so interesting has been suggested by Eikelenboom (2005). She believes that it represents one of the oldest examples of Dutch ingenuity in manipulating the water, and in doing so using their greatest natural enemy to keep other enemies at bay. Perhaps now it can also represent an incredibly opportunity to understand how the various stakeholders frame and reframe the Waterline when faced with the difficulty and uncertainty of changing real world conditions.
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 9 CHAPTER 2 History of New Dutch Waterline
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 10 CHAPTER 2 History of New Dutch Waterline
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 11 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 12 CHAPTER 2 - History of New Dutch Waterline
HISTORY OF THE NEW DUTCH WATERLINE
Before investigating the framing and reframing of different fortifications, it is essential to give context to the Waterline in terms of its extensive and complex centuries old history, right up to its current place in the modern world. It is also important to make a distinction between the Old Dutch Waterline and the New Dutch Waterline. The origins of the New Dutch Waterline can be traced back to the sixteenth century, when the construction of the Old Dutch Waterline began. Firstly, it would be very useful to explain the very special relationship that the Netherlands shares with the water.
Relationship with the Water
Ever since 1000 AD the people living in the vicinity of the delta region in the areas around the Rhine, Waal and Maas rivers have lived with the constant threat of the encroaching water. This eternal enemy has shown its destructive power on several occasions, yet it has also been manipulated to serve the will of those people whose very existence is also threatened by it. From humble beginnings of using naturally elevated areas of land, to constructing elaborate networks of dames, dikes, sluices and storm surge barriers the Dutch people have always been at the forefront of hydro engineering and water management.
The Netherlands are particularly vulnerable to flooding because of five major reasons; firstly, it is very difficult to drain away excess surface water due to a combination of rising sea level and a sinking land mass. Secondly, the Dutch coastline has been radically transformed over the centuries and has grown from eight hundred kilometres to three thousand four hundred kilometres. The coast once consisted of small river estuaries and inlets, but thanks to a major storm that led to the creation of the Zuiderzee the coast is particularly susceptible to damage from heavy flooding (Shetter, 2001).
Thirdly, the rivers that run through the Netherlands represent just as great a threat as the sea. Fourthly, around 25% of the Netherlands’ land mass is below sea level and around 65% of its surface is vulnerable to flooding (Figure 1). Fifth and finally, as the Netherlands is a delta formed by three majorrivers, and during the Middle Ages are large proportion of the land was made up of peat bogs and these continued to grow because of the climate. When later drained these former peat bogs would sink, (even more ironically the more effectively that the land was drained, the faster it would sink) and this sinking continues to this day (Shetter, 2001).
The lowest point of Western Europe is in a peat bog outside of Gouda in the Netherlands, which is 6.74 meters below sea level and it is continuing to fall. Scientists in the Netherlands estimate that sea levels in the region will increase anywhere between twenty five and eighty five centimetres in the coming century, and at the same time the Netherlands continues to sink (at a rate of 0.2 centimetres annually in some areas) (Talbot, 2007). 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 13 CHAPTER 2 - History of New Dutch Waterline
To deal with the water effectively a collaborative effort on a local, provincial and national scale was required and the Netherlands have had various forms of water management agencies over the centuries. Some of the current water boards in the Netherlands can trace their origins all the way back to the organisations from the twelfth century when various Dutch communities worked together to form the first water boards in order to manage flood control and drainage (Reuss, 2002). One of the most recognizable icons of the Netherlands is the windmill, which originated in the early 1400s and quickly spread across the Netherlands as they offered a very high amount of control over the water and were able to affect the water balance on a regional level (Kaijser, 2002).
TeBrake (2002) discusses how the Dutch have personified this natural threat as the waterwolf, which constantly stalks the land. The current generation may fear the very real threat that the waterwolf poses should they have experienced a recent flood first-hand or if a significant amount of time has passed without incident then the wolf may have slipped from public consciousness, but the threat is always there.
The Netherlands would feel the devastation of the water once again in the North Sea Flood when over eighteen hundred Dutch citizens (and a total of just over twenty five hundred people) lost their lives (Lintsen, 2002). In response the Delta Works Project was initiated in 1953, and by the time project was completed in 1997 these enormous infrastructure projects in the southwest of the Netherlands once again demonstrated the Dutch ingenuity and talent for manipulating the water (Deltawerken, 2014) [online].
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 14 CHAPTER 2 - History of New Dutch Waterline
The Old Dutch Waterline
During the Dutch War of Independence (also known as the Eighty Year’s War of 1568-1648), in 1589 Prince Maurits of Nassau was able to successfully break through the siege of Leiden by strategically flooding the areas around the city. He expanded upon this idea and envisioned a defence system which would extend from the Zuiderzee (the modern day Ijsselmeer) all the way down to the River Waal. Work on the actual Old Dutch Waterline (Figure 2) would begin in 1629 at the behest of his half-brother Prince Frederick Hendrik (Vink, 2009).
This Waterline was a defensive mechanism which was designed to protect the western cities of the Netherlands through the ingenious method of strategically flooding certain parts of the eastern polders. These low lying lands would be inundated with water which was deep enough to prevent enemy troops from walking over, yet this water would not be deep enough so that they would be able to sail across. Furthermore, once this happened it became almost impossible to differentiate between the flooded inundation fields and the existing ditches and canals. Certain points of the Waterline such as roads and railways which could not be flooded were instead defended by castles and fortresses. (Eikelenboom, 2005).
This Waterline would be employed in the defence of the Netherlands, firstly during the final years of the Eighty Years War. It would be utilized again during the Franco-Dutch War (1672-1678) in 1672, the Republic of the Seven United Provinces of the Netherlands were able to repel the armies of Louis XIV, although the enemy was almost able to successfully cross the flooded areas due to the water freezing in the winter. The defenders were saved once the thaw began and the French were forced to withdraw, before finally giving up and retreating; however, a fatal flaw in the defence system had been exposed. This flaw would later be fully exploited in the winter of 1794 by the invading revolutionary French armies who were able to march across the frozen water (Waterline Werelderfgoed, 2014).
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 15 CHAPTER 2 - History of New Dutch Waterline
The New Dutch Waterline
Upon the defeat of Napoleon in 1815, the United Kingdom of the Netherlands was created. Advances in warfare meant that the Waterline would need to be significantly adapted and King William I would begin the modernization of the system, and work on the New Dutch Waterline began (Figure 3). Extensive work was carried out in order to move the actual line east of Utrecht (Figure 4). The New Dutch Waterline would ultimately cover an expanse of eighty five kilometres, running through five different provinces and twenty five different municipalities.
Although the line was mobilized during the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871) and World War I (1914- 1918) it was never actually attacked. During the German invasion of the Netherlands at the beginning of World War II (1939-1945), the Dutch fought at the more eastern Grebbe Line with the New Dutch Waterline playing a secondary role. However, the advent of modern aerial warfare meant that the invading German army were easily able to circumvent these fixed defence lines and the Waterline was ultimately not used, so by 1940 it had become obsolete as a military defence mechanism (Eikelenboom, 2005). The Dutch Government did have plans for adapting the Waterline for a possible Soviet invasion by moving the line further east in Gelderland and in the Ijssel, but the plan was never tested and the Waterline’s military role officially ceases in 1963 (National Project Waterline, 2014).
These fortresses and other various constructions were (and to a large extent still are) the only visible signs of the existence of the Waterline. Even so, when they still retained their defensive function most were heavily camouflaged to obscure them from view or ensure that they blended into the surrounding landscape. All of the various ditches, dykes and canals that were dug, adjusted or specifically created were invisible to most, even to people living nearby, and this was one of the greatest strengths of the Waterline. This sudden flooding was meant to surprise the enemy, and also represents some of the greatest ingenuity of Dutch hydraulic engineering: using their oldest and most persistent natural enemy, namely the water, against land-borne human enemies. “The tacit existence of the New Dutch Waterline might be one of its main assets; it is also one of the reasons for its long neglect” (Eikelenboom, 2005: 36).
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 16 CHAPTER 2 - History of New Dutch Waterline
Fig. 1 The Netherlands - a low-lying country (2011)
Below Sea Level
0-1 Metres and Above
1 Metre and Above
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 17 CHAPTER 2 - History of New Dutch Waterline
Figure 2 Oude Nederlandse Waterlinie (2009)
Oude Nederlandse Waterlinie
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 18 CHAPTER 2 - History of New Dutch Waterline
Figure 3 Nieuwe Nederlandse Waterlinie (2009)
Nieuwe Nederlandse Waterlinie
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 19 CHAPTER 2 - History of New Dutch Waterline CHAPTER 3 Context In The Netherlands
Figure 4 Oude vs. Nieuwe Nederlandse Waterlinie (2009)
Oude Nederlandse Waterlinie
Nieuwe Nederlandse Waterlinie
Overlap Between Waterlines 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 20 CHAPTER 3 Context In The Netherlands
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 21 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 22 CHAPTER 3 - Context In The Netherlands
CONTEXT IN THE NETHERLANDS
Early Government Policy
Two very important laws would have a significant impact on the Waterline and were focused on protecting its unity and character. The first was the ‘Kringenwet’ or ‘Circle Law’ of 1853 which placed limitations on what could be constructed or planted within the circular areas around the fortresses; the second was ‘The Defensive Flooding Operations Act 1896’ or ‘Inundation Law’ which formalized and regulated the process of land inundation and how exactly farmers would be compensated should their land be flooded. Only buildings that could easily be removed and that were constructed of wood we allowed in these areas (Eikelenboom, 2005).
These laws were also designed to ensure that the Waterline could be deployed quickly and effectively, but after World War II they were placed under increasing pressure, because of growth in urbanization and population levels in the Netherlands during this time. The Circle Law would finally be abolished in 1963 and former fields of fire were quickly developed. Although the Inundation Law is still in effect it has been changed, most recently in 1989 for the New Civil Code and in 1996 for the Act establishing the Coordination Act for National Emergencies (National Project Waterline, 2014).
The Ministry of Defence would have responsibility for maintenance of the fortifications until 1989, but once the Cold War came to an end the budget cuts forced the Ministry to begin selling these buildings as they could no longer afford the upkeep costs and ever since then fortifications have slowly been changing hands between various owners (Eikelenboom, 2005).
The Belvedere Memorandum
The next significant development would come in 1999 when the Waterline as a whole entered the national policy agenda, and although there had been ambitions to do something with the Waterline for decades at the local and provincial level, this tended to focus only on the fortresses themselves. In 1999 the Waterline was included in the Belvedere Memorandum, a joint collaboration between the Ministry of Education, Cultural Affairs and Science, the Ministry for Housing, Regional Development and the Environment, the Ministry of Transport and Public Works and also the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature management and Fisheries.
In its introduction this document acknowledges that the cultural landscape of the Netherlands has been created thanks to centuries of creativity between nature and humanity. These features may be smaller in scale such as the windmills or the old buildings beside a canal, or may represent significant altering of the landscape for water management or military defence. There are also more intangible elements such as archaeological information of an age gone by, and the Belvedere Memorandum recognizes these as the essential spatial and cultural elements of the Netherlands. As the world 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 23 CHAPTER 3 - Context In The Netherlands
changes and civilization continues to develop, there is a persistent threat that these historic features will be lost, and the importance and difficulty of both moving forward and preserving the pastis acknowledged.
“Planning, designing and building result in a new cultural quality, but paradoxically that is the greatest threat of all to the past qualities…We must seek strategies and solutions whereby development and conservation can go hand in hand wherever possible, whereby the links of past, present and future will be strengthened” (Belvedere Memorandum, 1999: 5).
The document discusses the complexity of the relationship cultural history and spatial planning, and that there will always be differences in the perspective and vision, there will always be conflicts and at time very difficult decisions will have to be made. However, to not act would be a missed opportunity and to ensure the continued existence of old structures, it will require the continual development of design principles and to find new forms of use for these historic sites. The Belvedere Memorandum is very specific in that it is not talking about ‘conservation’, but instead is attempting to strike a balance between retaining the past and developing for the future.
“‘Conservation through development’ is the motto. By seeking new uses, old landscapes and buildings can be saved. However, it is just as much a question of ‘development through conservation’. By using our cultural heritage in a frugal and responsible manner, we are investing in the development and strengthening of our identity, knowledge, comfort, business climate and potential for tourism” (Belvedere Memorandum, 1999: 19).
The Belvedere Memorandum contained eight examples to represent the vision of the document, one of which was the Nieuwe Hollandse Waterlinie. Specifically the Waterline is nominated within this document as a ‘national project’ due to the very complex nature of its administrative and spatial issues. Multiple governmental projects planned or ongoing at this point included infrastructure, corridor development between Amsterdam and Utrecht, water management and preparation for the nomination of the Waterline for the UNESCO list of World Heritage Sites.
Panorama Krayenhoff
In 2004 ‘Panorama Krayenhoff: Linieperspectief’ (Figure 5) was created by the Stuurgroep Nationaal Project Nieuwe Hollandse Waterlinie, and would have an enormous impact upon the immediate future and the direction of development of the Waterline. This document would retain the ‘conservation through development’ motto and its vision was spread across three different levels. On the global level, the ambition was to reconstruct the typical Line profile, which would be a recognizable main defence line, flanked by open fields to the east (the former inundation fields) and greater urban density in the west (the protected areas). At the national level, the aim was to protect the coherence between the flood plain and articles and the development of sub regional fort ensembles. At the local 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 24 CHAPTER 3 - Context In The Netherlands level, the goal was to establish a preliminary organisation and management structure for each fortification based on ownership, historic value, current condition, architectural quality, scenic location and potential use.
The essence of Panorama Krayenhoff is summarized in its eight aspirations; these eight goals would serve as the guidelines for achieving the broad vision of Panorama Krayenhoff and would direct and impact upon all future Waterline projects at the local, regional and national level:
1. The Waterline is in the experience of the Dutch and foreigners, in a cultural, historical and leisure respect a recognizable unit with some specific attractions,
2. For the major part of the inundation plains, the openness of landscape will safeguarded through spatial planning and where needed the openness should be restored.
3. The fortresses and hydrological works are restored and long term maintenance is safe guarded and either by bike, walking or by car you can reach them and they are interlinked,
4. Part of the fortresses new functions will be introduced that have a contribution to the communication and exploitation and maintenance of the fortresses,
5. In the rural area, the other spatial developments that could strengthen the continuity of the image of the New Dutch Waterline,
6. There is a location or several locations where the history and the way the New Dutch Waterline works can be demonstrated
7. There is an organisation that safeguards the maintenance and communication about the New Dutch Waterline,
8. The New Dutch Waterline should be added to the UNESCO World Heritage List.
Though Panorama Krayenhoff has followed the Belvedere Memorandum’s motto of conservation through development, an analysis of the eight goals reveals that they are a mixture of these two concepts, and the goals fall onto different parts of the spectrum. For instance, the sixth goal is to create locations to demonstrate the workings and history of the Waterline, and this would appear to focus more on development, whereas the eighth goal, which is to obtain UNESCO World Heritage Status, places an emphasis on conservation. Therefore, within the next chapter which is a theoretical framework, these concepts of conservation and development (and their many nuances and aspects) will be examined in much greater detail, as it is essential to better understand what the actually mean and what are the implications of their application. 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 25 CHAPTER 3 - Context In The Netherlands
The Global Economic Recession
Due to a very complicated combination of macro and microeconomic factors, the property bubble in the United States continued to grow thanks to new financial instruments and poor regulation, which led to banks worldwide taking ever greater risks. After property prices had been soaring for many years, the property bubble burst and this started a chain reaction that led to the property market crashing in 2008 and this plunged the global economy into the deepest recession since World War II. This would lead to a contraction of the economy, a large increase in unemployment figures, and a 1% of GDP budget surplus from the previous year would reach a 2.8% deficit, and was expected to reach a deficit of 5.6% in 2010 (CPB, 2009). The effects of the economic crisis would be felt ever since and as of 2014, the Netherlands is beginning to recover, with falls in unemployment moderate inflation levels and for the first time since 2008 the deficit level has dropped to below 3% of GDP (CPB, 2014).
Initially there was large amount of financial support promised to the Waterline projects from the different levels of government, private investors, developers, entrepreneurs etc. However, this support was significantly altered because of economic conditions at a global scale, and the implications of these changing conditions will be revisited throughout this research paper.
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 26 CHAPTER 3 - Context In The Netherlands
Figure 5 Panorama Krayenhoff - Linieperspectief (2004)
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 27 CHAPTER 4 Theoretical Framework
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 28 CHAPTER 4 Theoretical Framework
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 29 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 30 CHAPTER 4 - Theoretical Framework
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The Belvedere Memorandum and Panorama Krayenhoff established a collective action frame for the multiple stakeholders involved in the Waterline, in that the Waterline and its many fortifications became a national project which is approached from the perspective of conservation through development and this has served as a starting point for the theoretical framework of this research paper. It is the intention of this chapter to further examine these concepts which were introduced in the first chapter.
Through an extensive literature review, several concepts and theories which are most closely related to framing, conservation and development have been identified, including symbology, eco-tourism, place marketing and authenticity. Many of these concepts and theories are intertwined and closely related with each other in various ways; and the first to be discussed is the concept of framing.
Framing
Framing is discussed by Rein and Laws (2000) who understand the concept as a particular way of representing knowledge, and give meaning and interpretation to situations. However different actors will have their own preferred understanding, with certain facts or characteristics being focused upon to strengthen this meaning and other aspects are played down or outright ignored. Benford and Snow (2000) also highlight the central role that framing plays within social movements, often inspiring and legitimating the actions of the group in the eyes of its members.
Frames can either take the form of written words (rhetorical) or from spoken words, acts, objects etc. (action). Frames may also be issue specific or generic, with issue specific frames focusing onthe contents of a social phenomenon and attempt to explain the experience and understanding that people have (Rein and Laws, 2000).
However, frames do not always stay the same, and can be altered and adjusted in a number of ways and for a variety of reasons, and this process is known as reframing. Rein and Laws (2000) highlight how reframing may take place because framing can often be steeped in controversy, such as when different groups have conflicting frames. Despite limitations to each method, reframing is still possible by combining certain methods with discourse
The authors examine the relationship between policy frames and policy controversies in an attempt to better understand reframing, and identified several characteristics. Firstly, frames give order to experiences and direct subsequent action, and that where a problem is diagnosed a solution is offered. Secondly, frames depend on some form of institutional sponsor, with multiple actors involved who each have their own preferred frame, which they will promote. The outcome of these policy discourses require multiple sponsors interacting, rather than the actions of an individual. Thirdly, 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 31 CHAPTER 4 - Theoretical Framework frames will often merge facts and value to achieve a certain outcome; including factual content give frames some degree of empirical confirmation and agrees with certain characteristics of a situation when viewed from a particular angle. Alignment with a core value or identity can help to engage with an audience and offer resilience in the face of criticism.
Before examining the issue of framing further, it is necessary to better understand the concepts of conservation and development. Although the Belvedere Memorandum and Panorama Krayenhoff seek to strike a balance, it is important to distinguish between the two extremes of the concepts of the conservation versus development spectrum, so the latter will be investigated first.
The Concept of Development
For millennia humanity has been manipulating the environment to satisfy its basic needs (such as food or shelter) by way of farming, mining, manufacturing, construction etc. However, it was not until the late eighteenth century that it became possible to efficiently utilize the world’s abundant natural resources. The industrial revolution saw a shift from a primarily rural and agrarian based economy, to an urban and industrial based economy. Mass production enabled an increase in human consumption as good could be produced in greater quantities at cheaper prices. At the same time there was both an improvement in the standard of living and massive increases in the global population. This would have the direct effects of the depletion of natural resources and environmental degradation (Mohan Das Gandhi et al. 2006).
The primary driving force behind development was economic growth and any damage or pollution produced was “an inevitable by-product of an economic system and utilize the natural environment as a sink for the pollution, since the economic growth ethic dictates the path of research and technology and focus on productivity” (Mohan Das Gandhi et al. 2006). However, this is completely unsustainable in the long run, and development at its absolute extreme represents the desire of humanity to satisfy its wants and needs with absolutely no regard for the impact that this will have on the natural environment and will prevent future generations from being able to meet their needs. Luckily however, the threat that unrestricted development would pose was recognized and humanity began to appreciate its impact, and this led to many important pieces of legislation, one of which was the Brundtland Report which discussed the concept of sustainable development, which was defined as:
“Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The concept of sustainable development does imply limits - not absolute limits but limitations imposed by the present state of technology and social organization on environmental resources and by the ability of the biosphere to absorb the effects of human activities” (UNWCED, 1987).
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 32 CHAPTER 4 - Theoretical Framework
One case has been identified where there existed little motivation for preservation when economic considerations took priority, backed by governmental centralization of conservation mechanisms. Cheng and Ma (2009) examined the efforts to save the Dragon Garden in Hong Kong by private donations, and the role played by volunteers in built heritage conservation when both the state and the market have no motivation to do so.
Hong Kong had a very strong desire for development, and did not have a problem with demolishing old buildings for the sake of economic progress. This is because it is not easy to determine the value of built heritage by observing the market, and also as the state has traditionally been responsible for heritage conservation it will substitute the market to provide this good. However, this commitment tends to waver when land prices are high and a non-interventionist governance model is utilized. However, when plans to demolish several historical landmarks were unveiled in the early 2000s, this stance was contested and “Collective memory, other than official history, has been articulated as a vital cause for conservation” (Cheng and Ma, 2009: 512).
The authors examine the struggle between the entrenched governmental agenda and those civil conservation movements which emerged by examining relevant media reports and governmental responses along with first-hand personal interviews. Despite the efforts to save the Dragon Garden ultimately being in vain, the research highlighted that build heritage conservation is in a very unfavourable position in a market-based economy, especially when land prices are high. However, the study also shows the positive role and influence that civil groups can play when they have “contributed their expertise and resources to enable government actions to be monitored, advocated appropriate policies, mobilized participation, and initiated proposals” (Cheng and Ma, 2009: 525).
As the western economies have increasingly moved away from heavy industries they are instead looking towards tertiary sectors such as tourism and hospitality as a means to stimulate the economy, this represents a new form of development. The definition of development in the Brundtland Report asks that humanity be conscious of the impact that development can have but at the same time does not outright prohibit or deter the desires of humanity to satisfy its needs. However, the concept of conservation is the polar opposite to development and is placed at the other end of the spectrum.
The Concept of Conservation
The concept of conservation has an extensive history, and the evolution of conservation principles in an international context is well documented; for example Ahmad (2006) discusses the establishment and adaption of these principles by international organisations such as UNESCO and ICOMOS. The Venice Charter 1964 has helped to clarify the concept of historic buildings.
Antrop (2005) looks at how humanity has considered its impact on the natural world and the devastation this can bring. He also is interested in why landscapes hold value, arguing that people 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 33 CHAPTER 4 - Theoretical Framework integrate what they perceive with what they know and remember, and each landscape, place or monument has its own unique sense and value within space in time, and therefore demand our preservation and protection.
Ahmad (2006) highlights the evolution of the interpretation of heritage at international level. Since the Venice Charter 1964 there has been an increasing concern for physical heritage such as historic monuments and buildings, urban and regional centres to non-physical heritage such as environments, social factors and also intangible values. The term ‘historic monument’ lacked a definition in the Venice Charter 1964 and was only given one a year later by ICOMOS.
“The term ‘monument’ shall include all real property… whether they contain buildings or not, having archaeological, architectural, historic or ethnographical interest and may include besides the furnishing preserved within them. The term ‘site’ shall be defined as a group of elements, either natural or man- made, or combinations of the two, which it is in the public interest to conserve” (Ahmad, 2006: 294).
Janssen highlights that Western Europe has tended to focus its conservation efforts on lived-in working landscapes, and that these richly varied cultural and natural areas “lie at the heart of the identity of rural Europe” (2009 a: 37). However, each country has its own geographical and historical characteristics, planning culture, social structure and political organizations, and (although there are some overlaps) all take their own particular approach.
According to Catsadorakis (2001) it is not possible to provide a definition of conservation in practice, because the subjects of conservation are constantly in flux and because there is no scientific way to decide exactly what to conserve, there can never be unequivocal, objective answers. The authors feel that conservation should cover both site protection and site management and should consider genes, species, habitats and landscapes, but they argue that only species and habitats receive enough international attention.
Natural heritage is also related to a specific place and time period, and because ecosystems are continuously changing along with the human impact upon them, therefore natural heritage is constantly changing. Cultural heritage is comprised of both the tangible and the intangible; and the intangible refers to the language, legends, myths, norms, perceptions, customs etc. Cultural heritage is also able to change as a concept much more quickly than natural heritage.
Multiple Forms of Conservation
There is still an ongoing debate concerning the best method for preserving human made structures, “A philosophical divide exists between those who advocate maintaining historic structures as close to their original state as possible and those who acknowledge that adapting structures to contemporary 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 34 CHAPTER 4 - Theoretical Framework uses is necessary or even desirable” (Alberts et al. 2010: 62). Four distinct approaches across the spectrum of conservation have been identified.
The first is preservation or conservation which strives to maintain a site in its original state as much as is feasibly possible, and any measures which are taken are only performed to prevent further damage. The second is restoration which aims to return a structure to an earlier (or indeed the original) state and it is always preferable to keep any original elements even if they are damaged, rather attempting to replicate them.
The goal of the reconstruction, the third approach, will attempt to create a new structure based on historic designs, and this is usually done when a historical structure has been extensively damaged but it is necessary to give context to the site. The fourth approach, adaption, will modify historic structures to give them contemporary uses.
The investigation of these various academic sources demonstrates that there are multiple interpretations of the concepts of conservation and development. Even within each concept there is significant debate between interpretation and meaning, and this can be explained through the process of framing. At this point it would be very useful to explore concepts which are very closely linked with framing.
Symbology
The concept of framing is very closely tied with symbology, as symbols are one of the most common and important aspects of framing. The New Dutch Waterline has been investigated from a number of different perspectives including symbology. Eikelenboom (2005) for instance was interested in how the Waterline meant different things to different people, and how this meaning can be interpreted in many ways through different symbols and stories. The impact of this interpretation on policy and agenda setting was the subject of her research.
Eikelenboom goes further in linking symbols to the theory of framing, arguing that when people use symbols to give meaning, they are shaping the definition of a problem. This problem definition follows from a specific framing which determines the reasoning of the actors. Symbols are framed by different groups according to their interpretation of an issue, with some symbols being able to simplify events and others refer to historical events or myths; and symbols hold great power and persuasiveness in their ability to focus attention upon a particular problem definition.
Van der Valk shares the argument on role that symbology has played, saying that this change can best be expressed as “through a novel re-conceptualization of planning and design as ‘persuasive storytelling’ about the future” (2013: 6).
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 35 CHAPTER 4 - Theoretical Framework
Often these concepts and theories are interlinked in a number of creative and interesting ways; for example Lichrou et al. (2007) discuss how tourist destinations are often marketed (or framed) as products but they would benefit more from being marketed as narratives. By focusing merely on the destination as a product, the more intangible elements (such as the meanings of a place) are neglected but these have tremendous value.
Dembski (2012) uses the example of the Rotterdam Rijnmond area to discuss the concept of Zwischenstadt (in-between city), where the city merges both physically and functionally with the surrounding countryside. Symbolic markers (in the form of planning imagery, iconic architecture, landmarks etc.) are symbolic projects which are used as part of a wider strategy and signify a better understanding of in-between spaces. These symbolic markers are tasked with addressing an audience (the private sector, civic groups, residents etc.) in order to persuade the audience and shape public discourse, so that this projected meaning is accepted as the reality.
Critically there is a difference between construction and reconstruction. Symbol construction concerns the introduction of new markers which symbolize patterns of disconnected transformation, which reconstruction highlights processes of symbolization which build on the history of a place to build a new future, “The acceptance of the intervention is related to whether the imagination satisfies the sense of place inculcated in the audience” (Dembski, 2012: 5).
Edson (2004) stresses the importance of remembering that no view of history can be considered absolute, and that every single consideration, regardless of the perspective or preference will assign a personal value to every element of a historical process. While history and heritage are often assumed to go hand in hand with one another, the concept of heritage will usually have a greater symbolic meaning than the actual object, the time, the place, or what can be considered the historical reference. Human behaviour is either learned or modified by social conditions, and the fulfilment of desire will often be the motivation behind assimilated or invented heritage and in turn group agreement on the value of its members are reinforced as part of the physical or natural environment.
“There was probably never a time in the history of humankind when heritage was not subject to invention, restoration, or adaption to meet the social, political, spiritual, or financial requirements of the subject community” (Edson, 2004: 339).
Hodge discusses different discourses of heritage, and how heritage is increasingly being framed as memory work, which she states is an interdependent process of remembering and forgetting. Memory, whether it be the memory of the individual or of a collective groups, never remains stable; while memory work does not involve the retrieval of a past truth, rather it is about reconstructing the past’s present (2011: 116).
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 36 CHAPTER 4 - Theoretical Framework
The fortifications are the most (or arguable the only) visible sign of the Waterline’s existence and the various stakeholders may understand these symbolic markers in many different ways, and this will be examined further in the research hypothesis. Nevertheless, the Waterline has been framed as a marketing opportunity by the national, provincial and regional governments and it is necessary to understand heritage assets are being framed in such a way. As previously mentioned, western economies are continually focusing on the opportunities presented by the tourism and hospitality industries. Not only is tourism increasingly emphasized for the Waterline, but this may be further enhanced by the prospective UNESCO World Heritage Nomination.
Tourism
Alberts et al. (2010) conducted a study into the efforts of UNESCO and their efforts to preserve historically significant sites, and in doing so, examine the nature of authenticity which is often integral to a UNESCO World Heritage status. The authors argue that authenticity is a social construct, whose meaning fluctuates according to different people in different places at different times (authenticity will be discussed in greater detail further on).
The authors identify how these different approaches represent the different attitudes towards authenticity and integrity. For example preservation and restoration allow the sustaining of the authenticity of a site, while reconstruction focuses upon the integrity. Even then there are tensions between these two demands, because steps to reconstruct the appropriate contextual material to enhance the integrity of a site may negatively affect its authenticity. UNESCO World Heritage status focuses upon the preservation aspect of the spectrum, but also acknowledges that the concepts of authenticity and integrity and how they are applied by local authorities depend upon the site in question.
The matter is further complicated by tourism because of two very common challenges; the first is that visitors will often have some kind of preconceived notions about what they expect to see, and the people responsible for the management of the site may consciously or unconsciously try to meet these expectations even when it is at the expense of authenticity. The second challenge is that in order to meet the needs of the tourist this may require making allowances and providing services (such as restrooms, lighting, access routes etc.) which may conflict with the aspiration of preserving the authenticity of the site. This issue is further exasperated when dealing with local residents, who are also stakeholders and it will be necessary to negotiate with them in some form.
Place Marketing
According to Lichrou et al. (2007) framing and symbology play a central role in tourism, and stress the importance of tourism in contemporary society, especially in nations which have begun to invest
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 37 CHAPTER 4 - Theoretical Framework
heavily in tertiary industries such as hospitality and the heritage sector. One of their primary methods of doing so is through the process of place marketing.
This theory is discussed by Brown et al (2013), who argue that urban place marketing is practiced in one form or another by all urban areas in an effort to appeal to visitors, inhabitants and investors. Braun definesurban place marketing as “the coordinated use of marketing tools supported by a shared customer-orientated philosophy, for creating communicating, delivering, and exchanging urban offerings that have value for the city’s customers and the city’s community at large” (2008: 43).
Tallon believes that as cities are forced to compete with each other due to globalization, this drives urban change and regeneration strategies. Urban place marketing presents a way of achieving this, although it an “emphasis on the projection of deliberately crafted images to external audiences and local population” (2010: 120).
Nas conducted research into ‘urban symbolic ecology’, which refers to the study of the distribution of symbols in urban areas, and also to how these symbols are created and how they are distributed. These symbols represent the memory of the city, of which there are four types: collective (the names of important persons or institutions who had an important role at specific times), historic (the names of important persons or institutions in the national or general history), projective (the laying out of the city grid pattern) and finally cultural memory (natural and cultural attributes). “It is a cultural layer of congealed time incorporating past, present and future, made up of urban symbols based on special objects and rituals” (1998: 546).
While this concept is related to urban areas, it is somewhat lacking in relation to rural areas. The Waterline may represent an opportunity to investigate rural cultural identity, and by that this researcher means the symbols of the rural and how they are created and distributed. Furthermore while urban place marketing has received a lot of investigation, there exists little research into its rural counterpart.
Tallon (2010), in discussing urban place marketing acknowledges it is a necessity to treat the city as a commodity in order to stimulate competition and economic development to attract external investment, those images which are created and used for place promotion are often embellished, with the most desirable aspects selected and any which are deemed undesirable are excluded. The Waterline fortifications represent an opportunity to investigate how rural sites may be marketed as places. It will also be possible to examine which aspects or symbols are framed as the most important by the various stakeholders involved.
Hajer and Reijndorp (2004) discuss the efforts of Salzburg, Austria to market its historic inner city to tourists, by offering a glimpse into life in the past. The authors argue that this case demonstrates the discourse of historicism, in which “The way forward is to turn back” (2004: 2). Buildings which were 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 38 CHAPTER 4 - Theoretical Framework once considered obstacles are now represent the heart of a revitalization strategy. Here Salzburg is an example of the production of place, which aims to cater to an emerging demand for the consumption of places and events. Cultural tourism offers the opportunity for ordinary citizens to have interesting experiences, and cities, and organizations are forced to compete with one another by producing these experiences. The authors believe that this mass cultural consumption has led to the definition of places being directly tied to the mobilization of cultural heritage.
The Waterline’s represents a great number of heritage assets spread over a large geographic area, and this is one of its greatest strengths, because it represents a marketing opportunity on a local, provincial and national level, and both the Belvedere Memorandum and Panorama Krayenhoff have reframed the Waterline fortifications as a collective, cohesive unit. However, this strength may also be its greatest weakness because of the large number of stakeholders involved who may have their own particular frames of the Waterline and getting so many different actors to cooperate may prove to be very challenging.
Authenticity
Authenticity is a concept which is very closely tied to tourism and place marketing, and is an integral part of a UNESCO World Heritage Status. Furthermore, it plays a very important role within the concept of conservation through development. Authenticity is an essential driver behind the motivation of tourists to visit distant places, and the search for authentic experiences is one of the most important trends in tourism, and is therefore extremely relevant to marketing strategies for cultural heritage sites. As Kolar et al. (2010) highlights, while authenticity is a very important issue, the concept itself is very problematic and has not been thoroughly explored, which hampers its application.
The concept of authenticity is not merely isolated to cultural heritage, as authors have researched the issue in relation to a very diverse range of fields; for example Peterson (2005), examines how authenticity is used in the marketing strategies of elite French wines, and how it is possible to manipulate the image of certain brands. In one instance, a group of Bordeaux based merchants who were not able to lower their price to compete with other retailers, instead focused on showing that their wines deserved to be a higher price. They accomplished this with tactics such as emphasizing that they use traditional methods of wine making, and down-playing all of the industrial processes which have been introduced. In this regard, authenticity can be seen as somewhat of a paradox, as it promotes historic values (the making of the wine) but is heavily reliant upon modern developments (the processing, distribution etc.). This analogy is also very applicable to the conservation through development debate in the heritage sector.
The author cites many other fields which employ similar tactics, such as tea & coffee “Asserting authenticity by saying that the new authenticity represents the old are used in selling a wide range of
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 39 CHAPTER 4 - Theoretical Framework products” (Peterson, 2005: 1084). Furthermore, authentication is a difficult subject, because when verifying art or archaeological artefacts as ‘authentic’ by trained experts, this can greatly enhance the intrinsic and financial value; however, in Peterson’s research into country music, he found that authentication was not made by experts but by the consumers of the music, the fans. No one person or group authenticated the music, rather it was an ongoing cycle of authentication involving everyone active in the field.
McIntosh (1999) conducted a study into authenticity and its perception by tourists visiting three period theme parks, and how these visitors affirm authenticity through a number of processes, which are influenced by their own individual understandings and perceptions. The author found that attractions can be viewed as social spaces in which meaning can be assigned, and that each tourist will arrive at a cultural attraction with their own agenda and context based upon their own personal interests, knowledge and previous experience. These tourists may range from those who have a distinct motivation to visit the attraction, to those whose visit is incidental or accidental. These personal factors and expectations may tailor or alter the interpretation and experience, which may be different to the intended context provided at the cultural attraction.
Here the visitors have reframed the official meaning of the fortifications, based upon their own experiences and expectations. Among the ambitions of the National Waterline Strategy within Panorama Krayenhoff, there is a desire to increase the profile of the history and the existence of the Waterline, and this will mean that there will be an official frame created In order to give context to visitors. There is the possibility in the very near future that there could be a reframing of this context because another ambition of Panorama Krayenhoff is that the Waterline be added to the UNESCO World Heritage list.
UNESCO World Heritage Status
The concept of authenticity is very closely tied to the UNESCO World Heritage Status nomination of the Waterline, because authenticity is used as a judgement criteria in selecting which sites are worthy of the status. Furthermore, should the bid be successful, this represents a major international branding opportunity, and this could have significant implications upon the number of potential tourists who may want to visit the Waterline.
Donohoe (2011) took interest in the effect that World Heritage status from UNESCO can have on tourism, citing the correlation between this designation and the increasing number of international visitors. She also states that “heritage sites have evolved to serve dual priorities: to preserve heritage while educating and entertaining the tourist” (2011: 122).
Donohoe also lists several concerns related to the marketing of heritage sites as potential tourist destinations; the first of which is that by treating sites as any other commodity they become trivialized 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 40 CHAPTER 4 - Theoretical Framework
and their true value is lost by becoming one-dimensional stereotypes. The second concern is the problem of an increasing number of tourists and the strain this can place upon the site, which threatens promises made by the managing agency to focus on preservation against the revenue generated by the ever growing number of visitors. Thirdly, the large number of stakeholders at different scales will all have different approaches to marketing goals and outcomes. Fourth and finally, marketing strategies that attempt to attract large numbers of tourists “have replaced the golden rules of conservation with contradictory commercial values” (2011: 122).
Akagawa and Sirisrisak (2008) investigate imbalances in the World Heritage List and the problems that this can lead to, with a specific focus on the cultural landscape in Asia and the Pacific. The UNESCO World Heritage Centre defines heritage as“our legacy from the past, what we live with today, and what we pass on to future generations. Our cultural and natural heritage are both irreplaceable sources of life and inspiration”. The Convention Concerning the Protection of the World and Natural Heritage was adopted in 1972 and is a major international legal instrument which seeks to realise this ambition. According to the authors “Cultural heritage is an essential vehicle that conveys the message from the past in both its positive and negative aspects, both of which should be enlightened as a lesson for future development” (2008: 188). Rather than treat cultural landscapes separately, it would be more effective to integrate those landscapes into city planning and development.
Baird (2012) conducted a case study into the Tongariro National Park in Aotearoa/New Zealand which in 1993 became the first World Heritage cultural landscape. As a result the author’s belief that this UNESCO status will change the meaning of the area and as a result there will be increasing pressure from outsider experts and their knowledge. These new voices may drown out indigenous systems of knowledge, and block certain stakeholders from asserting their authority, so the author has identified a need to investigate the practice and management of heritage. Her study is based on interviews, institutional archives and also historiographies.
The author is very clear that when she refers to cultural heritage, she means both the tangible and intangible culture and also the various different values, practices and meanings that people engage with to form an understanding of this heritage, “For this reason, heritage is inherently political, engaging stakeholders and practitioners in sometimes adversarial debate and struggle” (Baird, 2012: 328).
Beck (2006) conducted an in-depth study of several different kinds of heritage travel guidebooks in an effort to better understand global tourism and global heritage which are described as inextricably linked. The author believes that as part of the process of creating tourist destinations, they are promoted with an accompanying narrative. The author takes a specific interest in World Heritage Sites and their accompanying guidebooks, as this is a topic which has received little scientific interest in the past. The author emphasizes that there exists no absolute definition of world importance or
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 41 CHAPTER 4 - Theoretical Framework
universal value, as “universal values are an idealistic quest and will continue to be renegotiated and reassessed through debate and conflict” (2006: 522).
Anderson (2009) conducted research into eco-tourism in the Baleric Archipelago, which experienced a huge growth in tourism over a period of four decades, but also an ever increasing strain on its landscape and natural resources. This impact brought the concept of eco-tourism to the forefront in an effort to achieve sustainability in tourism development. Anderson’s investigation looks at the numerous different actors involved, and how they will often work individually in an effort to avoid negative externalities, but this often has little success. However, when working together through eco-tourism networks they see the benefits of collaboration. These networks were the focus of Anderson’s research, which took the form of a multiple case study with every case being represented by one interviewee. The findings again stress the importance of collaboration and networking in tourism focused settings.
Eco-tourism
Marketing of heritage is increasingly focusing on the emerging concept of eco-tourism, which represents an effort to strike a balance between conservation and development and is extremely worthy of investigation. Grenier et al (1993) examine the implications that sustainable development and eco-tourism can have on landscape architecture and urban planning. By 1990 worldwide tourism spending (a combination of international and domestic travel) reached an all-time high of $2.75 trillion. Despite this huge surge in economic spending, this has placed a host of environmental burdens upon the destinations being visited; therefore the authors discuss the concept of eco-tourism, which can trace its origins back until at least 1965. This is an idea which promotes preservation-conservation and sustainable development ideals. Eco-tourism overlaps with other forms of tourism, such as soft tourism, ethical tourism and also green tourism, and the authors define it as“an arrangement of tourists, locals, and private and public sector brokers in which the behaviours (choices), affects (feelings), and cognition (thoughts) of these participants are influenced by the desiderata above” (1993: 4).
Assche and Duinveld (2011) believe that heritage planning needs to look beyond well-defined sites with heritage values and look at a much broader spectrum of traces of the past. They also highlight different cultural circles place a different emphasis on heritage. The authors do acknowledge the importance of co-ordination of interests; however they stress potential conflicts and difficulties, for example while it may seem beneficial to reintroduce local knowledge and perspective into decision making, just because people are local does not necessarily mean that they agree. Furthermore, the authors also believe that experts play a greater role in heritage planning that in any other form of planning, as experts are able to legitimize and reinforce discourse.
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 42 CHAPTER 4 - Theoretical Framework
Eco-tourism extends beyond just the protection of the structural integrity of a site, and places a much greater emphasis on the involvement of local people. This is not just limited to their direct involvement in the decision-making or the management and operation of a site, but also the more intangible elements which are becoming increasingly emphasized in recent years. Anderson (2009) advises that in order to successfully employ an eco-tourism strategy, it is necessary for attractions to focus on primarily on the natural environment, with cultural elements taking on a secondary role, with the interaction between tourists and the attraction being based on learning and education
Turnpenny (2004) discusses the benefits of and progress made by the official recognition of broader forms of cultural heritage, arguing that this can be traced back to the works of oral historians and those involved in the creation of folk museums. Oral historians are concerned with the different symbolic categories through which people and communities perceive reality, placing an equal emphasis on what they consider to be myth as much as what they consider to be fact. Gathering this information has offered an alternative history which challenges the established and accepted categories.
The tangible and intangible cultural heritage elements have been promoted through folk museums and more recently through eco-museums. Folk museums focused on the more intangible, such as tradition, dance, music etc. and this can be seen in modern day eco-museums which concentrate on the values of everyday life and how important it is to involve the community and to create a sense of ownership. In stark contrast to the legislative approach, an eco-museum will promote and therefore preserve the cultural heritage of a community, and what is important to the people of the area will be collected, conserved and displayed. The crucial element here is that it is the community which identifies its own cultural heritage and gives priority to what should be preserved, “Giving priority to community perceptions of cultural heritage ensures that associated values, symbolism, social practices and myth are recorded, promoted and therefore protected” (Turnpenny, 2004: 302).
Faulkner performed an in-depth case study analysis of Australia’s Gold Coast, which as a destination for tourists appeared to be stagnating and in an attempt to avert this, the Gold Coast Visioning project was created. This project is looking towards the future of the area and will only consider tourism options that satisfy the needs of both the visitors and the residents preserve the cultural and natural assets of the regional and that are economically viable. The author describes this as sustainable tourism and in order to achieve this it is essential that the entire process is participatory, “involving the meaningful engagement of the community, along with industry stakeholders and relevant government agencies” (2002: 478). Furthermore, it is necessary to successfully integrate tourism with other sectors of the economy, and to understand all of the different relationships between socio cultural and environmental factors, “A shift from a ‘destination marketing’ to a ‘destination management’ approach is therefore advocated” (2002: 478).
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 43 CHAPTER 4 - Theoretical Framework
Libosada Jr. discusses the drivers behind tourism, in that it represents a human need for fulfilment, supplemented by disposable time and income. Figures suggest that in 2005 there were more than seven hundred and sixty million global tourists. Eco-tourism was once a niche in the market, attracting only a small demographic of tourists (such as scientists and students). However, the tourism industry is highly dynamic and evolved to target these eco-tourist sites to attract the mass market, but this is not without difficulties “The industry can no longer rely on the high environmental and ethical values of the eco-tourists that result to zero to minimal environmental and social impacts to the eco-tourism destination” (2009: 391). These once pristine, natural areas are now subject to the mass market and this success has placed them under threat. Those people who are responsible for the managing and marketing these eco-tourism sites may also see the potential of much higher economic returns should they attract the mass market, and therefore will be more inclined to do so. The author recognises the possibility of tension and hesitation among the environmental sector, for although they will acknowledge the economic benefits of tourism, at the same time this may create significant socio-environmental problems in these natural areas.
Libosada Jr. therefore recognizes that when tourism becomes an active industry in a natural area, eco-tourism becomes an option with both positives and negatives. On the one hand, it can assist in the protection of natural sites, raise environmental awareness and create opportunities to generate financial revenue which can be converted into management resources. On the other hand, the increased number of potential visitors could affect ecological functions, lead to behaviour modification in wildlife and possibly create social problems, “There is no denying that it can be a potent industry in natural resource utilization. It is an industry that can either make or break the environmental integrity in any given destination” (2009:391).
Howard begins his examination of a collection of assets and the emergence of the eco-museum by discussing the official attitudes towards heritage in south-west England, where the economy of rural areas is becoming a lot more heavily dependent on tourism rather than farming after the foot-and-mouth outbreak, “this realisation only reinforces what was already a powerful move that saw heritage no longer as peripheral to economic innovation and development, but central to it” (2002: 63). While tourism is certainly an important industry, it is not the only component of heritage. The author states that both heritage advisors and organisations responsible for economic development now recognise heritage as being central to economic development.
In order to successfully market these areas, that there is an effort to promote an entire cohesive network of attractions instead of endorsing a number of attractions separately, “Success depends on a combination of factors, of which built heritage and culture are clearly one major element, and the natural heritage and landscape are another” (Howard, 2002: 64). This shift towards the promotion of heritage sees it as not merely something which is a part of the tourism industry, but instead is essential to encourage investment in the region. 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 44 CHAPTER 4 - Theoretical Framework
The new use of heritage as an economic driver can be seen in the eco-museum concept in France and other francophone countries, and Howard’s study examines three of these institutions (in Le Creusot, Mont Lozere and Vallees Cevenols) twenty years after their creation (in an attempt to inject new economic life into suffering industrial areas.
In discussing the conservation of objects in relation to landscape heritage, and efforts to retain hedgerows, trees, cottages etc. are according to the author constantly missing the most important element “Architectural conservators similarly find themselves conserving the frame when the function has gone, sometimes even preferring the frame to the function. Local people so often prefer the memorialisation of events to the conservation of objects” (Howard, 2002: 69). The primary findings of this study were that visitor attractions must be part of a civic or regional collection of diverse attractions, and must be appealing for heritage visits, for townscape, for countryside, and even for shopping. These eco-museums also heavily promoted local activities and produce. However, the major overall finding of this study was that it is important not to rely too heavily upon one particular agenda, “Neither the academic agenda nor the government agenda nor the local agenda are sufficient” (Howard, 2002: 72), and instead it is the tourist agenda which is the most suitable driver of economic development.
The Heritage Paradox
Grenier et al. (1993) acknowledge that the concept of eco-tourism, like all forms of tourism, is particularly controversial, for although it appears promising it risks contradictions of balancing conservation with development. The authors also stress its symbolic power and how the meaning can be manipulated those using the term to promote positive ideals of preservation, education and spiritual experience, but those listening may just as easily interpret it as industry hype, or underhand tactics by the government intended to promote economic growth.
Therefore, eco-tourism is not without its controversies, and given the multitude of meanings and interpretations, and the very large number of heritage assets across the Waterline’s vast expanse, this challenges the idea of whether the successful implementation of the frame of conservation through development is even possible, or if Van der Valk was correct in his assessment of it being a heritage paradox. Many authors have also examined this issue of the paradox in various settings.
For instance, in Spain, Fuentes et al. (2010), discuss the conversion of underground wine cellars into such uses as sites of food production, restaurants or museums, by looking at numerous examples in an international context. They acknowledge the role these buildings have played on the one hand as a historical legacy and source of information on rural technology, activities and of life in the countryside, while on the other hand they add to the local distinctiveness and sense of place in the countryside. However, a combination of factors, particularly in the mechanisation of farming and evolution of techniques mean that many farm buildings are vacant after having lost their original use. 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 45 CHAPTER 4 - Theoretical Framework
Rather than outright replace them, the authors argue that retaining the architecture is crucial for the “continuity of rural landscape” (2010: 738). The authors list multiple benefits to re-use such as savings in energy and materials and job creation and this also represents the contradictory challenges that these kinds of developments face has received a significant amount of academic research based in the Netherlands and worldwide.
Turnpenny investigates how ordinary people may value cultural heritage differently from the way it is promoted in traditional heritage management approaches, and this may account for the lack of community engagement with cultural heritage. The author states, “Researchers will have to consider how we can deal with contradictory values and whether it is possible to preserve wider elements of cultural heritage without causing stagnation” (2004: 303).
During the 20th century a combination of modernization and intensification for agricultural production would have a profound impact on the Dutch landscape. However, according to Doevendans et al. towards the end of the century there have been attempts to balance modernization with the value of nature, which the authors describe as “opposed institutions…paradigmatic cases or exemplars” (2007: 338).
Catsadorakis accepts that in order to move forward productively with specific goals in mind, this will require compromise and vagueness; and “because the necessities to preserve our natural and cultural heritage are real and pressing, we must manage to achieve our goals despite this paradox” (Catsdorakis, 2001: 309). In the author’s investigation of the Mediterranean basin, while total exclusion of humanity might be viable in specific cases in order to prevent disturbance, but in the European countryside it is not practical or viable to separate the human factor from nature conservation. The authors also highlight the fact that ecosystems as living systems would continue to change due to natural factors, regardless of human intervention.
One of the greatest international examples of the heritage paradox can be found in the research of Winter, who investigated the World Heritage Site of Angrok in Cambodia. During the 1990s Cambodia emerged from a bloody civil war and in an effort to move forward with contemporary developments and embrace modernity there was a real effort to transform into something new while at the same there was an intense desire to look back and reclaim what was lost.
The authors state “The challenges arising from the intense convergence of these two paradoxical and unstable agendas- heritage conservation and tourism development- are greatly compounded by Cambodia’s need to recover from war and turmoil” (2008: 524). Angkor would be the focal point of these two very different agendas, though it was not the actual temple structures themselves, but instead their role in two key emerging sectors, namely heritage and tourism.
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 46 CHAPTER 4 - Theoretical Framework
In 1994 there were around eight thousand foreign tourists visiting in Angkor and by 2005 there were eight hundred and thirty thousand international visitors (an increase of 10,000% in just over a decade). This influx of visitors into the Angkor – Siem Reap created a construction boom in hospitality sector, and surprisingly in housing due to growing numbers of Cambodians moving to the area. The site soon became one of the most important economic assets to the State, as tourists wanted an authentic experience.
However, there was somewhat of a backlash due to growing concern over the destructive effects that the tourists were causing, particularly the erosion to the temples themselves. In addition, despite the huge increase in the tourism sector, the benefits of this wealth have not been evenly distributed, creating large imbalances in the region’s economy.
While there have been policy efforts to address these issues, the speed of tourism growth in the region continues to outpace these policy responses. With the number of annual visitors expected to reach three million by 2010 the authors recommend a need for community-orientated policies which should improve the distribution of these tourism related economic gains in the region.
Discourse
Despite the paradoxical nature of conservation through development, this is the avenue which the Waterline has followed in its recent history and will continue to follow, and this represents a form of discourse among the various tiers of government
Janssen (2009 b) cites the paradigm shift in conservation and heritage management being most apparent in the Belvedere Memorandum, with a change in discourse of political opinions and theories of government being crucial. As this research will be looking at the perspectives of a multitude of actors and stakeholders, so understanding how they frame and reframe the significance and meaning of the Waterline is critical
Sharp and Richardson (2001) discuss the theory of discourse, which they state to be the sum of communicative interactions, and specific cultural and historical characteristics shape the interpretation of this process. The authors give the example of a government trying to impose the concept of sustainability from a top-down approach, and that the meaning, interpretation and implementation will be contested and fought over. A change in discourse can have a significant effect on policy and subsequent far reaching approaches on society.
The change in government discourse in promoting the preservation and maintenance of landscape through development has been met with some suspicion, as van der Valk (2013) points out that several archaeologists and historians feel that historical values are being put up for sale. Furthermore, successful conservation depends not only on successful collaboration with local people but 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 47 CHAPTER 4 - Theoretical Framework collaboration at provincial, regional and national levels. Another finding from other European nations was that protection was never an absolute guarantee, as “the planning of valued landscapes takes place under the influence of changing government politics, economic development and commercial needs” (Janssen, 2009 a). Other external pressures are likely to impact upon regulation and increase the instances of exceptions being made, and given the recent global economic recession, the discourse towards the Waterline during recovery from financial peril should make for very interesting investigation.
Public discourse leads to both similarities and differences between groups according to their images of reality. Public discourse is a public debate, and in a democracy, the government will present a planning proposal to allow for public input and opinion before a final decision is made. In subsequent public debates (especially controversial ones), differences between images are highlighted “which makes them the ultimate places to study these images” (Rooijendijk, 2004: 299).
Discourse towards heritage and conservation seem to be in a state of flux and the goals and priorities of today might change in the near future. Therefore it will be interest to look at the reasoning behind the chosen activities available at those sites which are currently in use, and even more so to find out about the decision making process in identifying an appropriate use for the fortifications and the relationships between the actors involved.
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 48 CHAPTER 4 - Theoretical Framework
Theoretical Framework Conclusions
The fortifications of the New Dutch Waterline have lost their prior military function and afterbeing brought on to the national agenda through the Belvedere Memorandum and Panorama Krayenhoff, the Waterline has been reframed with conservation through development as the adopted strategy.
This theoretical framework has demonstrated a number of important characteristics of the concepts of conservation through development; there does not exist one clear, consistent definition of either conservation and development, or even related concepts such as authenticity. The concepts are in a constant state of flux and it is difficult to achieve a national or international consensus between academics and policy makers which remains the same for a lengthy period of time. Conservation and development have been framed and reframed for a variety of reasons in multiple settings and contexts.
In addition, there will not always be an acceptance of an official designation or meaning among certain stakeholders such as local residents who have attached their own meanings to a heritage asset through the use of symbology, or other stakeholders such as tourists who may arrive at a location with varying degrees of prior knowledge and expectation which may significantly reframe their experience.
Therefore, due to the multitude of stakeholders involved in and concerned with the grouped heritage assets of the Waterline, it would be extremely interesting to investigate how and why it had been framed by these stakeholders and whether they had been subsequently framed and reframed in the ten years since the publication of the National Waterline Strategy. As discussed in the previous chapter, the Netherlands is still only recovering from the global economic recession and this event may have had a significant impact upon the framing of the various stakeholders involved.
Additionally, the National Waterline Strategy is seeking to raise the profile of the Waterline both nationally and internationally, which could lead to an influx of people, and this also means that there will be a marketing strategy which will frame particular aspects of the Waterline in particular ways. This suggests a possible avenue of investigation to see which tangible or intangible aspects of the Waterline are most important to the various stakeholders.
All of these factors have contributed to the research design and the selection of empirical methods which are the subject of the following chapter.
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 49 CHAPTER 5 Research Design
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 50 CHAPTER 5 Research Design
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 51 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 52 CHAPTER 5 - Research Design
RESEARCH DESIGN
Problem Statement
A large percentage of the fortifications on the New Dutch Waterline have been given a wide range of new uses, and often these uses are combined in various forms. For instance, some sites promote a tourist experience; some emphasize history and try to educate the visitor. Others have a very strong focus on ecology and nature, where public access is restricted or outright prohibited; and overall a very large number seem to focus on recreation.
Due to the large number of stakeholders involved who each have their own framing processes of the fortifications and because the government are actively seeking new users of the vacant sites, this will meaning that the different frames of the various actors are likely to come into conflict, and deciding on news users will require consensus and collaboration through a process of reframing. If a group compromises on an original frame, it is likely that the framing of the fortifications have been altered in some way, likely due to external societal forces.
Research Question
The research question is :
“How and why did different actors reframe the specific fortifications of the New Dutchaterline W during processes of redevelopment of vacant sites?”
Sub-questions which will be addressed:
1. How did the actors initially frame the fortifications and how did they subsequently reframe them during the decision making process? 2. What were the reasons for these actors reframing the fortifications?
Hypothesis
Based upon the investigation that has been conducted so far, it is possible to formulate several hypotheses about this research.
It is hypothesized that as a result of the global financial crisis and changing real world economic conditions, this will have the most significant impact upon the various stakeholders which leads them to reframe the fortifications of the Waterline. With so many stakeholders involved in the decision making process, each with their own particular frames, in reaching a consensus it is hypothesized that some form of reframing will take place of conservation through development. It is hypothesized that 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 53 CHAPTER 5 - Research Design each stakeholder will have an original frame, but during the decision making process it is likely that some form of reframing will take place for each stakeholder that will affect the balance of conservation and development.
Furthermore, it is hypothesized that the fortifications of the New Dutch Waterline represent an attractive and viable opportunity for new owners who would want to re-use these sites. It is also hypothesized that the UNESCO World Heritage Status Nomination will be recognized as an excellent marketing opportunity to attract visitors from across the world and raise the profile of the Waterline as a heritage location.
Consequently, during the analysis of the data collected from various sources, especially the interviews, it will be possible to test the hypothesis. For example, a respondent from a conservation group initially framed a site according to x but subsequently reframed it to y. Therefore it is possible to identify a link between a and b because of c. Understanding these expected processes of reframing are of critical importance to this research.
Conceptual Framework
(The conceptual framework diagram can be seen on the next page)
The conceptual framework “links various concepts and serves as an impetus for the formulation of theory” (Bowen, 2006: 15). The sensitizing concepts (this term is explained further along) which emerged from the literature review have helped to form the conceptual framework. These concepts came from a thorough review on literature relating to (but not limited to) heritage, conservation, eco/ tourism, and ecology.
The current context in the Netherlands is quite complicated as the nation is recovering from the global recession of 2007/8. This event has meant that despite a recent change in national discourse which places an emphasis on cultural heritage, the funding necessary to achieve this is likely to be directed elsewhere. Cities and regions are forced to compete with one another, and one of the primary methods is through branding in order to attract visitors and possible investment. However, this leads to a potential conflict between the concepts of conservation and development.
Furthermore, there are even more complications between the various stakeholders involved who will each have their own framing of any potential development sites (in this case the Waterline fortifications) and as a result of the decision making process on re-use of the sites, it is likely that these stakeholders will have to re-evaluate their original frames in order to construct altered or even completely original ones through a process of reframing.
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 54 CHAPTER 5 - Research Design Conceptual Framework Context Actor’s Frames - Recovery from global economic recession Conservation Development - Changing national discourse on heritage - Increasing interest in cultural heriatage - Heritage - Tourism - Shifting financial priorities - Museum - Recreation - Urban and Regional Branding - Ecology/Nature - Residential - Conflict between conservation and - Protection - Profit development
Decision Making Process of Future Use
Side Effect of Decision Making Process Process of Reframing “Why” part of Research Question
Reframing
Conservation Conservation Through Development Development - Heritage - Tourism - Museum On which part of the - Recreation - Ecology/Nature scale will different - Residential stakeholders frame and reframe the - Protection fortifications? - Profit
Hypothesis New Frames Stakeholders will reframe “How” part of Research Question conservation through development 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 55 CHAPTER 5 - Research Design
Grounded Theory & Sensitizing Concepts
This research takes the approach of grounded theory, which according to Bowen (2006) is a particular form of qualitative research that requires the constant back and forth between the collection of data and analysis of this data in order to produce a theory. A grounded theory is drawn from the themes, which emerge from data analysis, and this will give meaning to various situations and contexts. The analysis was also inductive, in that the themes, patterns and indeed the whole overall theory emerges from the data, rather than being determined prior to the collection of data.
This research will employ sensitizing concepts, which are contrasted to definitive concepts. Definitive concepts identify exactly what is common to a group of objects with clear definitions; whereas sensitizing concepts are not so precise, and instead provide a general direction or course to pursue. While definitive concepts clarify exactly what to see, sensitizing concepts suggest where to look (Bowen, 2006).
In this regard, the sensitizing concepts came from the literature review and have provided a starting point for a qualitative study, as they have drawn attention to important features of social interaction and suggested avenues of investigation, and led to several hypotheses and expectations about this research.
However, as this is grounded theory, it is vital to remember that it is not possible to determine exactly which are the most important processes are in a particular setting at the outset. As interviews are conducted and issues are raised by respondents, further questions can be formulated and additional interviewees sought to investigate these new issues. Nevertheless, this researcher strived to be as open minded and impartial as possible, because the point of this investigation is not for this researcher to design a solution to the problem, rather it is to understand the processes of framing and reframing by the various stakeholders involved.
Data Collection
The primary method of data collection in this research camefrom multiple case studies, and according to Yin (2009), in order to pursue a particular case study, it is necessary to formulate a research design. There will be several methods of data collection:
The first source is documentation, which will include memoranda, emails, agendas, written reports; administrative documents and also other formal studies related to the case. For case studies, the most important use of documentation is the corroboration and augmentation of evidence from other sources. Furthermore, documentation can be used to clarify correct spelling and particular details;
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 56 CHAPTER 5 - Research Design
“Because of their overall value, documents play an explicit role in any data collection in doing case studies” (Yin, 2009: 103).
When using documentation it is vital to remember that it was written with a specific purpose and for a particular audience, so it is important to keep this in mind and not be misled and to be critical to interpret the contents.
The second source of evidence is archival records, which in this particular case include the service records (showing the number of clients over a given time), organizational records and also relevant maps and charts. In the case of the Waterline, a lot of this kind of evidence is available online, especially on the website http://www.hollandsewaterlinie.nl/pages/the-dutch-waterline.aspx (discussed further on). Archival records are best utilized in conjunction with other sources of information, and like documentation it is important to be critical of the condition they were produced under (Yin, 2009).
The third source of evidence (which will be the focus of this research), is semi structured interviews, which are more of a guided conversation rather than structured queries. During these interviews, it was necessary to follow two different levels of questioning, one of which follows the needs of the case being studied, and the other puts forward conversational questions in an unbiased manner.
Case Study Selection
During the preliminary phases of this research project, it was decided that it the most efficient and effective was of investigating the framing and reframing of fortifications on the Waterline would be to select three fortifications and to perform in-depth analyses. Although there a very large number of fortifications, this research places a greater emphasis on quality over quantity
The case selection process has been quite intensive and represents a significant amount of research on its own. The primary source of information was the website http://www.hollandsewaterlinie.nl/pages/ the-dutchwaterline.aspx which is devoted to providing information on all things related to the Waterline, and it also provides detailed information on each of the sites through three different interactive maps. Each of these maps portrayed different information.
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 57 CHAPTER 5 - Research Design
The first map (Figure 6) has seventy unique locations and visually differentiates between ‘forten en waterlinie-objecten’ (forts and waterline objects) and ‘werk in uitvoering’ (work in progress). Each icon leads to additional information on that particular location.
Figure 6 - Wegwijs in de Waterlinie (2014)
The second map (Figure 7) has a total of fifty two unique locations and visually makes no distinction between each. Each icon leads to additional information on that particular location.
Figure 7 Tourist Map (2014)
The third map (Figure 8) has a total of fifty one unique locations and visually differentiates between ‘batterijs’, ‘forts’, ‘kasteels’, ‘lunettes’, ‘sluis’, ‘vestings’ and ‘overig’. Each icon leads to additional information on that particular location.
Figure 8 NHW in Google Maps (2014) 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 58 CHAPTER 5 - Research Design
The first map was the most comprehensive and also contained a number of locations which were not present in either the second or third map, though interestingly the second map is the official map of the location of the Waterline fortifications. The links provided by each icon on this map led to additional information, and this information was compiled into a single document for all seventy locations. This document was analysed and coded and the findings were compiled into a spreadsheet (see appendix 2). By investigating these resources, this researcher was able to begin building a framework of the various uses and activities at each site; identify the vacant sites that the government wants to find new uses for; and also those sites which are have recently undergone some form of development, are currently being development, or have development planned in the immediate future.
Currently four vacant sites have been identified which have no explicit use and the government departments responsible for their management are actively seeking new owners and uses for these sites. The sites are the Batterij Overeindse Weg (fortifcation), the Lunet aan de Snel (lunet), Fort Honswijk and Fort Everdingen (all four of these sites are located in Utrecht). At the moment there is no clear decision making process yet for determining new owners and users of these sites. Therefore in order to better understand how and why various stakeholders reframe specific fortifications, it would be useful to look at those sites which fit the criteria of having recently undergone some form of development, are currently being development, or have development planned in the immediate future. The primary reason is that there must have been some form of decision-making process involving multiple stakeholders, who (as part of the decision making process) would have had to reframe these specific fortifications in order to achieve a consensus.
Refer to appendix 3 for an overview of the fourteen sites on the Waterline which fit these criteria (recently/ ongoing/planned development) and additional information is provided on each site. Although there are fourteen possible cases, this research will focus on quality and not quantity, so of these fourteen sites three cases have been strategically selected for investigation in order to test them against the theory and hypothesis. The three locations will be Fort Uitermeer (Noord-Holland), Fort Vechten (Utrecht) and Slot Loevestein (Gelderland).
Additional information will be provided on the respective analysis page of each site, but it important to explain the selection of these three sites out of so many possibilities
Fort Uitermeer is one of the smaller fortifications on the Waterline, and it is also one of the few which is part of the Stelling van Amsterdam. Such a small development should contrast very well with the other two, much larger fortifications. Fort Vechten is the second largest fortification of the whole Waterline and it is currently being developed into a National Waterline Museum. This means that it will be one of the most heavily promoted fortifications and such a large development will have required quite a large decision making process.Slot Loevestein predates the existence of the Waterline and has its own long history, so it would be extremely interesting to see how much of an emphasis is placed on the Waterline.
It is felt that these three fortifications effectively reprsent the diversity and broadness of the Waterline spectrum, and make them suitable cases for research.
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 59 CHAPTER 5 - Research Design
Semi-Structured Interviews
Once the three case studies were selected it was decided that semi-structured interviews would be conducted as they represent the most appropriate and flexible method of data collection. It was necessary to formulate a list of interviewees related to these three case studies (for an in-depth explanation of this process please refer to Appendix 4). A prospective interviewee was contacted well in advance to arrange the meeting for a time date that was most suitable for them (an example of this original email can be seen in Appendix 5). In each instance these interviews were conducted face-to-face and were recorded with voice recorders.
In total 19 people were contacted as potential interviewees, and of these:
• 15 did reply and 4 did not reply
Of the 15 that did reply:
• 3 people did not feel that they were suitable candidates and advised of someone else to speak to • 1 person had set up an automated response to say they were on medical leave • 1 person was unable to arrange an interview until August 2014 due to travel commitments
• 10 people agreed to an interview and of these • 9 were able to be completed before the project deadline
There was a 78.9% response rate from those people contacted, and of those respondents 60% were successfully interviewed (47.4% of the original nineteen people contacted).
The interviewees were informed in advance about certain aspects of the nature of the research so that they may be able to provide additional information. As this researcher did not intend to deceive the interviewees, it is believed that the best way to engage with the respondents would be to be as open as possible about the nature of the research without potentially compromising the validity of their responses or ask leading questions which may bias their answers.
The interviews were also in-depth, where respondents will be asked for their own opinions (and that of their respective departments) on several issues to try and identify any overlap, consensus or conflicts. New questions were asked based on the answers of the respondents (in the same interview and subsequent interviews) and this provided a large amount of qualitative data. The interviews were semi- structured in that there was a list of topics which will be covered, so in this way the interviews were focused in that they will follow the questions but allow for further elaboration. Interviewing is described by Charmaz as an “emergent technique” (1998: 312) because it is highly flexible and as ideas and issues are raised during an interview, it is possible to pursue them immediately. Furthermore,were also 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 60 CHAPTER 5 - Research Design questions tailored specifically to the respondent and there were questions related specifically to the three case studies. In these interviews, the respondents were asked questions in order to better understand how they have framed their respective fortification and how the effects of the economic crisis may have potentially led to a reframing of the site. The units of analysis in the research are the various stakeholders who are interviewed.
Of the nine interviewees, all nine gave permission for quotations from their respective interviews to be used in this research paper, and seven gave permission for the publication of the transcriptions of their respective interviews.
Data Analysis
These interviews were be transcribed and the primary method of analysis will be performed using specialized computer coding software called Atlas ti. The codes will reflect areas of interest as well as the information in the data. This coding is a two-step process, with initial or open coding requiring the researcher to start making decisions about the data; which is followed by selective or focused coding, where the most frequently appearing initial codes are used to “sort, synthesize, and conceptualize large amounts of data” (Charmaz, 1998: 320).
According to Corbin and Strauss (1998), analysis through coding takes raw data and raises it to a conceptual level. Coding is the process and codes are the names which are given to concepts which emerge from coding. Coding is much more than simple paraphrasing, as it involves significant interaction with data to formulate concepts, which themselves are even further developed.
The primary analytical strategies will be asking questions and making comparisons. Different kinds of questions may be asked of the data, which Corbin and Strauss have placed in four categories. The first covers sensitizing concepts which encourage the researcher to identify what the data might be indicating. The second concerns theoretical questions, which allow a researcher to identify processes and variation in order to make connections between concepts. The third category covers questions of a practical nature which provide a direction for theoretical sampling and help with the theory development. The fourth and final category is the guiding questions which direct interviews, observations, gathering of documentation and subsequent analysis.
If this is carried out correctly then themes will gradually emerge as this researcher becomes increasingly familiar with the data, and associations can be made among the various interviews, which will be guided by what was learned during the initial literature review. Themes will move from a low level of abstraction to more concrete theories supported by evidence (Bowen, 2006).
Appendix 6 goes into greater depth about the whole process of completing this research. 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 61 CHAPTER 6 Case Study 1: Fort Uitermeer
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 62 CHAPTER 6 Case Study 1: Fort Uitermeer
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 63 FORT UITERMEER 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY Province : Noord-Holland Municipality: Weesp 64 Constucted: 1673 Area: 4 ha Figure 9 Google Maps (2014)
Figure 10 Fort Uitermeer Site Panorama (2014)
Figure 11 Fort Uitermeer (2014) Figure 12 Uit & Meer Restaurant (2014)
Figure 13 Fort Uitermeer Site Entrance (2014) Figure 14 Stelling van Amsterdam Sign (2014)
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 65
Figure 15 Fort Uitermeer Harbour Panorama (2014) 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 66 CHAPTER 6 - Case Study 1: Fort Uitermeer
CASE STUDY 1 – FORT UITERMEER
The Story of Fort Uitermeer - Background
Fort Uitermeer (Figures 10 and 11) is located along the De Vecht River within the Municipality of Weesp and is one of a number of fortifications within the Province Noord-Holland that is also part of the Stelling van Amsterdam. At four hectares (Figure 9), it is also one of the smaller developments in terms of both scale and physical size within the Waterline, is greatly contrasts with the much larger Fort Vechten and Slot Loevestein.
After losing its original military function, the fortification was in bad state of disrepair so the province intervened to ensure that it did not degrade any further. Once the structure had been made safe in the early 2000s by the Province of Noord-Holland, the Province reframed it as being the ideal location for a recreational function. Subsequently the fortification was put up for sale and a competition was held to find the most suitable owner, who would develop the site with a focus on tourism and recreation, but at the same time would also respect it in terms of the nature, culture and history.
The Story of Fort Uitermeer – Recent Events
The Province held a competition to find the most interesting development plan, and at the time Niek Roozen, a landscape architect based in the city of Weesp, was an active rower with several friends who also worked as landscape architects, urban planners etc. They would row past this fortification, so he issued a challenge to his friends and fellow professionals:
“Ok, with our big mouths we have a lot of ideas about how the world should be, how the Netherlands should develop, how our little city Weesp should develop in the future. We have a lot of opinions and maybe try to bring it together, our knowledge and our ideas in developing a little project like this fortification” (Roozen, N. 2014).
Roozen was also weary of the ambitions of other entrants to this competition, and stressed the importance of keeping certain developments out of the area. He makes specific mention of theVan der Valk restaurant chain which he identifies as being popular with the middle class, but placing an outlet with their toucan logo could be very damaging for the area.
“No, no way, it shouldn’t be there, it’s such a nice place, it’s a very interesting place, historical place, because we have to pay a lot of attention to make it beautiful; ok so let’s do it, do it by ourselves” (Roozen, N. 2014).
Roozen and his team; operating under the Foundation of Stichting Uiteraard Uitermeer, a non- commercial NGO, were the ultimate winners out of a total of ten entrants; despite some exceptional 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 67 CHAPTER 6 - Case Study 1: Fort Uitermeer
circumstances. The Province wanted €4.5 million for the sale but Stichting Uiteraard Uitermeer were able to convince the Province of the sheer dedication of the team and of the strength of their plan that there were able to purchase the fortification for the mere price of €1. Realising that they would not be able to offer the Province anywhere near their initial asking price, and that even a sum of €100,000 would be insignificant in comparison to the €4.5 million sought, this €1 was more of a token gesture.
This plan was framed as a story which emphasized that it was created by people who live in the city and who share a very strong connection, not only with one another but also with the fortification. The active participation of citizens who cared about the fortress and who had a lot of support and expertise was worth much more than any financial sum.
“Yeah, that is what our government appreciates very much, so I think that is one of the most important reasons, and our team, yeah because of all the different disciplines, the different qualities and the story we wrote” (Roozen, N. 2014).
In terms of symbology, Fort Uitermeer and the surrounding area are being framed as narratives rather than just as products, with a focus on both the tangible and intangible elements. As previously mentioned the history and aesthetics of the area are important, and interestingly, the fortification itself and the Waterline are playing a secondary supporting role in the symbology of the framing and are used as a backdrop to other symbols, both tangible and intangible. The area is also described through a narrative, “this is a special place to enjoy nature, to tell about the nature, to support nature, to visit it, but also to develop the recreational situation” (Roozen, N. 2014).
It was calculated that the successful implementation of this plan would require a total investment of €6 million, but crucially this was in 2006 when financial conditions were very different and there were many possibilities in the Netherlands.
Some of these earliest supporting companies were housing corporations in Amsterdam, who at the time were very successful and had a lot of excess money, and a government rule required that this extra money should be invested in the development of maatschappelijk for the community. Several of these Amsterdam based corporations were happy to invest and develop and provide support for the area because they were also able to indirectly promote themselves so it was mutually beneficial.
While initially Stichting Uiteraard Uitermeer had a lot of support from these different companies and organizations who believed in the plan, the effects of the global economic recession would have a significant financial impact on development as this excess wealth quickly evaporated and support was rapidly withdrawn from the area. To address this, the overall plan was altered and broken up into three smaller phases and it was very apparent that it was necessary to generate money in order to develop the overall project, so the first investment was a restaurant on the border of the river (Figures 12 and 13). 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 68 CHAPTER 6 - Case Study 1: Fort Uitermeer
Roozen believed it was important to attract a wide profile of people, and avoid the potential gentrification and exclusion that could have emerged from a Van der Valk restaurant. The restaurant envisioned by Stichting Uiteraard Uitermeer was designed with the atmosphere of an English pub in mind:
“In an English pub you see all kind of ages together, young people, old people and in between in different levels, that’s what I’m- what we like, so that should be the style, the atmosphere of our restaurant” (Roozen, N. 2014).
The restaurant Uit & Meer has been open for two years and has proved to be very successful. Another interviewee has visited this location and believed that not only was this a successful development, but achieved the provincial goal of a recreational function, as it is possible to sit at the restaurant and enjoy the scenery with the Waterline in the backdrop “so you sit, enjoy the scenery, you feel that you are in a special surrounding” (Zakee, R. 2014).
As previously mentioned the overall plan of Stichting Uiteraard Uitermeer had to be broken up into three smaller phases. As of 2012, Phase One has been completed and the restaurant opened after six years; furthermore, Phase One also included a service road and some smaller development such as a boardwalk on the border of the river. The funding for Phase One came from three different sources; one third comes from the Province who still have some funds available and who still believe in the strength of the project, one third has been borrowed from the bank and one third comes from the investment of the restaurant and the reinvestment of the restaurant’s profits by the development team.
Interestingly the marketing of the place has focused on building a strong reputation which has been spread through word-of-mouth. The restaurant has become very popular and has been able to attract a very diverse range of people, with locals being joined by families from areas further afield such as Amsterdam. The restaurant has also be frequented by television personalities and even the Prime Minister
Work on Phase Two has begun in a place is known as “The Gateway of the Vechtstreek” and will involve a mixture of small developments in six plofhuisjes. These structures will externally be restored to their original styles. Internally however, there will be a variety of uses, such as a bed and breakfast and an area where local artists can work and also sell their pieces. There will also be stores which will sell products from the land such as milk and fruit, and the surrounding agricultural area is also a place where people can come to relax and immerse themselves in nature. Roozen refers to the area as “the back garden of Amsterdam” (2014) and the fortification of Uitermeer is an essential part of this.
Phase Three will involve the total renovation of the island itself, and this will include the original harbour. There will also be the recreation of the earth wall which was present several centuries ago, 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 69 CHAPTER 6 - Case Study 1: Fort Uitermeer
and will contain a restaurant, conference areas etc. all with the form and shape of the original earthen defending wall.
These three phases reinforce the authenticity of the site in terms of its cultural heritage and natural heritage, with significant steps taken, according to the four approaches outlined by Alberts et al. (2010) to preserve, restore, reconstruct and adapt the site. As previously discussed, although the definitions and understanding of authenticity fluctuate depending on the time, location etc. the project can still make a very strong and legitimate claim on its respect for authenticity, and this is also likely to attract visitors to the site who are interested in heritage and conservation, as well as more casual visitors interested in the aesthetics and recreational function of the area.
When asked directly how much the original plan that was created for the competition had changed as a result of the withdrawal of financial support, Roozen replied “Not at all” (2014).
It is certainly true that the original timeline has changed quite drastically; at first the entire project was anticipated to take ten years to complete, due to extenuating circumstances it has taken eight years to complete Phase One and it will take at least another ten to complete the entire project. Stichting Uiteraard Uitermeer still apply for government subsidy with little chance of it being granted, but this has not deterred their original ambition, no matter how long it might take for them to realise this. Despite this there is still government support on the national and local level (through policy and regulation assistance) and financially at the provincial level. Stichting Uiteraard Uitermeer may have to forge new alliances but are determined to complete the project as originally envisioned, step by step.
When asked why there was a reluctance to change the original plan, the reply given was “you have to change it in a commercial direction and that’s what we don’t want” (Roozen, N. 2014). Here it is possible to see how Stichting Uiteraard Uitermeer were able to successfully adapt to changing real world financial conditions in order to completely retain their original frame of what they envisioned for the development.
The UNESCO World Heritage Status nomination has played little to no role, and was not mentioned as part of any of the three phases of the development. As Fort Uitermeer is already part of the Stelling van Amsterdam (Figure 14), this may explain the diminished role of a prospective World Heritage Status nomination.
On the subject of the potential damage that could be caused by attracting additional visitors and tourists to the area, it was not anticipated that they could have any significant impact on the fortification itself due to its robust construction. However, there are a lot of regulations inthe Netherlands which are related to nature, ecology and history which are important to respect. Although 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 70 CHAPTER 6 - Case Study 1: Fort Uitermeer
the fortifications are entirely man-made they have been constructed using various combinations of local ecological systems and are arguably now a part of that local system.
In this regard, nature has been reframed as ongoing by Stichting Uiteraard Uitermeer, but this brings the group into conflict. For example, the current government discourse is to place heavy regulation which is restrictive on new developments which has further held up the ambitions of Stichting Uiteraard Uitermeer .
This problem seems to be largely unique to Weesp, “there’s something in the legislation of the municipality of Weesp, which is wrong, there is something not right about their legislation at this topic so if you look at the whole of the New Dutch Waterline” (Bootsma, J. 2014)
Stichting Uiteraard Uitermeer’s project fits the original criteria of re-using the fortification for recreational development which was specified by the Province of Noord-Holland, but the Foundation are experiencing difficulties with people who believe themselves to be defending nature and the ecological systems, and the irony of this contradiction is not lost on Roozen, “the problem is our own regulation, what we developed ourselves, not myself, but our country and our government, it conflicts with new developments” (2014).
In the case of governmental rules and regulations, on the one hand they appear to be actively encouraging development and re-use, but on the other hand they are making the process overly restrictive in the view of Stichting Uiteraard Uitermeer. This is not the only problem experienced by the Foundation,
“So what we are doing fits in their program, but at the other end we see now, we have problems with people who are defending the nature and defending the ecological system, and there is a contradiction because we want to develop this project and we want to bring people also to nature” (Roozen, N. 2014).
Roozen discussed a specific example of a small harbour development (Figure 15) which required the removal of some reeds at the water’s edge. Two concerned local citizens who believed this to be a breach of the regulations and contacted the police to inform them of what was happening and the case was brought before a judge. Roozen cites this not only as an example of too much regulation but also describes the people who contacted the authorities as “a group of citizens with too much time” (2014), and he does acknowledge that while they may have started with good intentions, they have descended into a pandemic which is spreading throughout the Netherlands, of people objecting to development for the sake of objecting.
Roozen counters this by stating that the Netherlands are entirely man-made, and that everything that can be seen in relation to nature and ecology had been shaped by the hands of men. However, 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 71 CHAPTER 6 - Case Study 1: Fort Uitermeer
“There are people who are thinking, what we have done these last two/three thousand years, until now is exactly how the Netherlands should be, now it’s finished”(2014) . Instead he believes it is the right of current and future generations to continue this development of the Netherlands. The fortifications are no longer performing their original military and defence functions and therefore should be re-used in various different ways. One of the slogans of the Stelling van Amsterdam ‘behoud door ontwikkeling’ which is conservation through development, or as Roozen describes it “keep it by developing it”, and by developing the island it will be possible to keep it for future generations to enjoy.
Roozen himself directly addresses one of the central themes of this research, namely the paradox of conservation versus development, in that the Foundation want to conserve the natural environment by developing it and they have established this particular frame, and that this is how the Netherlands has evolved over the centuries, but there are some citizens in Weesp who have reframed nature as finished or complete and that any form of development will somehow be destructive or damaging.
At the same time however, the involvement of local people in the project is also emphasized. As Stichting Uiteraard Uitermeer are such a small team, one of the members is responsible for coordinating a group of volunteers from the area who are working on a plan for maintenance of the fortification. The Foundation also heavily promotes involvement, for example an event ‘Feest voor de natuur’ was organized in May of this year with representation from local, provincial and national organizations as well as information on the area and the project itself, with various activities involving local people such as photography and dance, which fall into both the tangible and intangible.
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 72 CHAPTER 6 - Case Study 1: Fort Uitermeer
Summary of Framing and Reframing by Each Relevant Stakeholder
The following stakeholders have each been identified as having a direct interest in Fort Uitermeer, and have performed some degree of framing and reframing: Stichting Uiteraard Uitermeer, the Province of Utrecht, the Municipality of Weesp and certain local citizens of Weesp. Each will be discussed respectively.
Stichting Uiteraard Uitermeer:
The Stichting Uiteraard Uitermeer Foundation were responsible for the creation and implementation of the proposed development at Fort Uitermeer. The most significant aspect is that although the Foundation had to reframe the structure of how they were going to implement their original vision because of withdrawal of financial support from private developers, they completely refused to reframe the actual content of this vision. The reasons were that they believed so strongly in the original vision and they realised that if they were to pursue the easiest option of finding a private commercial partner, this would cheapen Fort Uitermeer and undermine its integrity. As the Foundation consists of citizens of Weesp, they have their own particular frame concerning the character of Fort Uitermeer, and are unwilling to reframe this view. Although they accepted that this will require a greater amount of time that originally anticipated, the Foundation have accepted this in order to stick to their original frame and this has defied one of the hypotheses of this research paper, that the global financial crisis would have a significant impact upon the case studies
Province of Utrecht:
The Province of Utrecht pursued new owners for Fort Uitermeer with a focus on tourism and recreation development, but at the same time would also respect it in terms of the nature, culture and history. Originally they framed the fortification with a value of €4.5 million but in the end they accepted the offer of €1 from Stichting Uiteraard Uitermeer. The province was convinced of the strength and conviction of the plan, so much so that they were willing to reframe the financial value that they had placed on Fort Uitermeer. Of even more surprise is that they now provide one third of the funding to Stichting Uiteraard Uitermeer so that they can realise their vision, so the province still believes in the framing of Stichting Uiteraard Uitermeer despite the changing real world economic conditions.
Municipality of Weesp:
The Municipality of Weesp have created a somewhat conflicting framing in that they are encouraging development and re-use but at the same time their rules and regulations are highly restrictive on what is allowed and this. As a result of Stichting Uiteraard Uitermeer breaking their project into three phases spread over a much longer time period the Municipality of Weesp have reframed the project and this has significantly slowed down the ambitions of the Foundation. 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 73 CHAPTER 6 - Case Study 1: Fort Uitermeer
Opposing Citizens of Weesp:
It is important to remember that this interpretation has come from a member of Stichting Uiteraard Uitermeer and so will be biased. Nevertheless it is still worthwhile to look at how one particular group of stakeholders views another. Some concerned citizens in Weesp have a particular frame that nature should be left alone from human intervention, and are willing to use the force of law to uphold that frame. These citizens are firmly placed on the extreme of conservation on the conservation versus development scale. Stichting Uiteraard Uitermeer however have a different view, and frame the natural landscape as an ongoing and unfinished process and that they should be allowed to continue to develop as they are highly respectful of nature. Stichting Uiteraard Uitermeer feel that it is important for ordinary people to reframe nature and to see the possibilities of development that are still respectful of the area. Despite this isolated opposition, the majority of residents have reframed Fort Uitermeer since the beginning of the project as an opportunity to get involved and have taken the opportunity to do so.
Overall Framing of Conservation Through Development
Different aspects of the project by Stichting Uiteraard Uitermeer cover the four distinct approaches of conservation as outline by Alberts et al. (2010), and sometimes combine them. Prior to the project beginning, the Province of Noord-Holland Fort Uitermeer itself has been preserved to prevent any further damage to the structure, and will be retained in this current state. Within Phase Two, the six plofhuisjes are being restored externally but adapted internally to be given contemporary uses. Phase Three will see the reconstruction of the earth wall based on the original design. At the same time there are some small scale developments at the site, such as the restaurant, and the revenue generated from this is being invested into achieving the conservation of the site through the four different approaches. This is a clear representation of the conservation through development ambition which Stichting Uiteraard Uitermeer are trying to achieve, and they have managed to maintain this particular frame even when it has been threatened by the withdrawal of financial support. The municipality appear to restrict development at the same time as encouraging it, and this has slowed down but not stopped the ambitions of Stichting Uiteraard Uitermeer. The continued support of the Province throughout the history of the projects shows that they share the same framing of conservation through development and with the exception of the two private citizens who are firmly entrenched in a conservation at all costs frame, the majority of local residents within Weesp share the frame of Stichting Uiteraard Uitermeer, and they support and believe in the vision of what has already been achieved and what is planned for the near future.
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 74 CHAPTER 7 Case Study 2: Fort Vechten
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 75 FORT VECHTEN 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY Province : Utrecht Municipality: Bunnik 76 Constucted: 1867 - 1870 Area: 17 ha Figure 16 Google Maps (2014)
Figure 17 Fort Vechten Car Park Entrance (2014)
Figure 18 Fort Vechten Moat (2014)
Figure 19 Fort Vechten Development (2014)
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 77
Figure 20 Fort Vechten Site Entrance(2014) Figure 21 Fort Vechten Cut Section (2014) 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 78 CHAPTER 7 - Case Study 2: Fort Vechten
CASE STUDY 2 – FORT VECHTEN
The Story of Fort Vechten - Background
Constructed between 1867 and 1870, Fort Vechten (Figures 19 and 20) is located in the Municipality of Bunnik and is the second largest fortification of the Waterline, behind Fort Rijnauwen, and is seventeen hectares in size (Figure 17) within the moat (twenty three within the boundary posts). From 1950 to 1996 the fortification was used as a storage depot, and after this the ownership passed to the Forestry Commission. The fortification had primarily been used for recreational purposes, with camping grounds, festivals and various other outdoor events. The fortification is currently under development to become a National Waterline Museum, due to open in May 2015.
The Story of Fort Vechten – Recent Events
Originally envisioned as an information centre in Panorama Krayenhoff the architect imagined something greater and with the support of the Province of Utrecht and the project evolved and was reframed into a full museum. The evolution of this idea did come with certain objections as to whether it was possible to create a proper museum, as there was no collection and a host of issues surrounding climate control, which would make it extremely difficult to loan exhibits from other museums. Despite this, asmall budget was allocated for the collection and the museum will have a rehearsal opening in November of 2014, before the official opening in May 2015. Currently, there exists access to an extensive digital collection (maps, photographs etc.) but it is highly debatable whether this sort of material belongs in an actual museum.
This lack of actual collection creates significant problems for the authenticity of the museum. When previously discussing the concept it was highlighted that visitors affirm authenticity in different ways and if they decide to visit an attraction they may do so with preconceived notions. A visitor may be significantly disappointed if they visit the museum expecting to see original artefacts and symbols, only to find digital reproductions. This could significantly damage the legitimacy and authenticity of the museum, and could reframe the National Waterline Museum in the eyes of future visitors who may question whether or not it is a real museum.
Some have questioned the decision to create a National Waterline Centre at this location, believing that Fort Vechten was much better suited to its original function, “What you also can see is that the big money makers at the moment at Fort Vechten are festivals, music festivals, youth festivals, which have nothing to do with the New Dutch Waterline other than, this sense of being at a special place” (Zakee, R. 2014). From this perspective, the fortification itself is not that important, and plays a supporting role, so an emphasis is placed on the symbolic power of the special place rather than the fortification. 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 79 CHAPTER 7 - Case Study 2: Fort Vechten
There are a wide range of developments happening at the area as part of the National Waterline Museum, for example a part of the fortification is being externally restored to how it would have appeared in 1880. Another feature of this development was the earthen fortification surrounding the fort which has had a section cut through to create a new entrance (as the fortress itself was not so easily accessible due to its former defensive role) which is an attempt to create the effect of the enemy trying to enter the fortress (Figures 17 and 21). The significant development to the site in terms of construction and landscaping can perhaps best be seen in this particular aspect of the project, and this cut section also acts as access to the greatly expanded car park to the north.
While the areas outside of the moat around Fort Vechten are largely untouched by the National Waterline Museum development (Figure 18), within the immediate area around the site there is an extensive amount of work being carried out (Figure 19) Nevertheless, the effect of the cut section is highly impressive, and clearly the management of Fort Vechten are attempting to create a very powerful symbol, as they intent for visitors to feel like enemy invaders attacking as they enter the site. One of the greatest assets of the site is the outstanding natural beauty of the area, and so far development has largely been confined inside the boundaries of the moat, with the exception of the car park expansion.
It is anticipated that there will be a total of one hundred thousand visitors drawn to the site every year; however, it is important to specify that forty thousand are anticipated for the museum and sixty thousand for the various other commercial activities. These figures are highly significant for two very important reasons; firstly because the overall figure of one hundred thousand represents such a large number of visitors needed for the project to be considered successful and it may prove challenging to attract this many people. Secondly, and even more importantly, twenty thousand more visitors are expected to be drawn towards the other commercial activities taking place, and the success of the National Waterline Museum is somewhat out of its own hands and is dependent upon the success of the other commercial activities. The Province of Utrecht has framed Fort Vechten as their flagship development and need it to be a success.
Prior to the onset of the global economic crisis, an allocation of around €90 million was made for Waterline projects in the Province of Utrecht. Of this, a reservation €25 million was put into the construction of the museum but crucially this was only for the exterior of the structure and only 1% for the interior and the collection, which has meant that it is necessary to find the funding for these features via other means, as ticket sales alone will not be enough.
There are other concerns that Vechten is much too big in terms of development and in actual structural size to be privately run, and as €25 million has been invested into Fort Vechten, his has placed an enormous burden on its shoulders. One particular concern of utilizing Fort Vechten is because of its location, which can be quite difficult in terms of attracting visitors and generating 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 80 CHAPTER 7 - Case Study 2: Fort Vechten
revenue, and in future there is a danger that the museum will have to reply on external funding and subsidies.
The global financial crisis would have a significant impact upon Fort Vechten, as originally a private entrepreneur had pledged financial support to the project. However, this entrepreneur was unable to invest what he had originally offered due to the effects of the global economic recession, so he is trying to generate this funding through other commercial activities which are taking place on the site. The rest of the funding is coming from the original sources, namely the National Government, the Province of Utrecht and also from the European Union.
As previously mentioned, the private entrepreneur also has several commercial interests in the area, with small scale events such as weddings and parties, but also much larger festivals, and return the private entrepreneur will pay for the maintenance costs of the fortress. It is anticipated that there could be potential conflicts of interest between the National Waterline Museum and the private entrepreneur once the museum opens, should the entrepreneur wish to have some form of event or festival on at the same time as the opening of a new exhibition, and will require communication between both parties. The consequences of this kind of relationship are being carefully considered, as meetings between the owners and the entrepreneur are ongoing about how they might successfully occupy the same space with possibly conflicting activities“now they, at this very moment they are talking about what- what can happen in the future and how they solve that” (Will, C. 2014).
A new Foundation has recently been created, ‘Stichting Liniebreed Ondememen’, which will be handling the marketing for the whole of the Waterline, and the focus of this marketing will be on the relationship between the Netherlands and the water, and how the natural enemy has been exploited against other enemies. Other aspects would focus on how the system actually works, and the history behind it. It is felt that this should be achieved in a very interactive way, not just for the international visitors, but also domestically for schoolchildren and for families and this marketing will begin after the summer of 2014.
The UNESCO bid is very important to the Province of Utrecht, and the National Waterline Museum will be integral as it will be the primary hub of activity and information for domestic and international visitors. The Province of Utrecht also sees the bid as very important to the other four provinces, and that it will be appealing to the National Government as it can be used for an international branding opportunity for the Waterline.
The UNESCO bid is seen as crucial within the Project Bureau of the New Dutch Waterline as “that’s the only one that’s keeping the five provinces together because that is what they really want so that’s why they have to work together…but it’s difficult to organize” (Will, C, 2014)
A successful UNESCO World Heritage Status would represent an excellent place marketing opportunity for the Waterline and would raise its profile on an international scale and bring it to the 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 81 CHAPTER 7 - Case Study 2: Fort Vechten attention of many different groups of people on a global scale (such as academics, students etc.), and there would be tourists who would want to visit the Waterline based on this World Heritage Status alone.
As previously mentioned in the theoretical framework, if a location which receives UNESCO World Heritage Status is poorly managed with a focus on catering to the needs of the influx of tourists and generating revenue with little to no regard of the negative externalities which this can place upon the local natural environment, the consequences can be profound.
To try and raise awareness and interest in the National Museum, the management are currently working on plans where for example wedding guests or conference attendees will be offered a tour of the fortress or museum and it is hoped that they will return with their families or recommend the location to others. It is hoped that as well as raising awareness of the National Museum, it will also raise awareness of the Waterline.
The problems surrounding the Fort Vechten development can also be attributed to poor management, or more specifically the two different levels of management at the national level and the provincial level. Apparently, from the outset, there was a lack of communication and a degree of misunderstanding about who exactly was in charge of the project, and there was further ambiguity surrounding exactly which politician was in charge. This issue is further complicated by the National Government also appear to be withdrawing their support, both politically and financially from the National Waterline Museum. Not only has the responsibility of managing the project been given to the five provinces, at the same time these provinces are now responsible for generating revenue for further exploitation of the site.
Currently there are ambitions to create a joint organisation between Fort Vechten, Fort Naarden and Slot Loevestein under the title of Stichting Nationale Waterlinie Musea which should be in operation by 2016/2017. While the Province of Utrecht still considers Fort Vechten to be the most important centre, these other two locations are of great historical significance and can contribute to the success of Fort Vechten. The idea emerged from discussions between the manager of Slot Loevestein and the interim manager of the National Waterline Museum. Cooperating with other museums can have its benefits, because it will be significantly easier to get funding from the national government and possibly even from Europe as well. It is not anticipated that there would be any potential conflicts, due to it be mutually beneficial for all parties involved.
There was no serious opposition from local residents against the construction of a National Waterline Museum, only from certain residents described as “Friends of the Fort” (Kuypers, P. 2014) who voice objections against the development and reconstruction, specifically the removal of some trees which had been growing ever since the Ministry of Defence no longer had responsibility for maintaining the area. However, after speaking with the Province of Utrecht who explained the plans, the Friends of the Fort dropped their opposition.
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 82 CHAPTER 7 - Case Study 2: Fort Vechten
Summary of Framing and Reframing by Each Relevant Stakeholder
The following stakeholders have each been identified as having a direct interest in Fort Vechten and have performed some degree of framing and reframing: the Province of Utrecht, the management of the National Waterline Museum, the Private Entrepreneur and Province of Gelderland and the local residents of Fort Vechten. Each will be discussed respectively.
Province of Utrecht
The Province of Utrecht has reframed Fort Vechten in a number of ways and for a variety of reasons:
The Province of Utrecht originally planned to create an information centre for the Waterline, as outlined in Panorama Krayenhoff. However, after the architect expanded his original vision, the Province subsequently reframed this project into a National Waterline Museum. Ever since then, the Museum has been reframed in a variety of ways. Before the start of the project, financing had been promised from a variety of sources, but thanks to the global financial crisis and some poor management decisions about how to allocate funding, the Museum is already facing uncertainty even before it opens.
The Province of Utrecht had originally framed the National Waterline Museum as a highly prestigious project with large amounts of political support, now the project has been reframed as being incredibly important and closely tied to the success of the National Waterline Project. The Province of Utrecht are so heavily invested in this museum that they cannot afford for it to fail and as a result are supporting any development which will help to ensure the success of the site.
National Waterline Museum
In anticipation of these difficulties, the National Waterline Museum has sought a partnership with Fort Naarden and Slot Loevestein which will have multiple benefits for each party. The difficulties facing the museum have led to this reframing of a possible solution, because not only will it be easier to obtain funding as part of joint partnership (as opposed to individually) but each museum can learn from each other.
The idea for a National Waterline Museum was conceived at a time when economic conditions were very different, and as the funding allocation for the collection was so small, this means that the contents of the Museum will suffer. The Museum is also further dependent upon the success of the private entrepreneur even though those events and festivals organized by the entrepreneur might conflict with the Museum. Therefore the management of the Museum have reframed the relationship with the private entrepreneur, and this relationship is out of mutual necessity and neither are likely to be completely happy with it. 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 83 CHAPTER 7 - Case Study 2: Fort Vechten
Furthermore, the actual structure of the Museum is inadequate to effectively fulfil the role of a museum (such as the necessary climate control) and this means that it will ineffectively be able to house and display exhibits and artefacts, and therefore is failing in the conservation aspect.
Private Entrepreneur
The private entrepreneur originally framed the National Waterline Museum as a potential investment opportunity, and pledged significant financial support. However, the global financial crisis meant that this funding was unavailable, so the entrepreneur was obliged to provide the finance through other means. Therefore the entrepreneur has reframed Fort Vechten as a commercial opportunity for small and large events in order to meet their original obligation, with virtually no consideration of the conservation aspect of the spectrum.
As a result of this obligation to provide funding, this will lead the private entrepreneur into conflict with the National Waterline Museum, because these large festivals may deter potential museum visitors. There are plans in progress to encourage festival and event attendees to also visit the museum but this idea has not been adequately explored. At the time, and somewhat ironically, there is also a discussion taking place about how to resolve potential conflicts of interest when one or both parties wish to stage an event, and this issue has yet to be resolved either.
Local Residents
The involvement of nearby residents has been portrayed in a somewhat negative light; concerned citizens operating under the name Friends of the Fort had framed Fort Vechten and the surrounding area as needing protection. This relates to the idea of nature being finished versus nature being an ongoing process (which was discussed in the analysis of Fort Uitermeer), because again in this case the citizens have framed nature as somehow ‘finished’ whereas the other stakeholders see it as an ongoing opportunity. However, in this instance these concerns citizens were able to meet with representative of the Province of Utrecht who were able to explain the nature of the project and the necessity of removing the trees so in this instance they were able to have constructive dialogue and the citizens reframed the project along the same lines as the Province of Utrecht.
Overall Framing of Conservation Through Development
The Province of Utrecht has not only placed a significant amount of faith in the project at Fort Vechten, but also an incredible amount of time, effort and resources. Despite having the greatest number of Waterline fortifications of all of the five Provinces, the Province of Utrecht has allocated the majority of their finance to the National Waterline Museum.
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 84 CHAPTER 7 - Case Study 2: Fort Vechten
The private entrepreneur has an overwhelming obligation to develop the site in order to stage events and festivals, because they promised significant financial support prior to the onset of the global financial crisis and therefore in these times of financial uncertainty, there is little incentive to ensure the conservation of the site, when so much depends upon its success.
This is reflected even further in the extensive landscaping, and one aspect of this involved the literal cutting into the natural environment. Here, conservation through development was originally framed with the development aspect being emphasized, but thanks to changing real world economic conditions, has subsequently been reframed even further towards the development end of the scale.
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 85 CHAPTER 8 Case Study 3: Slot Loevestein
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 86 CHAPTER 8 Case Study 3: Slot Loevestein
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 87 SLOT LOEVESTEIN 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY Province : Gelderland Municipality: Zaltbommel 88 Constucted: 1357 - 1397 Area: 12.4 ha Figure 22 Google Maps (2014)
Figure 23 Slot Loevestein Entrance (2014)
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY Figure 24 Slot Loevestein Interior (2014) 89
Figure 25 Slot Loevestein Site Entrance (2014) 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 90 CHAPTER 8 - Case Study 3: Slot Loevestein
CASE STUDY 3 – SLOT LOEVESTEIN
The Story of Slot Loevestein - Background
Originally constructed between 1357 and 1397 by the knight Dirc Loef van Horne where the River Maas and the River Waal meet, Slot Loevestein (Figure 23) predates the existence of the New Dutch Waterline (and the Old Dutch Waterline) by centuries. The castle is also very well known nationally in the Netherlands because it served as the prison of the lawyer and politician Hugo de Groot, who was to serve a life sentence beginning in 1619. He was able to escape via a book chest in 1621, a story that has captured the imagination of many, “he is for us, an icon of liberty” (Stijns, I. 2014).
Slot Loevestein occupies a 12.4 hectare site (Figure 22) in the Municipality of Zaltbomme and holds a very high profile in the Netherlands. Most people would frame it according to the history behind it, rather than it’s connection with the Waterline, “if you would ask the general public in the Netherlands if they know of the connection between the New Dutch Waterline and Slot Loevestein, nobody has a clue” (Zakee, R. 2010).
The Story of Slot Loevestein – Recent Events
Slot Loevestein is an independently organization managed by Ien Stijns who coordinates a staff of around twenty colleagues and an additional eighty volunteers. Before Ien Stijns became the director fifteen years ago, the castle was run by a much smaller organization of only around ten people and had an average attendance of around sixty thousand people. However, the number of annual visitors in recent years has risen to within a bracket of between one hundred thousand and one hundred and twenty thousand visitors.
The financial fortunes of the castle have been significantly transformed, as fifteen years ago, the castle had a deficit of ƒ1.5 million but now has €1.4 million available each year. Of this €1.4 million budget, €1 million is generated by the castle, with the other €400,000 coming from the National Government, for the preservation of the collection, reconstruction and also to keep the museum open for the public. However, besides this there is little additional financial support from this level of government.
In terms of the global financial crisis, there has not been a significant effect on the museum, with high numbers of people still buying a ticket, visiting the café and the gift shop. However there has been a significant impact on the commercial aspects of the castle, such as parties, weddings and business events, so much so that the annual business income is down 25%. However, the director is unsure whether this can be attributed to the global financial crisis, or disruption caused by ongoing renovation and restoration (which will be discussed later). 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 91 CHAPTER 8 - Case Study 3: Slot Loevestein
As the national government pays certain maintenance costs for Slot Loevestein, and due to the three levels of government in the Netherlands, it is often the case that if the one lf one level of government provides some form of funding then the other two will be reluctant to do so as well.
“When the national government gives you something, it’s the province or the lower government who says “yeah well you get already government money so we, it’s not necessary for us to give you some more money” so that’s always a discussion” (Stijns, I. 2014).
The Province of Gelderland has provided €1.7 million for reorganisation and rebuilding in the area. The castle management were able to obtain this money by directly approaching the Province of Gelderland, and the finance which was provided was to be designated within the contours of the Waterline Project, so the proposal by Slot Loevestein was specifically framed so that they would focus on aspects related to the Waterline.
The application by Slot Loevestein to the Province of Gelderland was successful because it focused attention and providing information on the southern part of the Waterline (Figure 25). In this regard, the Waterline has been envisioned in three large parts, the north, the middle and the south, rather than as a whole. The Province of Gelderland supported the application, and Slot Loevestein provides information on its role within the Waterline and also the role played by the various fortresses in the area. However, this was still not a quick or simple process, as it took five years to obtain the money from the Province of Gelderland.
Interestingly, one aspect of this particular application was that the castle was would be allowed to provide visitors with information about what life at the castle would have been like, but not just for the soldiers, but also the ordinary everyday people who lived and worked there. As the New Dutch Waterline was never actually involved in a real defensive use, so the soldiers who were stationed there and the people who worked there had to find other ways to occupy their time.
“We asked to tell the visitors about life during that period and that’s also sometimes very small stories, the story of the baker, or the story of the washing women, who did the washes for all the soldiers, so it was very little things we show them” (Stijns, I. 2014).
By not just focusing upon established facts, the castle is offering an alternative history through the stories of these people, and the experiences of their everyday lives, and in this regard offers the experience of a folk museum. This approach can be considered a form of eco-tourism, in that the castle is dependent on large numbers of visitors and tourists coming to the castle and the surrounding natural landscape, but the management team are very conscious of the potential impact and the burden that could be placed on the local environment. Although there are facilities to cater to the needs of visitors, these are modest in scale and are not to the detriment of the castle. 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 92 CHAPTER 8 - Case Study 3: Slot Loevestein
However, one aspect of eco-tourism which Slot Loevestein struggles with is the involvement of local people. This particular nuance which was not anticipated at the outset of this research was the problem of getting local people involved in volunteering at a fortification because of religious reasons. Although there are around eighty volunteers at Slot Loevestein, very few of them actually come from the area. This has attributed to the religious beliefs of the local population who would like to volunteer but cannot do so due to the castle being open on Sundays. Though local residents do not have any problems with the castle or the activities taking place in general, it is the fact that it is open on Sunday that is the main problem, but Sunday is an important day for the castle in terms of visitors, so it has not been possible to reach a compromise. This can arguably be seen in the visitor figures from each province in the Netherlands, as only 12% of visitors to Slot Loevestein come from the Province of Gelderland.
As a result, Slot Loevestein may struggle to promote and preserve the cultural heritage of the local community and this means that some of those things which are important to local people are not collected and conserved, and so arguably does not fulfil all aspects of being an eco-tourism experience.
Slot Loevestein does however have an immense amount to offer in terms of authenticity; located in the incredibly picturesque rural southern Netherlands, it is a medieval castle with a very rich and vibrant history which not only offers a museum containing artefacts and the interior of the castle containing a mixture of preserved, restored and reconstructed features (Figure 24), offering an insight into what life would have been like for the occupants. This is further enhanced by the folklore and stories of the non-military personnel who lived and worked at Slot Loevestein. The immediate area around the castle places an emphasis on cultural and natural heritage.
By referring back to the four distinct approaches towards conservation discussed by Alberts et al. (2010) in the theoretical framework, Slot Loevestein employs its own mixture of each, with different parts of the actual castle being preserved, restored, reconstructed and adapted as necessary. While the castle strives to offer contemporary experiences in this historical setting, Slot Loevestein is so large that an extensive amount of maintenance is necessary. The structures around the castle itself are a mixture of existing structures which have been restored and adapted, while there are also recent builds which serve as offices and accommodations
Attracting visitors is very important, “I want to have more people know Loevestein, because they need to come and to pay a ticket and so we can do more things to get the marketing strategy larger and better done because we have not enough money to do all the things we want to do, but when we get more visitors, we can have more money, so we can do more marketing” (Stijns, I. 2014)
It is not just the history of the castle which is important, but also the theme of water is considered incredibly important, not just for the role that it has played in the history of the castle or the Waterline, 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 93 CHAPTER 8 - Case Study 3: Slot Loevestein
“in my opinion water is leading and gives also the possibility to write new history because when we are one hundred years further on you can write new history and water will be influencing Loevestein also in the future and that’s why my proposition with the Loevestein that the theme of Water is very important… so perhaps you write a new story and a new history by the theme water” (Stijns, I. 2014)
With the theme of water being the focus of a marketing strategy, the history of the castle would play a secondary role. The history of the castle will always attract visitors, but it is envisioned that through the theme of water allows the opportunity to go further and to create new stories and new history. The relationship between the Dutch and the water is emphasized here, how successfully the water has been manipulated that the Dutch are able to successfully hold the sea at bay.
Here, rather than simply marketing the castle as a product Slot Loevestein has been reframed as a narrative, with an emphasis on both the tangible and intangible elements, which lend greater value to the authenticity of the experience and uses very persuasive storytelling to share its history. The theme of water is a very powerful symbol and refers to the history it has played not only in Slot Loevestein but in the Netherlands as a whole, and will continue to do so well into the future.
Slot Loevestein was identified by many interviewees as being unique in that there are always some ongoing projects “the CEO Ien Stijns, what she basically does, she keeps on developing the site” (Raats, K. 2014). This continuous development is only partially motivated by financial reasons, and is closely tied to a common problem for museums, namely the need to attract visitors and to offer them a unique experience.
“We offer them every day a new plaything, so you have your way of getting new awareness, getting new things, getting new experiences, ways of presentations, if that makes you, interesting enough or not. That’s not only a problem of Loevestein, that’s a problem of museums, the old way of a museum doesn’t match anymore so people are asking other ways of getting involved, getting curiosity so that’s very difficult” (Stijns, I. 2014).
When asked about the future, it is acknowledge that it will be difficult to meet the ever evolving and changing demands of visitors, but as the world changes, people may seek an escape, which Loevestein can offer a point of rest and contemplation, and to educate visitors of a time without modern communication technology.
Another planned project (mentioned in the previous chapter) is the joint collaboration between Fort Naarden, Fort Vechten and Slot Loevestein which envisions one Waterline museum at three locations. There are multiple benefits to doing this as it will significantly reduce costs, and it would be possible to only need one management structure rather than three individual structures. Interestingly, besides being more efficient and streamlined, Ien Stijns focuses on the possibility that this would create chances to try new and innovative ideas and to attract more visitors. 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 94 CHAPTER 8 - Case Study 3: Slot Loevestein
This cooperation is also a separate project from the €1.7 million from the Province of Gelderland, and is the outcome of several years of work and searching. Originally, Slot Loevestein sought cooperation with two other Dutch castles, Muiderslot (part of the Waterline) and Huis Doorn in Utrecht (not part of the Waterline). Despite similar management systems and payment systems for employees, the other two parties were not interested in a deal. After seeking more potential partnerships, Slot Loevestein was approached by the interim manager of Fort Vechten when work on the National Waterline Museum had begun, as the Waterline Committee wanted research to be conducted into the possibility of Vechten being part of a larger organisation. Vechten was to become a National Museum and needed to attract visitors, so they looked to Loevestein which had been very successful for so many years as it was felt that they could learn a lot from a partnership with Loevestein.
A creation of this new partnership is an example of reframing on the benefits of cooperation between Waterline locations within different provinces. A major problem has been that reaching Loevestein itself proves to be a challenge without private car ownership. The easiest way to reach the castle from the north and west of the Netherlands is to travel to Gorinchem or Woudrichem and take a water taxi or private boat. There was once a public bus service, but was stopped by the National Government due to financial constraints.
Loevestein is located close to the border between Zuid-Holland and North Brabant, and multiple attempts to communicate between the three provinces on sharing the costs for a public service have failed “everybody is busy, everybody has his own vision and his own targets” (Stijns, I. 2014). This lack of direct transportation means additional travel time and higher costs to reach the castle, which is likely to deter a lot of visitors.
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 95 CHAPTER 8 - Case Study 3: Slot Loevestein
Summary of Framing and Reframing by Each Relevant Stakeholder
The following stakeholders have each been identified as having a direct interest in Slot Loevestein and have performed some degree of framing and reframing: the management of Slot Loevestein, the Province of Gelderland and the local residents of Slot Loevestein. Each will be discussed respectively.
Management of Slot Loevestein
The independent organisation which operates and manages Slot Loevestein has reframed the castle in a number of ways and for a variety of reasons:
As previously mentioned the castle has a very rich and extensive history, and has always been able to attract a large number of visitors for this reason. However, this strategy is inadequate on its own, and so the director Ien Stijns therefore must constantly reframe the castle as a development opportunity to attract additional visitors, and this means that there are always ongoing projects. This is not just because of the effects of the global financial crisis, as it is a problem that faces all museums and therefore Loevestein is trying to stay ahead of the curve.
This has defied one of the hypotheses of this research paper, that the global financial crisis would have a significant impact upon the case studies. Slot Loevestein however, has been a success throughout the global financial crisis and has continued to attract a consistently high number of visitors, which has allowed these projects to continue.
On the surface this would seem to suggest that Slot Loevestein has been framed heavily towards the development aspect of the conservation/development scale, but upon closer examination, the reason that the castle is continually being developed is so that it can attract additional visitors and the revenue generated is reinvested back into the castle for the maintenance and upkeep, and for the preservation and conservation of the surrounding area (as well as funding future projects). Ever since Ien Stijns became the director fifteen years ago, the castle seems to have adapted its own version ofconservation through development prior to the publication of Panorama Krayenhoff.
The castle was able to secure €1.7 million from the Province of Gelderland five years after the initial application, and the primary reason that the castle was able to do this was by accentuating the role that Slot Loevestein plays within the New Dutch Waterline. Prior to this, the Waterline played little to no role in the marketing of the castle or the attractions available, but because of the difficulty in obtaining funding from the Province of Gelderland, the application by Slot Loevestein reframed the relationship between the castle and the Waterline by placing an emphasis upon it in order to obtain this funding. The Waterline here was used as a framing tool and Slot Loevestein management only reframed the castle to emphasize its relationship with the Waterline when it was necessary to do so. 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 96 CHAPTER 8 - Case Study 3: Slot Loevestein
Despite this, the main focus of a marketing strategy for the castle would emphasize the theme of water. Here the historical aspects of the castle are playing a secondary role and even though water and the Waterline share an intimate relationship, this would not be emphasized. Here the Waterline has been reframed because it is seen as being inadequate on its own if it were the focus, and instead it is more suitable with a supporting function, which can be used to secure funding.
Stichting Nationale Waterlinie Musea, the collaboration between Slot Loevestein, Fort Vechten and Fort Naarden, is related to this problem of securing funding, but because it directly involved in one of the other case studies it will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 9.
Province of Gelderland
The National Government of the Netherlands provide around €400,000 each year for the preservation of the collection, reconstruction and also to keep the museum open to visitors. As a result, the Province of Gelderland are reluctant to provide financial assistance to Slot Loevestein and therefore appear to have reframed the castle as being a financial responsibility of the higher level of government. This is a result of the relationship between the three levels of government in the Netherlands, because if one level provides some form of funding, then the other two levels are reluctant to do so as well as they no longer see it as their responsibility to do so.
This is evident in the fact that even though the Province of Gelderland had a pool of financial resources available for endeavours related to the National Waterline Project, it was the responsibility of Slot Loevestein to approach the Province of Gelderland and after a protracted process which took five years the assistance was provided. Again, the Province had a specific frame that Slot Loevestein was not their responsibility because of the National Government funding. The Province only reframed their position after they were approached by the castle management who were emphasizing the relationship between Slot Loevestein and the Waterline.
This suggests that the Province of Gelderland had originally framed Slot Loevestein as not being particularly important for the success of the National Waterline Project. This is also supported by the fact that when asked about the UNESCO World Heritage Status nomination, the management of Slot Loevestein stated that they had had little to no experience of it. The Province of Gelderland do not appear to have reframed Slot Loevestein as being an essential element of the possible UNESCO World Heritage Status, and the reason may be politically motivated and this will be further explored in Chapter 9 when comparisons are made between the case studies.
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 97 CHAPTER 8 - Case Study 3: Slot Loevestein Local Residents CHAPTER 9 Slot Loevestein has a functional relationship with the local residents of the area; in the area around Slot Loevestein there has been no opposition to any of the ongoing developments that have been ongoing, Conclusions but local residents are still not willing to volunteer and assist at the castle. However, the reasons behind the reluctance of local residents to volunteer and get involved is that the opening of Slot Loevestein on Sundays conflicts with their religious beliefs and this conflicts with their existing religious frame that they must not work on Sunday, and will not volunteer because the castle opens on this day.
This has defied one of the hypotheses of this research paper, because it was expected thatlocal residents would be opposed to redevelopment of structures on the Waterline because of the potential negative effects that an influx of visitors could bring. It can be theorized that local residents have a particular frame in which they accept that because Slot Loevestein has functioned as a museum for so many years and has such a rich and important history, it is to be expected that tourists will continually visit the site, so therefore this particular frame is resistant to change.
Overall Framing of Conservation Through Development
Slot Loevestein has already been able to attract strong visitor numbers and was successfully utilizing its own version of conservation through development where revenue (either from the castle or from the different level of the government) is reinvested back to both conserve what already exists and to develop new projects. Despite the continuing development and the large number of visitors, this frame of conservation through development which has been established appears to be shared not only by the management of Slot Loevestein and the local residents, but also by the National Government and the Province of Gelderland, though in the case of Gelderland it requires a significant amount of time and persuasion for them to reframe the castle in this way. In terms of the Waterline, the management of Slot Loevestein have linked the relationship between the castle and the Waterline because it served the purpose of furthering that goal.
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 98 CHAPTER 9 Conclusions
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 99 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 100 CHAPTER 9 - Conclusions
CONCLUSIONS
Not only does the New Dutch Waterline cover a very large geographical area of eighty five kilometres, it also intersects a vast and incredibly complicated political web; there are five different ministries, five different provinces, twenty five municipalities, as well as the NGOs such as Staatsbosbeheer, Natuurmonumenten, in addition to the ordinary citizens of the Netherlands.
The Belvedere Memorandum and Panorama Krayenhoff reframed the vacant fortifications of the New Dutch Waterline from vacant structures which once held a military function to an enormous national project which would be approached with the collective action frame of conservation through development by these multiple stakeholders.
The theoretical framework examined the various concepts which were deemed most relevant to this research paper and guided the research design and choice of empirical methods. The guiding principle of the National Waterline Project is conservation through development and in the ten years since the publication of this document, various projects have been initiated.
Certain fortifications were identified as having recent, ongoing or planned development and therefore there must have been a decision making process which involved multiple stakeholders, each with their own particular frames of conservation and development. It was hypothesized that because of changing real world economic conditions, these stakeholders would have reframed their interpretations of the conservation and development concepts.
This led to the selection of three case studies and various stakeholders were identified and interviewed. These stakeholders have served as the units of analysis and in the preceding three chapters, these cases have been individually discussed and analysed, with conclusions drawn related specifically to that particular case study. In the following chapter, each of the three case studies will be compared and contrasted to look for consensus, overlap and conflicts, and overall conclusions will be drawn.
Furthermore, within each conclusion it will be discussed whether or not any generalizations may be made about the Waterline as a whole, and whether or not these conclusions follow the hypotheses of this research paper. Each of these conclusions are interlinked and are related to one another.
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 101 CHAPTER 9 - Conclusions
CONCLUSION 1: Global Financial Crisis Has Had Significant Impact upon the Waterline
Slot Loevestein has defied the expectation that the global financial crisis would have a significant impact, because prior to this the castle was already developing new projects, and was highly successful in maintaining large numbers of visitors every year. Despite this, the management of Slot Loevestein sought alliances with other historic structures and eventually Waterline locations as a partnership would be mutually beneficial for each party involved.
The management of Fort Vechten’s National Waterline Museum have had many difficulties prior to opening and so are already seeking out partnership. In stark contrast to Slot Loevestein, Fort Vechten in particular has been greatly affected by the global financial crisis. Therefore, Fort Vechten, Slot Loevestein (and also Fort Naarden) are currently working together to create the joint organisation Stichting Nationale Waterlinie Musea.
This organisation is the direct result of reframing in response to particular issues; in the case of Fort Vechten it has been anticipated that it will be difficult to attract the required number of visitors to the National Waterline Museum so it believes that it can learn from the success of Slot Loevestein, and in the case of Slot Loevestein it is anticipated that it will be much easier to secure additional funding thanks to this cooperation so that it may reinvest in the castle and in future projects (the protracted five year experience of securing funding from the Province of Gelderland may have played a significant role in this realisation).
The management of these locations have therefore responded by reframing a solution where they will cooperate with one another in a joint venture which will make it much easier to secure funding from the National Government and from Europe if they work together.
Stichting Uiteraard Uitermeer on the other hand, appears to be working entirely independently and have not pursued any additional professional or commercial alliances. Despite the effects of the global financial crisis and the withdrawal of private funding which had been promised at the outset ofthe project, the team behind Stichting Uiteraard Uitermeer outright refused to reframe their plans, as they feared that any new alliances would force them to compromise on their original vision. Although they realised it would require a much greater amount of time to achieve, the actual content of their plan would remain the same, as the team believed so strongly in their vision and their own local and professional knowledge.
This is supported by the fact that the Waterline had a Quality Team which consisted of various experts who could lend their expertise to stakeholders in Waterline projects; however, the stakeholders are not under an obligation to follow this advice and, Stichting Uiteraard Uitermeer did not approach the Quality Team for their assistance.
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 102 CHAPTER 9 - Conclusions
Generalisations about the Waterline
The effect of the global financial crisis cannot be understated, because when the National Waterline Project was first launched, the Netherlands was in a very, very different economic situation, with lots of possibilities and promises made of funding and support. With the onset of the financial crisis, this support and financing rapidly dwindled,
Fort Uitermeer has not had to reframe its conservation through development, though this is largely thanks to the sheer dedication of Stichting Uiteraard Uitermeer, and although they had to greatly extend the timeframe. This can be explained by the fact that Stichting Uiteraard Uitermeer are made up of local professionals who care deeply about the location and this sense of ownership has ensured the protection of the fortification.
However, other fortifications in the Netherlands are unlikely to be so fortunate, and must seek new alliances with investors and entrepreneurs, which will likely lead to a joint reframing of the fortifications as a commercial development opportunity which will compromise on the conservation aspect of conservation through development.
This is further supported by the fact that the National Government are about to withdraw their political support of the project and put it in the hands of the Provinces. It is now the responsibility of these Provinces to find the revenue necessary for the completion of the projects and as the global financial crisis has deeply affected their availability of funding, the must find other sources of finance. This withdrawal of National Government support happened much earlier than anticipated and is the subject of the following conclusion.
CONCLUSION 2: Withdrawal of Government Support Was Inevitable but Happened Earlier Than Expected
The National Government had always planned to eventually withdraw from their leadership role, but as a consequence of the global financial crisis they have done so much earlier than they or the provinces had anticipated. At the outset of this research this plan to eventually withdraw was not known.
At Fort Vechten the National Government was initially putting a lot of support behind the National Waterline Museum which was seen as a highly prestigious project. In addition many politicians and developers had offered their names and support, as it would look good for them by association, but with the problems faced by the Museum they support has already begun to waver.
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 103 CHAPTER 9 - Conclusions
Fort Uitermeer has managed to continue its development through the perseverance of the Foundation behind it, so the withdrawal of government support has not been significantly felt at this location. The initial sources of funding did not include the National Government, as the Foundation made arrangements elsewhere.
Slot Loevestein already receives some financial support from the National Government, but it is not a lot, meaning that not only does Slot Loevestein need to look for other opportunities to generate revenue, but they also have difficulty obtaining financial support from the local and provincial levels of government.
Generalisations about the Waterline
In the research hypothesis, it was anticipated that the global economic recession would be the largest contributing factor behind the need to reframe the fortifications, however this apparent withdrawal of government support before the crisis was not identified and according to the various interviewees this has played a crucial role in the recent history of the Waterline.
The Dutch government of the late 1990s and early 2000s were dominated by left wing parties which had placed culture quite high on their agendas. However, when government control shifted to more right wing parties, the cultural sector was not as important, so even before the global financial crisis the government support had begun to waiver for the National Waterline Project, and the global financial crisis further exacerbated this. The National Waterline Project is not alone, as government funding has been significantly reduced in almost all sectors.
Finance (or a lack of it) always plays a significant role in the Waterline, because when a development is proposed there always appears to be some kind of dispute between certain stakeholders, “this argument comes up, and then it’s solved in a practical way, but it is always there” (Zakee, R. 2014). Whenever funding is available, this removes or lessens any potential conflicts between stakeholders, but when there are questions surrounding where the funding will come from then this will lead to a reframing of the problem into conflicts. Further conflicts are anticipated between the Provinces and this is the topic of the next conclusion.
CONCLUSION 3: Lack of Co-Operation Will Lead To Provincial Power Imbalances
Each of the three levels of government within the Netherlands appeared to have a common frame on providing financial support prior to the withdrawal of the National Government. In the case of Slot Loevestein, because the National Government already provides some funding for the maintenance of the museum, the other levels of government therefore do not see it is as their obligation to provide additional funding. Even when Slot Loevestein applied to the Province of Gelderland for money 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 104 CHAPTER 9 - Conclusions allocated for promoting the Waterline, the province were still reluctant to provide funding and this became a very drawn out process.
At the outset of this research project, Stichting Nationale Waterlinie Musea was a complete unknown, and Slot Loevestein, Fort Vechten and Fort Naarden have created an entirely new alliance because of changing real world conditions. This organisation has reframed the Waterline as three sections: the North, the Middle, and the South; rather than as one cohesive unit and this is different frame to the vision of Panorama Krayenhoff, which has not been updated since its publication. It can therefore be assumed that other fortifications are likely to have reframed their place within the Waterline and have forged new alliances with one another or with private developers. As this organisation is still in the planning stages, it is not possible to say with any accuracy what the implications will be for the conservation through development ambition.
In regards to Fort Uitermeer, which is a very small scale project, there has been a high resistance to external pressures and influences. Fort Uitermeer shows the power and influence that local people can have, especially when they have reframed the fortification so that they feel a sense of ownership and are very protective of it.
Generalisations about the Waterline
Now that the Provincial level has control of the project, they also must share this task and cooperate if they are to be successful, but this will not be entirely straightforward; based on past experience, this is demonstrated very well in the collapse of the public bus service to Slot Loevestein, as the Provinces of Gelderland, Noord-Brabant and Zuid-Holland each had their own priorities and were unable to successfully work together.
Each of the five provinces has reframed the Waterline in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, which exasperated existing imbalances in wealth and political power and influence. This point will be further elaborated upon in the subsequent conclusion (but is still related to the possible power imbalance) which deals with the UNESCO World Heritage Status nomination.
CONCLUSION 4: Importance of UNESCO World Heritage Status Nomination Not Acknowledged
One way of raising the profile of the Waterline on both the national and international level would be though a successful UNESCO nomination. The New Dutch Waterline has been on the tentative list for UNESCO nominations since 1996, but with little drive behind the nomination. This would change after the Waterline was nominated as the biggest national monument in the Netherlands, and the Waterline was evaluated in 2010 for world heritage nomination. 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 105 CHAPTER 9 - Conclusions
In terms of the nomination, “the forts on their own are not internationally that unique and significant that they constitute an immediately attractive prospect for UNESCO” (Bishop, A, 2014). However, if they are considered as part of a unified entity then they are much more appealing for UNESCO. This World Heritage designation represents a global branding opportunity and there are multiple benefits that would come with a World Heritage designation, and while there would be somewhat of an increase in the amount of people visiting the Waterline, it is the profileof these visitors who are of particular interest.
Fort Uitermeer has had almost no direct involvement with the UNESCO nomination of the New Dutch Waterline. Already a part of the Stelling van Amsterdam (along with several other fortifications in the Province of Noord-Holland), which has UNESCO World Heritage Status, this is a feature shared by many other fortresses in Noord-Holland.
Fort Vechten, being the second largest fortification on the Waterline and having received the bulk of financial investment from the Province of Utrecht, would greatly benefit from the Waterline receiving World Heritage Status, as it would act as a focal point for the influx of new international tourists to the area.
Slot Loevestein has had almost no involvement in the UNESCO nomination process, which is highly surprising considering its rich history and the strength it could lend to the success of the nomination.
Generalisations about the Waterline
The differing levels of involvement by these three locations is highly dependent upon which Province they are situated in, and from this it is possible to make stronger assertions and generalizations about the support that each Province has for the UNESCO nomination and the overall faith that they place in the National Waterline Project.
As the national government have relinquished control of the National Waterline Project to the Provincial level, each of the five provinces has reframed the Waterline in terms of the UNESCO nomination. Each province has a different interest, even though it would be mutually beneficial for each party to cooperate. Noord-Holland already has the Stelling van Amsterdam which has World Heritage Status. Zuid-Holland became frustrated with the process and has withdrawn their support, as they already have parts of the Old Dutch Waterline. Each of the Provinces only seem to be interested in the fortifications which lie within their borders, although Gelderland show great interesting in viewing the Waterline as an entire entity.
Fort Vechten already has multiple concerns before it has even opened and the Province of Utrecht have invested a huge amount of their time, finance and resources into this single fortification, which will be the focal point of the centre of the New Dutch Waterline. The Province of Utrecht have 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 106 CHAPTER 9 - Conclusions arguably the greatest interest in a successful UNESCO nomination, but faces a significant hurdle because currently a problem concerning the broadening of a lekkanaal. This channel is very important for economic purposes, but the direction that the province was to broaden it into would encroach on land which is part of the New Dutch Waterline, and this creates a conflict of interest. On one side there are the economic benefits, but such a development could encroach on an area which is crucial to the UNESCO bid, and so the other provinces do not want Utrecht to pursue this development. Here the management office will try to mediate, and this is especially important because “you have of course political leaders who find important the economic purpose, and in these times, the economic purpose always wins” (Raats, K, 2014). The outcome of this matter should act as an indicator of just how important economic considerations are to the Province of Utrecht.
The office of the Dienst Landelijk Gebied (DLG) are still in the process of reframing exactly what the borders of the site are going to be, a task which must be completed by November of 2014, but this process still has not been completed as each province does not want to make exact commitments.
Reframing by each of the provinces to see the mutual benefits of a UNESCO bid might be essential in ensuring its success, however this will not be so easily achieved. It has also been argued that it is not the UNESCO nomination itself that is important, rather it is the ability of the provinces to cooperate with one another, because if they cannot, then the consequences for the future of the Waterline will be placed in severe jeopardy “Maybe that’s the one thing keeping the five provinces together because that is what they really want so that’s why they have to work together” (Will, C. 2014).
Whether it succeeds or fails the UNESCO World Heritage Status nomination is likely to have profound consequences for the future of the Waterline. Should the nomination be successful, this will raise the profile and awareness of the Waterline on a global scale, and will be able to attract tourists who will want to visit the Waterline based on that World Heritage Status alone. This influx of people will place a burden on the conservational aspirations of the Waterline, because these new people will require (and expect) certain facilities (e.g. cafes, restrooms etc.) and services (e.g. transportation) and it will be extremely interesting to see how the various stakeholders deal with this.
While it was hypothesized in this research paper that the UNESCO bid would be very important, it was not anticipated that each of the Provinces would each have reframed it so differently from one another and despite the marketing opportunity it offers, the Provinces do not seem to realise the mutual benefit of this
The issue of the Province of Utrecht and the possible expansion of the lekkanaal is directly related to the issue of the reframing of conservation through development, which will be discussed in the following conclusion. 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 107 CHAPTER 9 - Conclusions
CONCLUSION 5: Conservation through Development Can Be Achieved Through Significant Effort
This research paper hypothesised that the global financial crisis would have a significant impact upon the frames of the various stakeholders involved in the Waterline and this would require them to reframe the fortifications in the context of the heritage paradox. The global economic recession would have important consequences as the political leaders lost a lot of faith in the project, and in the cultural sector itself, so they withdrew a significant amount of political or financial support. What little money that had been reserved for light development and even then the projected timeframes were greatly extended, “what they did was saying first of all ‘was to build them within two years, and now they say well now we are going to build them within fifteen years’ so they stretched the period” (Raats, K. 2014).
Slot Loevestein would seem to be focused heavily on development due to the many ongoing projects at this site, but it appears that revenue that is generated is always invested back into the castle, not just for future projects but also for the conservation of the area. Slot Loevestein has managed to strike a very careful balance between conservation and development, and although it is recognized that development is very important for the future of Loevestein, this development should never compromise the integrity of the area.
Fort Uitermeer has also achieved similar success in achieving conservation through development, and this is because of two very important factors. Firstly, the Foundation behind the development all came from the area and had a very strong understanding of what would be suitable and fitting for the location and were able to convince the Province of Noord-Holland. Secondly, when faced with financial uncertainty Stichting Uiteraard Uitermeer refused to pursue commercialization of the fortification as they felt that it could have a negative effect on the area because of the significant development it would entail.
Fort Vechten is truly focused on development with no apparent consideration of conservation. The global financial crisis has forced the private entrepreneur who promised funding to pursue even greater levels of commercialization in order to generate the revenue that was promised, and this could lead to disputes once the Museum opens. Furthermore, the Museum is struggling to build a collection and there are doubts about whether or not it will be able to attract enough visitors, and any efforts to do so are like to increase development levels.
Generalisations about the Waterline
Before the Waterline was brought on to the national agenda, most of the fortifications were abandoned and had fallen into a serious state of disrepair, and had these structures been left alone they would have continued to decay. Due to the high costs involved not only in the preservation of these fortifications but also in their continued maintenance, and if there is little to no subsidy available, 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 108 CHAPTER 9 - Conclusions then some form of development is necessary to generate the revenue necessary to conserve the site. As previously discussed, especially in the case of Fort Uitermeer, most of the Netherlands is man- made, yet it features some spectacular areas of outstanding natural beauty. Certain developers or architects have created a frame that sees nature as ‘ongoing’, which can lead them into opposition with other groups, especially concerned private citizens who have reframed nature as ‘finished’ and in need of their protection from any form of development.
Nevertheless, this frame of nature as ‘ongoing’ is shared by stakeholders, but they exact meaning and specifications are reframed according to the demands of the particular stakeholder group, and is subject to the availability of financing, because as previously explained, in times of financial uncertainty, the fortification is likely to be reframed towards the development end of the spectrum.
CONCLUSION 6: Fortifications Have Special Meaning Attached but are not the Focus of Attention
Each of the three case study locations had some form of symbology attached to the framing by the various stakeholders. However, this symbology usually focused on something other than the actual fortification and when it came to the subject of marketing or advertising, there was an emphasis placed on the power of the intangible symbols, rather than the tangible. For example, in reference to Fort Vehcten “gives you this sense of being at a special place” (Zakee, R. 2014); in the case of fort Uitermeer Fort Uitermeer “this is a special place to enjoy nature, to tell about the nature” (Roozen, N. 2014); and as for Slot Loevestein “I think that people will look for some places where they can rest…Loevestein is one of the fifty spots in Holland, where you go, where you can stay, where you can sit, where you can meet people” (Stijns, I. 2014).
Generalisations about the Waterline
This is one of the few conclusions where there is definitive overlap and consensus among all of the case studies and this allows stronger generalizations to be about the Waterline as a whole. Though the actual fortification is the most visible element, through the fortifications various stakeholders reframe the aura of the area immediately around it, which can create a sense of ownership, or creates stories and narratives about the area. Without the presence of the fortifications this is unlikely to have happened. In terms of promoting the fortifications through marketing, rather than focus on the historic aspects of the fortification itself it may be worthwhile to try an alternative option.
“I think people enjoy the atmosphere of the place because it’s a fort but they don’t really enjoy the historic background of the fort itself so it’s secondary so to speak” (Zakee, R. 2014). The historic value of the Waterline should be used as a kind of special background for alternative uses, and in this capacity, the Waterline plays a supporting role rather than being the central focus. 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 109 CHAPTER 9 - Conclusions
FINAL CONCLUSIONS
The New Dutch Waterline is currently situated on a precipice because it is undeniable that the impact of the global financial crisis has been hugely significant. Many projects which were initiated prior to 2008 have found that the financial resources which were once promised had disappeared and as a result this threatened the integrity of the preliminary vision: would it be possible to realise the original frame of conservation through development or would this be reframed into something which altered and compromised this initial goal?
When the vision is strong enough and the team behind it is dedicated then instances such as Fort Uitermeer have shown that it is possible to keep the original frame, though it may require a significantly greater timeframe to do so. In other cases, such as Fort Vechten, when a project is so large and when so much depends upon its success, then economic incentives are very persuasive in reframing of conservation through development towards outright development.
Analysis of the case studies leads this researcher to conclude that the project is likely to fail in achieving conservation through development, given the recent difficulties it has faced. The effects of the global financial crisis make it increasingly likely that new alliances will have to be sought, and should these be with commercial developers and private entrepreneurs, then it is likely that these stakeholders will reframe conservation through development towards the development end of the spectrum.
This is unlikely to go unopposed however, as the fortifications of the New Dutch Waterline, and especially the natural areas immediately around them have been reframed as having special symbolic meaning to a wide range of stakeholders such as politicians, professionals and ordinary citizens alike.
The former National Advisor on Landscape Architecture Dirk Sijmons, described the fortifications as “buildings with a soul” (Zakee, R. 2014) and he argued that while it was possible to change the buildings themselves, it was crucial to never change the soul of the place. It has been argued that the general public strongly related to this view, and they attach their own special meanings to the fortifications. However, it is much easier to uphold these frames when financing is not such a pressing concern.
The UNESCO World Heritage Status Nomination presents an enormous marketing opportunity and the chance to raise the profile and awareness of the Waterline on an international level. Perhaps even more importantly, it has the potential to unite the five Provinces who have been handed the reins of the National Waterline Project. However, each of them appears to have reframed the Waterline according to their own interests and have subsequently created their own individual frames, putting the success of the project even further in question. 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 110 CHAPTER 9 - Conclusions
The government still has a small number of vacant fortifications and the search for new owners and new uses is experiencing trouble. Although the Netherlands are slowly recovering from the effects of the recession, when asked if the fortifications are seen as development opportunities and a chance to generate revenue, one interviewee responded “I think it’s exactly the other way around” (Raats, K. 2014). It would seem that private developers do not have faith in the vacant fortifications and have therefore reframed them as not being worthwhile potential investment opportunities and this puts the success of the National Waterline Project in serious doubt.
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 111 CHAPTER 10 Bibliography
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 112 CHAPTER 10 Bibliography
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 113 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 114 CHAPTER 10 - Bibliography
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Literature
1. Ahmad, Y. (2006) “The Scope and Definitions of Heritage: From Tangible to Intangible”International Journal of Heritage Studies, 12 (3): 292-300
2. Akagawa, N. and Sirisrisak, T. (2008) “Cultural Landscapes in Asia and the Pacific: Implications of the World Heritage Conservation”, International Journal of Heritage Studies 14 (2): 176-191
3. Alberts, H.C. and Hazen, H.D. (2010) “Maintaining Authenticity And Integrity At Cultural World Heritage Sites” The Geographical Review 100 (1): 56-73
4. Anderson, W. (2009) “Promoting ecotourism through networks: case studies in the Baleric Islands”, Journal of Ecotourism 8 (1): 51-69
5. Antrop, M. (2005) “Why landscapes of the past are important for the future” Landscape and Urban Planning 70 (1-2): 21-34
6. Assche, K. van and Duineveld, M. (2013) “The good, the bad and the self-referential: heritage planning and the productivity of difference”, International Journal of Heritage Studies 19 (1): 1-15
7. Baird, M.F. (2012) “ ‘The breath of the mountain is my heart’: indigenous cultural landscapes and the politics of heritage”, International Journal of heritage Studies, 19 (4): 327-340
8. Beck, W. (2006) “Narratives of World Heritage in Travel Guidebooks”, International Journal of Heritage Studies 12 (6): 521-535
9. Belvedere Memorandum (1999) The Belvedere Memorandum: A policy document examining the relationship between cultural history and spatial planning. The Hague: The Netherlands
10. Benford, R.D., Snow, D.A. (2000) “Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment” Annual Review of Sociology, 26 (2000): 611-639
11. Bowen, G.A. (2006) “Grounded Theory and Sensitizing Concepts” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5 (3): 12-23
12. Braun, E. (2008) City Marketing: Towards an Integrated Approach. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM). Available from http://repub.eur.nl/pub/13694/ [Accessed 10 Nov 2013]
13. Brown, S. McDonagh, P. and Shultz, C. (2012) “Dark marketing: Ghost in the machine or skeleton in the cupboard?” European Business Review 24 (3) 196-214
14. Catsadorakis, G. (2007) “The Conservation of Natural and Cultutal Heritage in Europe and the Mediterranean: A Gordian Knot?”, International Journal of Heritage Studies 13 (4-5): 308-320
15. Charmaz, K. (2002). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In J. Gubrium & J.A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research (311-330). Thousand Oaks: Sage
16. Cheng, E.W. and Ma, S-Y. (2009) “Heritage Conservation through Private Donation: The Case of Dragon Garden in Hong Kong” International Journal of Heritage Studies 15 (6): 511-528 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 115 CHAPTER 10 - Bibliography
17. Corbin, J.M. and Strauss, A. (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. California: SAGE Publications
18. CPB (2009) The Netherlands is in a deep recession. The Hague: Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis. Available at: http://www.cpb.nl/en/pressrelease/329812/cpb-netherlands-deep- recession (Accessed 1 March 2014)
19. CPB (2014) Slight Economic Recovery. The Hague: Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis. Available at: http://www.cpb.nl/en/pressrelease/3214653/cpb-slight-economic-recovery (Accessed 1 March 2014)
20. Deltawerken (2014) The Delta Works. The Netherlands: Delta Works Online Foundation. Available from: http://www.deltawerken.com/ (Accessed 1 November 2014)
21. Dembski, S., 2012. In Search of Symbolic Marker: Transforming the Urbanized Landscape of the Rotterdam Rijnmond. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, pp. 1-21
22. Doevendans, K. Lörzing H. and Schram, A. (2007) “From Modernist Landscapes to New Nature: Planning of Rural Utopias in The Netherlands”, Landscape Research 32 (3): 333-354
23. Donohoe, H.M. (2011) “Sustainable heritage tourism marketing and Canada’s Rideau Canal world heritage site” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 20 (1): 121-142
24. Edelenbos, J. Klok, P-J and Tatenhove, J van (2009) “The Institutional Embedding of Interactive Policy Making. Insights From a Comparative Research Based on Eight Interactive Projects in the Netherlands”, The American Review of Public Administration 39 (2): 125-148
25. Edson, G. (2004) “Heritage: Pride or passion, product or service?”, International Journal of Heritage Studies 10 (4): 333-348
26. Eikelenboom, K. (2005) Symbolic meaning in policy processes: The New Dutch Waterline. Master’s Thesis. University of Amsterdam
27. Faulkner, B. (2002) “Rejuvenating a Maturing Tourist Destination: The Case of the Gold Coast”, Current Issues in Tourism 5 (6): 470-520
28. Fuentes, J.M. Gallego, E. Garc ía, A.I. Ayuga, F. (2010) “New uses for old traditional farm buildings: The case of the underground wine cellars in Spain” Land Use Policy 27 (3): 738-748
29. Grenier, D. Kaae, B.C. Miller, M.L and Mobley, R.W. (1993) “Ecotourism, landscape architecture and urban planning”, Landscape and Urban Planning 25 (1-2): 1-16
30. Hajer, M. and Reijndorp, A. (2004) “Heritage Discourse and Public Space”. In: Deben, L, Salet, W and Van Thoor, M. (eds.) Cultural Heritage and the Future of the Historic Inner City of Amsterdam. The Netherlands: Aksant Academic Publishers (16pp)
31. Hodge, C.J. (2011) “A new model for memory work: nostalgic discourse at a historic home”, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 17 (2): 116-135
32. Howard, P. (2002) “The Eco-museum, innovation that risks the future” International Journal of Heritage Studies 8 (1): 63-72
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 116 CHAPTER 10 - Bibliography
33. Janssen (2009 a) “Sustainable development and protected landscapes: the case of The Netherlands” International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 16 (1): 37-47
34. Janssen (2009 b) “Protected Landscapes in the Netherlands:changing ideas and approaches”, Planning Perspectives, 24 (4): 435-455
35. Janssen, J., Luiten, E., Renes, H. and Rouwendal, J. (2012) “Heritage Planning and Spatial Development in the Netherlands: Changing Policies and Perspectives” International Journal of Heritage Studies, 20 (1) 1-21
36. Kaijser, A. (2002) “System Building from Below Institutional Change in Dutch Water Control Systems”, Technology and Culture, 43 (3), 521-548
37. Kolar, T. and Zabkar, V. (2009) “A consumer-based model of authenticity: An oxymoron or the foundation of cultural heritage marketing?” Tourism Management 31 (2010): 652-664
38. Kreijger, G. (2013) Dutch economy struggling to pull out of recession – central bank.[online] UK: Reuters UK. Available from: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/06/10/uk-dutch-economy- idUKBRE9590EQ20130610 [Accessed 22 March 2014]
39. Laing, J. Wheeler, F. Reeves, K. Frost, W. (2014) “Assessing the experiential value of heritage assets: A case study of a Chinese heritage precinct, Bendigo, Australia” Tourism Management 40 (2014): 180-192
40. Libosada Jr. C.M. (2009) “Business or leisure? Economic development and resource protection- Concept and practices in sustainable ecotourism” Ocean and Coastal Management 52 (7) 390-394
41. Lichrou, M. O’ Malley, L. and Patterson, M. (2010) “Narratives of a tourist destination: Local particularities and their implications of place marketing and branding” Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 6 (2) 134-143
42. Lintsen, H. (2002) “Two Centuries of Central Water Management in the Netherlands” Technology and Culture, 43 (3), 549-568
43. McIntosh, A.J. (1999) “Affirming Authenticity. Consuming Cultural Heritage” Annals of Tourism Research 26 (3): 589-612
44. Nas, P.J.M. (1998), Introduction: Congealed Time, Compressed Place; Roots and Branches of Urban Symbolic Ecology, in: International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol. 22, (4): 545-549
45. National Project Waterline, 2014.The Dutch Waterline [online] Utrecht: National Waterline Project. Available from: http://www.hollandsewaterlinie.nl/pages/the-dutch-waterline.aspx [Accessed 1 March 2014]
46. Nikodemus, O. Bell, S. Grı̄ ne, I. and Liepiš, I. (2005) “The impact of economic, social and political factors on the landscape structure of the Viszeme Uplands in Latvia” Landscape and Urban Planning 70 (1-2): 57-67
47. Palang, H. Helmfrid, S. Antrop, M. and Alumäe, H. (2005) “Rural Landscapes: past processes and future strategies” Landscape and Urban Planning 70 (1-2): 3-8
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 117 CHAPTER 10 - Bibliography
48. Peterson, R.A. (2005) “In Search of Authenticity” Journal of Management Studies 42 (5): 1083-1098
49. Rein, M. and Laws, D.(2000) Controversy, reframing and reflection, in: W. Salet and A. Faludi (eds.) The Revival of Strategic Spatial Planning, Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences pp. 93-108
50. Reuss, M. (2002) “Learning from the Dutch Technology, Management, and Water Resources Development”, Technology and Culture, 43 (3), 465-472
51. Rooijendijk, C., 2004. The Narrow-Mindeness of Contemporary Devotees of Cultural Heritage. In: L. Deben, W. Salet & M. Van Thoor, eds. Cultural Heritage and the Future of the Historic Inner City of Amsterdam. The Netherlands: Aksant Academic Publishers
52. Sharp, L. And Richardson, T. (2001) “Reflections on Foucauldian Discourse Analysis in Planning and Environmental Policy Research” Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning. 3 (3): 193-209
53. Shetter, W.Z. (2002) The Netherlands in Perspective. 4th edition. Nederlands Centrum Buitenlanders: Utrecht
54. Stuurgroep Nationaal Project Nieuwe Hollandse Waterlinie (2004), Panorama Krayenhoff Linieperspectief. Utrecht: Projectbureau Nationaal Project Nieuwe Hollandse Waterlinie
55. Talbot, D. (2007) Saving Holland [online] Massachusetts: MIT Technology Review. Available from http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/408182/saving-holland/ [Accessed 1 May 2014]
56. Tallon, A. (2010) Urban Regeneration in the UK, 1st ed. London: Routledge.
57. TeBrake, W. H. (2002) “Taming the Waterwolf: Hydraulic Engineering and Water Management in the Netherlandsduring the Middle Ages” Technology and Culture, 43 (3), 475-499
58. Turnpenny. M. (2004) “Cultural Heritage, an Ill-defined Concept? A Call for Joined-up Policy”, International Journal of Heritage Studies 10 (3): 295-307
59. UNWCED: United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our Common Future (Brundtland Report). Oxford: Oxford University Press
60. Van Der Valk, A. (2013) Preservation and Development: The Cultural Landscape and Heritage Paradox in the Netherlands, Landscape Research, DOI: 10.1080/01426397.2012.761680
61. Vink, M.P.M. (2009) “Freedom and Slavery: The Dutch Republic, the VOC World, and the Debate over the ‘World’s Oldest Trade”, South African Historical Journal 59 (1): 19-46
62. Waterline Werelderfgoed, 2014. The Old Dutch Waterline [online]. Utrecht: Waterline Werelderfgoed. Available from: http://www.waterliniewerelderfgoed.nl/home.html [Accessed 1 March 2014]
63. Winter (2008) “Post-conflict Heritage and Tourism in Cambodia: The Burden of Angkor”,International Journal of Heritage Studies 14 (6): 524-539
64. Yin, R.K. (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods 4th ed. California: Sage
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 118 CHAPTER 10 - Bibliography
Interviews
1. Bishop, A. (2014) Interview 1 [interview]. 29th April 2014
2. Roozen, N. (2014) Interview 2 [interview]. 2nd May 2014
3. Raats, K. (2014) Interview 3 [interview]. 30th May 2014
4. Zakee, R. (2014) Interview 4 [interview]. 5th June 2014
5. Will, C. (2014) Interview 5 [interview]. 10th June 2014
6. Muilwijk, M. (2014) Interview 6 [interview]. 10th June 2014
7. Kuypers, P. (2014) Interview 7 [interview]. 10th June 2014
8. Stijns, I. (2014) Interview 8 [interview]. 16th June 2014
9. Bootsma, J. (2014) Interview 9 [interview]. 3rd July 2014
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 119 CHAPTER 10 - Bibliography
Images
Front Cover
Hollandse Waterlinie National Project (2014) Visiting the forts [online] Available from: http://www. hollandsewaterlinie.nl/pages/visiting-the-forts.aspx [Accessed 1 May 2014]
Chapter Title Pages
Steenbergen, C. van der Zwart, J. and Grootens, J. (2009) Atlas of the New Dutch Water Defence Line. 1st ed. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers
Images Within Text
Figure 1. Expedition Earth (2011) The Netherlands – a low-lying country. Expedition Earth [online] Available from: http://expeditieaarde.blogspot.nl/2011/12/netherlands-low-lying-country.html [Accessed 1 May 2014]
Figure 2. Steenbergen, C. van der Zwart, J. and Grootens, J. (2009) Atlas of the New Dutch Water Defence Line. 1st ed. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers
Figure 3. Steenbergen, C. van der Zwart, J. and Grootens, J. (2009) Atlas of the New Dutch Water Defence Line. 1st ed. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers
Figure 4. Steenbergen, C. van der Zwart, J. and Grootens, J. (2009) Atlas of the New Dutch Water Defence Line. 1st ed. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers
Figure 5. Stuurgroep Nationaal Project Nieuwe Hollandse Waterlinie (2004) Panorama Krayenhoff – Linieperspectief. 1st ed. Utrecht: Stuurgroep Nationaal Project Nieuwe Hollandse Waterlinie
Figure 6. Hollandse Waterlinie National Project (2014) Wegwijs in de Waterlinie [online]. Available at: http://www.hollandsewaterlinie.nl/pages/werkzaamheden.aspx [Accessed 10 Jan 2014]
Figure 7. Hollandse Waterlinie National Project (2014) Tourist Map [online]. Available at: http://www. hollandsewaterlinie.nl/pages/toeristische-kaart.aspx [Accessed 10 Jan 2014]
Figure 8. Hollandse Waterlinie National Project (2014) NHW in Google Maps [online]. Available at: http://www.hollandsewaterlinie.nl/pages/nhw-in-googlemaps.aspx [Accessed 10 Jan 2014]
Figure 9. Google Maps. 2014. Fort Uitermeer Aerial, scale unknown. Google Maps [online] Available from: https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?t=h&sll=51.816425,5.021351&sspn=0.0049912,0.0107654&cid =1436781373045453633&q=Loevestein+Castle&output=classic&dg=opt [Accessed 1 May 2014]
Figure 10. Corey, C. (2014) Fort Uitermeer Site Panorama [Photograph] In possession of: The author: Amsterdam
Figure 11. Corey, C. (2014) Fort Uitermeer [Photograph] In possession of: The author: Amsterdam
Figure 12. Corey, C. (2014) Uit & Meer Restaurant [Photograph] In possession of: The author: Amsterdam
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 120 CHAPTER 10 - Bibliography
Figure 13. Corey, C. (2014) Fort Uitermeer Site Entrance [Photograph] In possession of: The author: Amsterdam
Figure 14. Corey, C. (2014) Stelling van Amsterdam Sign [Photograph] In possession of: The author: Amsterdam
Figure 15. Corey, C. (2014) Fort Uitermeer Harbour Panorama [Photograph] In possession of: The author: Amsterdam
Figure 16. Google Maps. 2014. Fort Vechten Aerial, scale unknown. Google Maps [online] Available from: https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?t=h&sll=51.816425,5.021351&sspn=0.0049912,0.0107654&ci d=1436781373045453633&q=Loevestein+Castle&output=classic&dg=opt [Accessed 1 May 2014]
Figure 17. Corey, C. (2014) Fort Vechten Car Park Entrance [Photograph] In possession of: The author: Amsterdam
Figure 18 Corey, C. (2014) Fort Vechten Moat [Photograph] In possession of: The author: Amsterdam
Figure 19. Corey, C. (2014) Fort Vechten Development [Photograph] In possession of: The author: Amsterdam
Figure 20. Corey, C. (2014) Fort Vechten Site Entrance [Photograph] In possession of: The author: Amsterdam
Figure 21. Corey, C. (2014) Fort Vechten Cut Section [Photograph] In possession of: The author: Amsterdam
Figure 22. Google Maps. 2014. Slot Loevestein Aerial, scale unknown. Google Maps [online] Available from: https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?t=h&sll=51.816425,5.021351&sspn=0.0049912,0.0107654&ci d=1436781373045453633&q=Loevestein+Castle&output=classic&dg=opt [Accessed 1 May 2014]
Figure 23. Corey, C. (2014) Slot Loevestein Entrance [Photograph] In possession of: The author: Amsterdam
Figure 24. Corey, C. (2014) Slot Loevestein Interior [Photograph] In possession of: The author: Amsterdam
Figure 25. Corey, C. (2014) Slot Loevestein Site Entrance [Photograph] In possession of: The author: Amsterdam
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 121 APPENDICES
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 122 APPENDICES
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 123 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 124 APPENDIX 1
APPENDIX 1 - SITE INCLUSION ACCORDING TO EACH MAP
Map 1 Sites Map 2 Sites Map 3 Sites Forteiland Pampus Forteiland Pampus Westbatterij Westbatterij Het Muiderslot Het Muiderslot Vesting Muiden Vesting Muiden Vesting Muiden Het Muizenfort Het Muizenfort Vesting Weesp Vesting Weesp Vesting Weesp Fort Ossenmarkt Fort Ossenmarkt Fort Ronduit Naarden Fort Ronduit Naarden Fort Ronduit Naarden Vesting Naarden Vesting Naarden Vesting Naarden Fort Uitermeer Fort Uitermeer Fort Uitermeer Batterij Karnemelksloot Batterij Karnemelksloot Batterij Karnemelksloot Fort Hinderdam Fort Hinderdam Fort Hinderdam Fietsbrug Nigtevecht Fort Werk IV Fort Werk IV De Franse Kamp De Franse Kamp Fort Kijkuit Fort Kijkuit Fort Kijkuit Fort Spion Fort Spion Fort Spion Fort Nieuwersluis Fort Nieuwersluis Fort Nieuwersluis Fort Tienhoven Fort Tienhoven Fort Tienhoven Werk bij Maarsseveen Werk bij Maarsseveen Werk bij Maarsseveen Fort de Gagel Fort de Gagel Fort de Gagel Fort op de Ruigenhoekse dijk Fort op de Ruigenhoekse dijk Fort op de Ruigenhoekse dijk Fort aan de Klop Fort aan de Klop Fort aan de Klop Fort Blauwkapel Fort Blauwkapel Fort Blauwkapel Fort op de Voordorpse dijk Fort op de Voordorpse dijk Fort op de Voordorpse dijk Werken bij Griftestein Fort op de Biltstraat Fort op de Biltstraat Fort op de Biltstraat Fort Hoofddijk Fort Hoofddijk Fort Hoofddijk Fort Vossegat Fort Vossegat Lunet I Lunet I* Lunet I Lunette II Lunette II* Lunette II Lunette III Lunette III* Lunette III Lunette IV Lunette IV* Lunette IV Fort bij Rijnauwen Fort bij Rijnauwen Fort bij Rijnauwen Fort bij Vechten Fort bij Vechten Fort bij Vechten Tankgracht Fort bij 't Hemeltje Fort bij 't Hemeltje Fort bij 't Hemeltje Batterij Overeindse Weg Batterij Overeindse Weg Fort te Jutphaas Fort te Jutphaas Fort te Jutphaas Keersluis (Plofsluis) Keersluis (Plofsluis) Verdedigingswerk te Vreeswijk Verdedigingswerk te Vreeswijk Verdedigingswerk te Vreeswijk Werk aan de Waalse Wetering Werk aan de Waalse Wetering Werk aan de Waalse Wetering Werk aan de Korte Uitweg Werk aan de Korte Uitweg Werk aan de Korte Uitweg Gedekte Gemeenschapsweg Lunet aan de Snel Lunet aan de Snel Fort Honswijk Fort Honswijk Fort Honswijk Werk aan de Groeneweg Werk aan de Groeneweg Fort Everdingen Fort Everdingen Fort Everdingen Tankversperring Goilberdingerdijk Werk aan het Spoel Werk aan het Spoel Werk aan het Spoel Werk op de spoorweg bij de Diefdijk Werk op de spoorweg bij de Diefdijk Werk op de spoorweg bij de Diefdijk Molenkade Kraanbrug Gemaal en sluis 'De Oude Horn' Werk bij AsperenMap 1 Sites Werk bij AsperenMap 2 Sites Werk bij AsperenMap 3 Sites Wapenplaats bij Asperen Wapenplaats bij Asperen Fort bij de Nieuwesteeg / Geofort Fort bij de Nieuwesteeg / Geofort Fort bij de Nieuwesteeg / Geofort Tiellnundatiekanaal Tiel Vesting Gorinchem Vesting Gorinchem Vesting Gorinchem Fort bij Vuren Fort bij Vuren Fort bij Vuren Vesting Woudrichem Vesting Woudrichem Vesting Woudrichem Fort Loevestein Fort Loevestein Fort Loevestein Batterij onder Brakel Batterij onder Brakel Batterij onder Brakel Fort aan het Steurgat Fort aan het Steurgat Fort aan het Steurgat Fort Altena / Fort aan de Uppelse dijk Fort Altena / Fort aan de Uppelse dijk Fort Altena / Fort aan de Uppelse dijk Werk aan de Bakkerskil Werk aan de Bakkerskil Werk aan de Bakkerskil Papsluis Batterij onder Poederoijen Batterij onder Poederoijen Batterij onder Poederoijen Fort Giessen Fort Giessen Fort Giessen Fort Pannerden Fort Pannerden
Note:
* Lunet I, Lunet II, Lunette III and Lunette IV are all counted under the same map icon
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 125 APPENDIX 2 y y y y y y y p p p Tourist y Residential y y y y y y y y y p p p Recreation y y p Museum y y y y y y y y y Historic Exp y y y y Ecology / Nature y y y p Community Commercial y y y y y Child / Edu y u Auth / Restored n n n n Access Organization Historic Circle Weesp Obviously Uitermeer Foundation for Management of Fort Work The Historic Circle Society of Nature C-Fordt Foundation Gilde Utrecht Gilde Utrecht APPENDIX 2 - ACTIVITY AT EACH SITE AT ACTIVITY APPENDIX 2 - Province North Holland North Holland North Holland North Holland North Holland North Holland North Holland North Holland North Holland North Holland North Holland North Holland Utrecht North Holland North Holland North / Utrecht Border Utrecht Utrecht Utrecht Utrecht Utrecht Utrecht Utrecht Utrecht North Holland Legend vesting vesting fort vesting battery fort fort fort fort fort fort fort fort fort fort fort fort Site (English) Fort Island Pampus Battery West The Muiderslot Fortress Muiden The Muizenfort Fortress Weesp Fort Ossenmarkt Fort Outright Fortress Naarden Battery Karnemelksloot Fort Uitermeer Fort Hinderdam Bicycle Bridge Nigtevecht IV Fort Work The French Camp Fort Kijkuit Fort Nieuwersluis Fort Tienhoven at Maarsseveen Work Fort at the Gale Fort Ruigenhoek Fort tothe Knock Fort Blauwkapel Fort Voordorp Fort Spy Site (Dutch) Forteiland Pampus Westbatterij Het Muiderslot Muiden Vesting Het Muizenfort Weesp Vesting Fort Ossenmarkt Fort Ronduit Naarden Naarden Vesting Batterij Karnemelksloot Fort Uitermeer Fort Hinderdam Fietsbrug Nigtevecht IV Fort Werk De Franse Kamp Fort Kijkuit Fort Spion Fort Nieuwersluis Fort Tienhoven bij Maarsseveen Werk Fort de Gagel Fort op de Ruigenhoekse dijk Fort aan de Klop Fort Blauwkapel Fort op de Voordorpse dijk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No 11 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 126 APPENDIX 2 l y y y y y Tourist y Residential y y y y y y y y y y y p p Recreation y p Museum y y y Historic Exp y y y y y p Ecology / Nature y y y y y y Community y y y Commercial y y y y y Child / Edu y y y y y y y u Auth / Restored r n n n Access Organization State Forest Memorial Foundation / Gilde Utrecht Gilde Utrecht Gilde Utrecht Gilde Utrecht State Forest on the Short Work Way MOD Ministry Economic Affairs Ministry Economic Affairs Foundation Work Province Utrecht Utrecht Utrecht Utrecht Utrecht Utrecht Utrecht Utrecht Utrecht Utrecht Utrecht Utrecht Utrecht Utrecht Utrecht Utrecht Utrecht Utrecht Utrecht Utrecht Utrecht Utrecht (Border Gelderland) Gelderland (Border Utrecht) Gelderland (Border Utrecht) Utrecht (Border Gelderland & Zuid Holland) Utrecht Legend fort fort lunet lunet lunet lunet fort fort fort fort fort fort fort fort lunet fort fort fort fort sluis Site (English) Work to the Work Groeneweg Work at the Grift Stein Work Fort Blitstraat Fort Hoofddijk Foxhole Lunet I Lunet II Lunet III Lunet IV Fort Rijnauwen Fort Vechten Fort at 't Hemeltje Battery About Eindse Road Jutphaas to Defence Work Vreeswijk to the Walloon Work Wetering to the Short Out Work Covered Community Road Lunette to Fast Fort Honswijk Fort Everdingen Barrier Tank Goilberdingerdijk to the Coil Work Railway Diefdijk Work Sluice Site (Dutch) Werk aan de Groeneweg Werk Werken bij Griftestein Werken Fort op de Biltstraat aan Fort Hoofddijk / Werk de Hoofddijk Fort Vossegat Lunet I Lunette II Lunette III Lunette IV Fort bij Rijnauwen Fort bij Vechten Tankgracht Fort bij 't Hemeltje Noordelijke batterij aan de Overeindseweg / Batterij Overeindse Weg Keersluis (Plofsluis) te Verdedigingswerk Vreeswijk aan de Korte Werk Uitweg Gedekte Gemeenschapsweg Lunet aan de Snel Fort Honswijk Everdingen Tankversperring Goilberdingerdijk aan het Spoel Werk op de spoorweg bij Werk de Diefdijk Fort te Jutphaas aan de Waalse Werk Wetering No 47 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 40 41 43 44 45 46 48 49 50 51 39 42
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 127 APPENDIX 2 y y y y y y y p Tourist y Residential r y y y y y y y y y y Recreation y y p Museum y y y y y y y y Historic Exp y y y y Ecology / Nature y y y y y Community y y y Commercial y p Child / Edu y y y y y y y p u u u Auth / Restored n p n Access Organization Multiple De Oude Horn / Multiple Foundation Loevestein Quarter Masters Province Noord Brabant (Border Zuid Holland) Utrecht (Border Gelderland & Zuid Holland) Zuid Holland (Border Gelderland) Zuid Holland (Border Gelderland) Gelderland Gelderland Gelderland Gelderland Zuid Holland (Border Noord Brabant & Gelderland) Zuid Holland (Border Noord Brabant & Gelderland) Noord Brabant (Border Zuid Holland & Gelderland) Gelderland (Border Zuid Holland & Noord Brabant) Gelderland Noord Brabant Noord Brabant Noord Brabant Gelderland (Border Noord Brabant) Noord Brabant Gelderland Legend fort fort fort vesting fort fort kasteel fort fort fort fort fort Site (English) Molenkade Kraanbrug Consort and Lock 'The Anicent Horn' Fort Asperen at Wapenplaats Asperen Fort at the New Lane / Geofort Inundation Channel Fortress Gorinchem Fort Vuren Fortress Woudrichem Castle Loevestein Battery Brakel Fort Steurgat Fort Altena to the Bakkerskil Work Battery Pouderoijen Fort Giessen Fort Pannerden p - planned r - recent u - undergoing Key Site (Dutch) Molenkade Kraanbrug Gemaal en sluis 'De Oude Horn' Werk bij Asperen Wapenplaats bij Asperen Fort bij de Nieuwesteeg / Geofort Tiel Tiellnundatiekanaal Gorinchem Vesting Fort bij Vuren Woudrichem Vesting Slot Loevestein Batterij onder Brakel Fort aan het Steurgat Altena / Fort aan de Fort Uppelse dijk aan de Bakkerskil Werk Papsluis Batterij onder Poederoijen Fort Giessen Fort Pannerden y - yes n - no No 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 128 APPENDIX 3
APPENDIX 3 – SITES WITH RECENT/UNDERGOING/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
Site No. Site Name Status Province
10 Fort Uitermeer Development Planned N. Holland
• Fort Uitermeer has been restored by the province of North Holland. There are now plans to make the fort a tourist attraction. Fort itself is inaccessible but site can be visited. Landscape/Scenery is emphasized • Being developed by the Foundation “Obviously Uitermeer” to focus the site on eco-tourism. • In coming years site will have a bed & breakfast and conference facility. Expansion to regional art exhibits and an information point on the Waterline
Keywords: Eco Tourism / Waterline Emphasized Stakeholders identified – Province of Noord-Holland
19 Fort Tienhoven Undergoing renovations Utrecht
• Owned by forestry service, the fort itself is inaccessible but the area is being renovated
Keywords: Nature & Ecology Stakeholders identified – Forestry Commission
20 Werk bij Maarsseveen / Work at Maarsseveen Development Planned Utrecht
• Managed by C-Fordt Foundation who were given the site in 2012 by the commissioner of the province of Utrecht. • Site will be developed into a sustainable breeding ground for art, culture and recreation
Keywords: Culture and Recreation / Leisure Stakeholders identified – C-Fordt Foundation
21 Fort de Gagel / Fort at the Gale Development Planned Utrecht
• Owned by the city of Utrecht, with plans for area to be a combination of hospitality, leisure and information. • This fort is a ‘gate’ between the city and the adjacent Noorderpark, which is a hub of national cycling and walking routes.
Keywords: Recreation & Leisure Stakeholders identified – unknown
22 Fort op de Ruigenhoekse dijk In Use & Development Planned Utrecht
• Run by Forestry Commission who organize tours and art exhibitions • Development Planned Owner Forestry Commission to develop further the fort. The existing natural and landscape values are reinforced. In addition, the fort receives a cultural and recreational function in conjunction with the adjacent recreation Gagelbos.
Keywords: Eco Tourism / Nature & Ecology Stakeholders identified – Forestry Commission
26 Werken bij Griftestein / Work at the Grift Stein Development Planned Utrecht
• Walking trail and observation tower planned by Province of Utrecht
Keywords: Recreation & Leisure Stakeholders identified – unknown
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 129 APPENDIX 3
Code Site Name Status Province
35 Fort bij Vechten / Fort at Vechten In Use & Development Planned Utrecht
• Currently used for community use, with public events, theatre and music activities and rooms to rent for meetings or parties • Being Developed into the National Water Line Centre (to open in 2015), a museum where the general public can find out information about the Waterline in an open recreational area where both nature and culture can find a place • Utrecht is the implementing organization
Keywords: Community / Heritage / Nature / Culture / Education / Waterline Emphasized Stakeholders identified - unknown
37 Fort bij ‘t Hemeltje / ’T Heavens Under Renovation + Development Utrecht
• The last built fort of the Waterline, and currently the fort of Forestry • Fort is being renovated for office use, and will be open to the public, but only on a limited scale
Keywords: Limited Tourism Stakeholders identified – unknown
49 Tankversperring Goilberdingerdijk Restored + Under Development Gelderland (Border Utrecht)
• Tank barrier has been restored and is visible • Second phase (completed by 2015) will give further consideration of how barrier can be used in landscape for recreationalists to better enjoy it
Keywords: Authentic / Recreation & Leisure Stakeholders identified - Province of Gelderland / DLG / Rivierenland Water / Town of Culemborg
58 Tiellnundatiekanaal Tiel / Inundation Channel Restored & Development Planned Gelderland
• Inundation Channel has been cleared with the locks, bridges and inlets restored in 2012 • Along the canal It is possible to hike and bike, with the municipality planning to modestly expand the recreational function of the Channel
Keywords: Authentic / Recreation & Leisure Stakeholders identified - Rivierenland Water, Tiel, Gelderland Province.
62 Fort Loevestein / Lock Loevestein Development Ongoing & Planned Gelderland
• Site covers about 650 years of history covering three periods: medieval, state prison and the Dutch Waterline • Castle and fortress can be visited independently, with year round activities involving history, art, music and nature • Gelderland Provincial Council agreed to provide €1.75 million to the Foundation Loevestein to implement Phase 1 of the Master Plan, which aims to improve the services (from 2011). This will also be the southern information centre of the Waterline • Bed and Breakfast expanded in 2013 • Surrounding landscape is one of the least disturbed in the Netherlands
Keywords: Heritage / Eco Tourism / Nature & Ecology / Waterline Emphasized Stakeholders identified – unknown
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 130 APPENDIX 3
Code Site Name Status Province
63 Batterij onder Brakel / Battery Brakel Restored & Development Ongoing Gelderland
• Site is freely accessible for recreational use • The Conservation Foundation Waterline Bommelerwaard (SBWB) is working on the restoration and consolidation of the battery • Battery is leasehold by the Forestry Commission
Keywords: Recreation & Leisure Stakeholders identified - Forestry Commission, Gelderland Province town of Zaltbommel, Conservation Foundation Waterline Bommelerwaard, DLG
68 Batterij onder Poederoijen / Battery Pouderoijen Restored & Development Ongoing Gelderland
• Site is freely accessible for recreational use • The Conservation Foundation Waterline Bommelerwaard (SBWB) is working on the restoration and consolidation of the site • The battery is in leasehold by the Forestry Commission
Keywords: Recreation & Leisure Stakeholders identified - Forestry Commission, Gelderland Province town of Zaltbommel, Conservation Foundation Waterline Bommelerwaard, DLG
70 Fort Pannerden Restoration Ongoing & Gelderland Development Proposed
• Fort is in leasehold by the Forestry Commission to Lingewaard, and functions as an educational centre and museum • Management Foundation and municipality are planning future implementation (with closely involved volunteers) as museum, an information and education center for the Forestry Commission, Rivierenland Water, Public Works and a tourist information point for some time in 2014
Keywords: Heritage / Tourism / Education Stakeholders identified - Province of Gelderland, Forestry Commission, Rivierenland Water, Rijkswaterstaat, Lingewaard and various foundations
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 131 APPENDIX 4
APPENDIX 4 - INTERVIEWEES
Interviewees
An initial meeting with Koen Raats was arranged on 15th April 2014, as he already had experience of the New Dutch Waterline. The nature of the thesis project was informally discussed and Koen was able to provide an extensive list of names and email addresses for various individuals that he recommended to contact. Following this meeting, emails were written and dispatched over the following days (see appendix 5). Koen also agreed to a more formal recorded interview at a later date.
About the interviewees:
1 - Alex Bishop
Originally an intern and now working on the UNESCO nomination of the New Dutch Waterline as a world heritage site
2 - Niek Roozen
Landscape architect and member of Stichting Uiteraard Uitermeer
3 - Koen Raats
University of Amsterdam (UvA) student completing PHD on the New Dutch Waterline
4 - Rob Zakee
Former Project Manager for the world heritage nomination of the New Dutch Waterline
5 – Chris Will
Curator of the content of the National Waterline Museum
6 – Marieke Muilwijk
Secretary of the Quality Team of the Project Office for the New Dutch Waterline
7 – Peter Kuypers
Project Manager for the construction of the National Waterline Museum at Fort Vechten
8 – Ien Stijns
Director of Slot Loevestein.
9 – Jeroen Bootsma
Program Manager for the Project Bureau of the New Dutch Waterline 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 132 APPENDIX 5
APPENDIX 5 – EXAMPLE OF INITIAL EMAIL
Screenshot
Transcript
Hello, my name is Conor Corey. I am originally from Ireland and I am currently studying for a Masters in Urban and Regional Planning at the UvA. I am working on my thesis and will be investigating de Hollandse Waterlinie.
Koen Raats advised me to contact you, as he said that you would be a very valuable source of information.
I am investigating fortifications on de Hollandse Waterlinie that have recently undergone some form of development or have development which is ongoing or planned for the near future. Specifically I want to know why a specific development plan was made in a certain way and I would like to speak to different people involved with de Hollandse Waterlinie and interview them if possible.
I know that you are likely to be very busy, but if you could spare a little time to help me it would be greatly appreciated. I can provide any additional information that you require.
Thank you
-Conor
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 133 APPENDIX 6
APPENDIX 6 - REFLECTION
Now that this research project has been completed, it is possible to take a step back and reflect upon it. In this chapter several different things will be discussed in a more relaxed and informal manner, such as the process of how this project was completed, and also the strengths and weaknesses of the research. At the conclusion of this reflection, the usefulness of this research will be discussed, what can be learned from it and how it might be applied in different settings.
Process of Completing the Research Project
At the original meeting on 6th December which acted as an introduction to the Master’s Research Project, the idea was pitched to perform some form of investigation of the New Dutch Waterline. Over the following three/four months, a significant amount of background research was conducted into the Waterline (this background research has been discussed in Chapter 5 and the relevant appendices). As well as the background research of the Waterline itself, an extensive amount of literature and academic articles were read and analysed (the full list of literature can be seen in Chapter 10). As a result, the nature of the proposed investigation and the research question went through extensive adjustment and modification until it evolved into the final research proposal.
Difficulties Completing the Research
The approval of this research proposal for this project was given on 31st March and the submission date for the final product was 23rd June for the first attempt and 18th August for the second attempt; so many aspects of project were only able to be completed during this time, including the arranging, recording and transcribing of the interviews, the additional field work of visiting each of the three case study locations and the writing of the actual document.
Time and Resources:
This extremely limited time period placed certain limitations on this research project, and because this researcher was working alone, this placed further restrictions on what was realistically possible to complete. Another important factor to consider when selecting the locations to be investigated was that a large number of the fortifications are in very remote geographical locations, with inadequate public transportation links or simply being too far away to cycle to, making it difficult and impractical to select and subsequently visit a large number of locations, so it was ultimately decided that there would be a total of three case studies (this decision will be discussed further in the strengths and weaknesses section)
For example, visiting Slot Loevestein was quite a large undertaking in terms of travel time and finance. In order to reach the castle: 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 134 APPENDIX 6
Train from Amsterdam Amstel Station to Utrecht Centraal (approx. 20 min) € 12.60 (return) Bus from Utrecht Centraal to Gorinchem Station (approx. 50 min) € 15.20 (return) Walk from Gorinchem Station to Veer Gorinchem (approx. 15 min) Water Taxi from Veer Gorinchem to Slot Loevestein (approx. 20 min) € 12.00 (return)
Language Barrier:
As a non-Dutch speaker this presented certain challenges and meant that it was not possible to utilize certain resources such as websites and documents written in Dutch, as translation software such as Google Translate is not reliable or accurate enough for this level of research. When absolutely necessary, a small number of documents and resources were translated by a native-Dutch speaking friend, and they were also able to translate and check certain parts of the interview audio and transcriptions where the interviewees spoke in Dutch.
This also meant that it was not possible to discover certain things at the outset of the research (either because they were not available in English or were not easy to locate via Dutch websites which had limited translation available), and these only became apparent during the course of the interviews, such as the planned creation of the Stichting Nationale Waterlinie Musea.
Arranging Interviews:
Semi-Structured interviews were selected as the primary research method, so this meant that a limited number could be successfully arranged, recorded, transcribed, coded and analysed in the time allowed. Furthermore arranging the interviews proved to be a time consuming process; after Koen Raats was able to provide a list of potential interviewees, each of these people were contacted by email.
Furthermore, some of the interviewees were incredibly busy and it could take several days before they were able to reply with an answer. In some instances these people did not feel that they were suitable to speak to and so referred me to someone else. Even if someone agreed to an interview, in several instances it would be many weeks before they had an opening in their schedule to allow time for the interview. As the exact nature of the research was not finalized until the approval of the research proposal, this meant that it was not practical to arrange interviews prior to this.
Transcribing Interviews:
The transcription of each interview was very important for several reason; firstly because allowed for the coding and subsequent analysis of the interviews. Secondly, if it was necessary to find a specific quotation or part of the interview, it was very easy to perform a search of the written text rather than 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 135 APPENDIX 6 have to browse through the audio recording, which would have been very inefficient and time consuming. Thirdly, if anyone for example wishes to see how this research was conducted or check the quotations of the interviewees, it is possible to immediately provide them with the original audio files and the written transcripts.
Although the transcription process represented a significant amount of time and effort, it built a solid foundation upon which the analysis was based and saved a lot of time in the long run. The following table shows the length of each audio recording and the word count of the transcripts, and the totals for each.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Research Project
Quantity vs Quality:
As previously mentioned, some of the deciding factors in the selection of the amount of case studies were the time restrictions and also the financial cost and practicalities of actually travelling to the different locations. Another major contributing component related to these factors was the concern that quantity could compromise the quality of the research. The higher the number of cases that were selected, the less time and resources that could be devoted to each, and the selection of too many cases would ultimately have diluted the quality and integrity of the research. Therefore, a total of three cases were selected to be studied in-depth, as it was practical to complete this many in the allotted time and to ensure quality over quantity.
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 136 APPENDIX 6
Selection of Case Studies:
Within Chapter 5 – Research Design, it was explained that one of the primary reason behind the selections of Fort Uitermeer, Fort Vechten and Slot Loevestein as case studies where that they represented some of the extremes of the spectrum of the New Dutch Waterline. While this made them extremely interesting subjects worthy of investigation, it does mean that it is a lot more difficult to form generalizations about the Waterline as a whole. Furthermore, as previously mentioned, seventy distinct constructions were identified in the Waterline, so this means that only having three case studies is a very small representative sample of the whole Waterline
Site Selection:
Of the fourteen sites which were identified as possible case studies, three were selected, anda significant advantage of this was that if one of more of the original case studies proved unsuitable during the course of the research or if it proved too difficult to arrange an interview with someone from one or more of the three selected case studies, or if sufficient information was unavailable then this meant that there were a large number of suitable replacement cases in reserve to select from.
However, there was also a potential weakness to this, because If it had of been decided that a new case study was needed in place of the original choices this would have made it necessary to find new contacts relevant to the new case selection and as explained previously, the process of arranging interviews was very time consuming. Luckily however, this option was not ultimately needed due to suitable interviews being secured.
Interviewees:
All of the people who were interviewed for this project are professionals who have worked on the Waterline in some capacity. It would have been extremely useful to speak to other people, such as local residents, especially those who had opposed certain developments, to get a completely different perspective on the fortifications and the Waterline. However, this was not possible for although some interviewees mentioned problems with local residents, when asked for further information or the possibility of sharing contact information of these people the interviewees were reluctant to do so.
These private residents may also have been unwilling to agree to an interview or may have been suspicious of someone from the academic field invading their privacy or of the nature of this research (although this is only an assumption at this point). Ultimately it was not possible to speak to any local residents.
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 137 APPENDIX 6
Chosen Research Method:
The primary research method chosen was semi structured interviews and for this type of investigation this was the most appropriate methods. As previously mentioned it led to a selection of quality over quantity in terms of case studies, and in the actual interviews it allowed for more of a guided conversation with a high level of flexibility. Going into each interview there were a list of general topics to cover and questions specifically tailored to each interviewee and their area of expertise but it was also possible to allow them to elaborate further on topics which emerged throughout the interview.
This led to the discovery of recent or upcoming events, or the formation of new organisations such as Stichting Nationale Waterlinie Musea. Had this organisation been known at the outset of the research Fortress Naarden could have been chosen as a potential case study. Future research could further investigate this partnership after it has been given time to develop.
Applicability of this Research
The final thing to discuss is the nature of this research and how it might be applicable in other settings. This research has been conducted in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, and may be useful to someone investigating the relationships between government support for the heritage or cultural sectors in times of economic uncertainty when priorities lie elsewhere. This research also examines grouped heritage assets, which (as previously mentioned in Chapter 4) are largely a niche within the heritage sector, and have not been extensively investigated.
Furthermore, this research extensively investigates the dynamic and ever evolving definitions and relationships between the concepts or conservation and development, at a time when most Western societies are moving on from declining industries such as manufacturing and agriculture, and the construction industry has been significantly affected by the global financial crisis. New opportunities are present in the tourism and hospitality industries, and it is important to consider whether development is at the expense of conservation (or vice versa), or whether a balance is sought.
Overall, this research represents an investigation into the New Dutch Waterline at a time of great uncertainty and transition and with the National Waterline Museum at Fort Vechten due to open in 2015, and with financial and political support wavering, the next few years will prove crucial in the success or failure of the National Waterline Project.
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 138 TRANSCRIPTS
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 139 *Please note, that of the nine interviewees, all nine gave permission for quotations from their respective interviews to be used in this research paper, and seven gave permission for the publication of the transcriptions of their respective interviews (Nick Roozen and Chris Will declined).
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 140 TRANSCRIPT 1
Transcript 1 Alex Bishop
C:
It’s Tuesday the 29th April, this is interview number one, could you please introduce yourself and tell me what you do?
A:
Hi, I’m Alex Bishop, I was originally an intern and now work in the research for the UNESCO nomination of the New Dutch Waterline as a world heritage site which will be as an extension to the Stelling van Amsterdam.
C:
And how did you get involved with this?
A:
So I did a Master’s program at the University of Utrecht which had nothing to do with heritage at all but I was interested in it from a personal point of view so I took an internship with the Project Bureau where- and I was fortunate enough to start at the same time as their UNESCO bid was kicking off, and I um, I made myself quite useful in terms of the UNESCO policy on all sorts of things that were quite big questions, and then when I moved back- I had to short stay back in the UK and then was back to the Netherlands and I got back involved this time as an employee on a self-employed basis and now I sort of manage along with another colleague that- all of the research and personally do all of the nomination dossier writing that is happening at the moment for the bid.
C:
So who the colleague that you work with?
A:
So at the moment- it is a bit convoluted at the moment, there’s, there’s three of us within the office of the DLG which is the Dienst Landelijk Gebied, but the manager for the nomination bid left last week; I know you have been in contact with him already that’s Rob Zakee.
C:
Yes
A:
So at the moment he has not been replaced and I don’t know when that will be, so I work with Saskia Waldenburg who is- was originally when I started the bid doing mostly the, the- the minutes, the meetings and things like that but is increasingly becoming more and more involved in the actual practical side of things since Rob has left so we’re co-ordinating- at the moment the big things we’re doing are a study into the- sorry I’m trying to switch from the work I’ve just been doing to the work that we are talking about- the authenticity and integrity of the site from a UNESCO standpoint, so I’m sort of co-ordinating quite a big study into each of the sections of the Waterlinie in terms of their authenticity and integrity, I can show you that once it’s been made but that will probably be quite some time from now.
C:
When you said ‘the authenticity and the integrity of the site’, do you mean, is that the Waterline as a whole? it is made up of such a large number of fortifications do you try to consider them all at once or individually?
A:
So this is the big question because most UNESCO sites when, when they’re talking about authenticity and integrity are in essence talking about a single building usually or a complex of single buildings which exist on one site and one of the big 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 141 TRANSCRIPT 1 questions that needs to be asked- or answered rather- in terms of the nomination of the New Dutch Waterline is- first of all what exactly will all the limits of the site be, and that’s something that we need to have prepared by September/November nationally, and then I think- sorry September/October on a national basis, and then by November it needs to go to Paris for UNESCO, for some kind of broader idea about what the limitations of the site exactly are going to be. At the moment it is still to a limited extent up for grabs and I’m talking about things like the buffer zone of the site, and what parts of the site will be integral to the site- what parts of the site will be integral to the site: for instance there’s a fault in the extreme south of the line which has troublesome integrity and authenticity, perhaps it will be left out, perhaps it will be in the buffer zone; there’s a section which is currently being developed heavily by the, the, the Water Agency of the Netherlands-whose name escapes me-because the canals are being widened and a large section of the site will be heavily compromised in terms of authenticity and integrity; there are no forts on that section but the nomination we are proceeding with is on the basis of a cultural landscape, a design cultural landscape of the three options that you’ll find on UNESCO’s website. I can’t- I think it comes under ‘cultural landscape designed by man’ or something like that, and that means that the landscape and each layer of the landscape as it were, is as important as the individual forts because advice we took from an expert meeting at the end of last year and some research I did before that is that ‘the forts on their own are not from an international perspective a hugely interesting’- that’s not fair- ‘the forts on their own are not internationally that unique and significant that they constitute an immediately attractive prospect for UNESCO, however the Waterline as a whole with its water management system and all of that kind of thing is a much more interesting thing’ and that’s something which is quite- I think as a foreigner, my perspective has been quite useful for- purely because Dutch people don’t realise how unusual it is to have a countrywide system that controls water integrated into planning and all of that kind of thing; because for instance one of the members of our quality team said to me recently that ‘one of the things that is so unusual about the New Dutch Waterline is it was’- oh I need to be careful that I don’t misquote him here- ‘is it was the first thing, really, in Dutch history which served as a National Planning’, no, ‘planning- landscape design and planning on a national level’.
C:
So, because it covered such a large territory, it was of national importance?
A:
Exactly, so from a county which is historically quite provincially governed, this was the first time where the state have said to people ‘this is like of national importance from a defensive point of view and so we want a structure which goes from North to South which is going to be led by the State’.
C:
Yeah, ok; something I want to ask you, you’re- you’re working on the UNESCO bid at the minute, but some of the- a number of the sites are- have either recently undergone some form of development, or have development ongoing or planned for the near future, so how has that impacted on the bid?
A:
This is one of the tricky questions which I don’t have an immediate answer for from a personal perspective, and I think it probably going to be one of the most difficult things to, to- in a discussion with UNESCO, the New Dutch Waterline will be an extension of the Stelling van Amsterdam so we have to use the Stelling as a model for how we progress to quite a large extent because of course if you are going to be an extension you should bring new qualities in terms of the OUV which is the ‘outstanding universal value’ but you should also be based on the same thing or else you are not an extension, you are a separate site. Now the New Dutch Waterline must be an extension rather than a new site because the qualities are too close, therefore we base quite a lot on the Stelling van Amsterdam; but the Stelling van Amsterdam was nominated in 1996 and put on the list in 1997, and since then most of the development has taken place, and some of it had happened before. I don’t- basically the procedures for development are different for a site which is already on the list and a site which is prospective. Some of the development- our thoughts- is troubling from a perspective of authenticity and integrity and the OUV, but it is all to do with how you define the OUV, because from the UNESCO standpoint the OUV- from a UNESCO standpoint they are not measuring how well a site has been developed, they are measuring how much the development of a site damages or inhibits its ability to express well its OUV, so if you express OUV according to x and the site, the development of the site as it is does not impinge on that then that’s ok.
C:
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 142 TRANSCRIPT 1
Are there, are there any sites in particular that are causing you problems?
A:
From a development perspective, is any site which has made really serious structural changes- there is an area just south of Utrecht called the Lekkanaal which is being developed- eh not developed well it is being developed but it is not being developed into a new concern, rather the canal is being widened at Beatrixsluis and a whole strip of the Waterline, the actual line itself including bunkers and so on is going to be gone, and there is a big discussion going on now about how to deal with that: should the bunkers be left as objet trouvé in the landscape? Of course it’s made more complex by the fact that just to the east of the line itself the Nieuwegein city council has declared the land; as is their right; until recently, but they did this several years ago, they’ve declared the land industrial land and divided it into industrial plots, and started selling these off. From their perspective that happened at a time when the financial crisis was just about to hit and they’ve only sold about two or three of about forty eight.
C:
Of forty eight?
A:
Something like that, don’t, I’m not 100% certain on the numbers but there is a lot of plots, and there is about three factories or whatever they are stood on the plots. So that’s one area which is a sort of ongoing concern, but then, perhaps if I had to point at one site, and I, I’d like to say from a professional perspective that it doesn’t necessarily have any implications for the UNESCO bid, that’s still to be decided, but one thought which is particularly troublesome is called Steurgat and it’s on the extreme south-west, it’s the end of the Waterline in the south basically and it’s-
C:
Is that the private residential island?
A:
Yess it’ a private residence, I’ve been there twice and it’s been heavily modified and in development to be a private residence and it is troublesome.
C:
When I was researching all the fortifications for the thesis I found that that one site was probably unique among the Waterline because it, it was completely residential with no other use.
A:
No it is unique in that respect completely.
C:
And it’s- why exactly is it so troublesome? Is it because it’s-
A:
Partly because it’s not open, partly because it was one of the first- in the whole process of transferring the Waterline from private to- from rather defence to private ownership, and it was one of the first and so later renovations had kicked in at a time when the RCE the Rijksdienst voor Cultureel Erfgoed which is the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands has, I wouldn’t say stricter regulations but it certainly, the regulations are more at the fore, there’s recently been among the Monument Aanwijzing which is a register of monuments which covers the whole of the Waterline as a national monument status, and so I think if Steurgat was going to be developed now, it might be developed in a very different way; not very different but certain aspects of it as it was done- I don’t know, something like twenty years ago I think it was transferred to private ownership in 19-something, 97 rings a bell but I’m not 100% sure- yeah. 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 143 TRANSCRIPT 1
C:
Could I ask you about three sites in particular? If you could tell me if you are familiar with them: Fort Loevestein, Fort Uitermeer and Fort bij Vechten?
A:
So, the first two, I’m not that familiar with and I’ve never been to unfortunately. When you talk about Loevestein, do you mean Slot Loevestein?
C:
Yes.
A:
Because it’s a castle, so it’s older than- there’s two castles within the remit of the New Dutch Waterline, one is the Muiderslot which is not far from Amsterdam actually, and is a nice- it’s in Muider which is just about 50km east of the city, and then there’s Loevestein and I’ve never been there but it’s an ongoing tourist attraction. It’s an interesting case in terms of the Waterlinie but I haven’t been that involved in, because development is not on- I don’t know this but as I understand it development is not really happening at the moment, it’s a fait accompli and from a, from point of view which I have to approach it from is the functionality of the Waterline. Actually, a castle was probably a munitions depot and not much else because it’s not useful in the modern warfare that I deal with, so I’ve never looked into it that much.
C:
Ok.
A:
Uitermeer is shared with the Stelling van Amsterdam, I think, yeah it’s in North Holland, it’s being developed now, isn’t it?
C:
Yes, the foundation “Obviously Uitermeer” are trying to develop it into a- with a focus for ecotourism. That is the information I got from the website.
A:
Yeah I don’t know that much about it either, unfortunately for you. I can have a look on the stuff I’ve got with me, which is not much but I can have a look in a bit and if I have any other thoughts about it later then I’ll let you know but as far as I know it’s shared between the Stelling van Amsterdam and the New Dutch Waterline, and so it’s particularly interesting because it’s probably already a world heritage site, if that is correct. Hold on, can you pause that one second-
A:
So the- back to Fort Uitermeer, the- it’s in a very bad state of repair, in terms of- it’s, it’s never been cared for as a building since it was decommissioned and it’s- if I remember correctly it’s a circular tower fort which means it was designed to protect probably a river access- I don’t know without looking at the map; and it’s in the process of beginning its development, apart from that I can’t tell you much.
C:
Would you happen to know anything about the different parties involved in that?
A:
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 144 TRANSCRIPT 1
That’s what I don’t know, the thing about being not Dutch *laughs*, is that my Dutch is basic, and so I don’t- I don’t manage stakeholder relations with Dutch stakeholders. I deal with everything which is international, so I’m afraid that I can’t help much with that, but I can put you in touch, perhaps with people who can Provincie Noord-Holland- I will speak to my colleague who I will speak to tomorrow, and this will be- Loevestein is Gelderland and I can speak to the person representing Gelderland more easily, and I will try and find out who is dealing with it in Noord-Holland, but the Noord-Holland, basically every other Thursday a meeting- and the representation from Noord-Holland is not present, they will come occasionally, but they’re not actively taking part in the nomination procedure, so they’re not in my meetings; but he is someone and I’ll talk to him, he’s managing it and I’ll see if I can find someone good to talk to. Vechten-
C:
Just before I ask about that, you mentioned you deal with internationals? Who are stakeholders outside of the Netherlands be that you would deal with?
A:
Yeah, in terms of development: not. What I mean by international is everything to do with UNESCO, everything to do with- so for instance last year we had an international expert meeting, and I dealt with the international people who came, because there’s- when your Dutch is ‘niet zo goed’ then it’s better that someone else do it.
C:
Was there a big- Were, were there a lot of representatives from UNESCO?
A:
No, we organised the meeting at a time of year which we didn’t know when we started organising it, when UNESCO people are forbidden to travel.
C:
Forbidden?
A:
No forbidden, but it’s, it’s, it’s policy that no one from UNESCO travel at that time of year because that’s a time when they are managing a lot of internal documentation, so we didn’t have anyone directly from UNESCO, but we had three keynote speakers, all of whom- none of whom were Dutch and all of whom I invited, and that was the ex-something from Mykonos, and is still involved quite heavily with ICCROM in Rome, and is also a lecturer in conservation stuff in a university in Italy somewhere. Then we had someone from a British world heritage site which is Deborah Boden who’s managing the Cornwall and West Devon mining heritage site- which is where I am from- she was another keynote speaker and then we had Chris Will who was UNESCO for the UK.
C:
Yes he was on the list that Koen gave to me?
A:
Oh really, no that’s someone else then again I mixed up my names once more, we had- I will come back to you on the name for that. It was someone who was on the team representing the UK to UNECSO in Paris and I’ve completely forgotten his name which is very rude of me, but completely escapes me; yeah anyway.
C:
You were about to move onto Fort Vechten?
A: 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 145 TRANSCRIPT 1
Fort Vechten I know a little bit more about; so when development started for the Waterline, I wasn’t involved in this phase, I can only give you anecdotal information, but there was a certain budget given over to the Project Bureau, and It was decided that quite a large proportion of that, about 60% would be invested in one site which would be and- what’s the word- basically a museum for the whole Waterline but a place where the whole Waterline can be explained and interpreted for visitors and so on, and that was chosen to be Vechten. Have you been there?
C:
No I plan to visit but I haven’t been there yet.
A:
When you go you’ll see that it’s a dirty great building site, they’re building an enormous museum, the last time I went there they’d laid the foundations but none of the actual building work yet but that’s quite some time ago so you’d probably find something new, and there’s been a lot of investment there. Right in the centre of what was the fort, as well as- as well as some other parts of the site as well, there’s been a car park added, and there’s been a- so there’s an earthen fortification which surrounds the whole fort and they’ve cut straight through the middle of it and a bridge across the gracht, the moat, to lead in, which is going to be the main point of entry, because of course when you design a fortress, you do not design a fortress to be easy to get into, so otherwise the opening was tiny in the car park which also was tiny because there wasn’t space left over for these things, so the car park is on the outside of what was once the fortress proper- which still is the fortress proper actually, and then there’s been a bridge put and- and then cut through the, the, the fortification earthwork. The effect is really quite impressive and it looks really good and I think that the rationale I had said to me was that you get a sense ‘as you approach the fortress of being an enemy trying to get in’. So you come across this, this quite narrow bridge and then through a very narrow, what feels very narrow, very high passage cut through the earthworks, before you arrive at what will be the entrance to the museum, but is at the moment a building site.
C:
Can I ask who said that? ‘The effect was that you are meant to feel like the enemy’.
A:
We were there for the day, we had a volunteer program last year where we had twenty volunteers from all over the world come, and we took them and we were met by representatives of the fort but I can’t give you a name on that I’m afraid, sorry.
C:
Of course, no worries. Do you know why that fortification in particular was chosen to be the, the National Waterline Centre?
A:
*Laughs* I don’t know the official line, because I wasn’t involved in the process, but I do know that it’s because it’s right in the middle of the Waterline, it’s also the second biggest fort, and it’s one of the ones which hadn’t been developed. So as the second biggest fort there’s basically space, because when you look at something like Uitermeer- have you visited there?
C:
No actually, I am planning on visiting all of the sites very soon. I’ve contacted-
A:
There’s no judgement from me; it’s just not that big, and they want- the scale of what they are building is big and the budget is large, very large, and so they- from a practical perspective it needed to be a large site and it’s also because- I mean the thing is eighty kilometres long and if you want something which is gonna deal with the values of the site as a whole you need it to be in the middle somewhere, and Utrecht- and Vechten particularly is right in the centre of the central section. It is probably not the only reason but those are the only ones I know.
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 146 TRANSCRIPT 1
C:
Do you know if there was any opposition?
A:
I can’t tell you I’m afraid.
C:
You also mentioned that there was a budget that was given to the Project Bureau, who, who gave the budget? Where did the finance come from?
A:
I think ultimately the state, but I am not 100% certain on that but I think ultimately the state. I think there was a certain allocation for the development of the Waterline into moving beyond state control and aimed at private ownership or state ownership. I mean they have a motto which is in English ‘development through re-use’ approximately *laughs*, and so they want to make every fort useful in its own right- I mean if you get the chance to visit some of the better ones, where the- not the better ones necessarily, more the ones where development has come quite far along and the businesses are up and running and the- what are always referred to in the Netherlands as ‘entrepreneurs’- I don’t think that’s the right word- are well settled and are running thriving businesses and you can really see that that has quite a good effect, at least in my opinion.
C:
Was that, was that funding, when you said ‘came from the state’, that means from the Dutch government, was that before or after the global recession?
A:
Before, yeah it would be before, because the whole project began with something called Panorama Krayenhoff.
C:
Oh yeah the Eric- Eric Luiten who wrote the document?
A:
Yeah Eric Luiten, that was quite some time ago now, so I would think it’s- I don’t know but I think it’s fifteen years ago probably now, and so the original allocation probably was made at that time but again if you want specifics on those things you need to speak to the guys who were there at the time.
C:
Have you, have you felt any effect from the economic recession on your work?
A:
Yeah I haven’t been involved long enough is my honest answer, there is- in terms of capacity at the DL- it’s difficult for me to comment on that and I tell you why, honestly. Is because from the 1st of January 2015 the DLG, the Dienst Landelijk Gebied who are employing me currently are going to be no more and there is a power struggle, so maybe this in effect is an effect of the recession, because one, one result of the recession was a move from- as it always is in any recession, you either get a move from between state control, outer-provincial control or vice versa, and so one, one effect of the recession has been the desire of the state to move things from provincial control, and so at the, the moment the Project Bureau of the Waterlinie is in the process of moving from a state control project because the DLG is an institution of the state and funded by the state to a provincial model, and it’s not still- still not quite clear how the funding is going to work for that provincial model but I would say what is clear is that there will be less funding than there was previously because that’s ultimately the aim of these things- is to move- I’m sure they wouldn’t say that in the, in the- from the Rijks, in the state, but they’re moving ownership of it to the 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 147 TRANSCRIPT 1 provinces and, and the reality is that there will be less funding.
C:
Does that mean that the provinces will be expected to fund projects themselves, will they need to raise the funds?
A:
What kind of projects do you mean? When I talk about this mostly I’m talking about the UNECSO nomination, in terms of development projects, I actually don’t know how the funding model works. There was definitely a pot of money which was available for the Waterlinie as a whole, and there is, I know- there are other forts, that have been developed on for instance, province funding, and, not just that but there were smaller, like, City of Utrecht might fund x for, but I don’t know- I’m often left out of those discussions because I don’t speak Dutch, and I’m quite happy to be, because it is such a convoluted process, and at a time of recession it’s not a pleasant process always to be involved in.
C:
Well- you said that, that ‘the pot of money’, sorry, ‘that the pot of money that was provided by the state to the Project Bureau’; did the Project Bureau then allocate funding to each fortification, or to each province?
A:
I just don’t know, I just don’t know; I know- yeah I don’t know exactly how the process worked- I know that as it wound up 60% of the funding is for Vechten and there were other allocations, and then of course the other 40% has also been spent I think, but I don’t know how that process worked.
C:
Ok.
A:
I don’t want- I don’t want to tell you kind of what I imagine and then present it to you as fact because it could well be wrong *laughs*.
C:
No I understand; so could I just ask, within your office, I know you said you don’t normally work with, with stakeholders yourself, but your colleagues, do they work with- do you know which?
A:
Yeah, *laughs*, ok so I don’t know quite how the process works, but I- there are for instance people who work for the DLG who are managing the developing of different sites within the Waterline, so I know the guy who manages the little fortification- it’s not actually the fort, it’s a string of- *laughs*, I can’t think of the Dutch word, but they’re group shelters, and casemates forward of-
C:
Are those the lunettes? There’s four structures very close together.
A:
No, it’s a bit north of that, Griftenstein it’s called, and it’s just a- basically a nest of group shelters and machine gun emplacements, and so I know there’s someone currently responsible in the DLG for managing that but I don’t know how that relationship works. The person you want to speak to for any of that stuff is Rob.
C: 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 148 TRANSCRIPT 1
Yes, I had- I had actually contacted him shortly before he left his job. He said that he would, he would be willing to meet with me.
A:
He’s a fantastic guy to talk to about this.
C:
*Laughs*, when I replied to that message I got an automated response saying that he had left that job.
A:
Well you would, wouldn’t you?
C:
I was wondering if you would have an alternate email for him or some other way of contacting him.
A:
I don’t yet, I don’t have one myself, *laughs*, but- and I’ve just changed my phone so I don’t even have his mobile number, how useful is that, but this week we need to contact him ourselves, and I will see if I can find something.
C:
Ok, thank you so much.
A:
Because he- he’s been involved for well upwards of ten years and so he was right the way through the process and he also knows at least one person on every fort, so he’s really the guy you need here, not me *laughs*.
C:
I think-
A:
In terms of Vechten, the person who would be, who is most- perhaps not- the person who I am aware of as being most closely involved in the process is Chris Will and he is still at DLG so make sure you get in touch with him. There are others as well I’m sure, but I’m- but he’s also an expert on the whole Waterline historically and has written a book about it- yeah he’s a good contact.
C:
If the Waterline were to get UNESCO classification, do you feel that that would have an impact on tourism?
A:
Tourism, ok; there is a really interesting report about that, which is very accessible to you, and is written by the- it was commissioned rather by the people who are trying to nominate the Lake District in England as a world heritage site and by Rebanks Consulting Ltd., and that’s kind of where I take my answer from, which is that if you use it well as a vehicle to drive tourism, it can have a very positive effect. It might not drive numbers up hugely, but their research shows that it changes the profile of the tourists visiting, and it’s- it’s something that anecdotally I think is true, I just think it’s definitely true. If you have a world heritage site status it’s a brand that people in the developed and richer countries are very familiar with, and then you get things like tours- the tours of the world heritage site of Hungary as a, as a sector that you can book from the United States 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 149 TRANSCRIPT 1 before you leave and do; and so world heritage site status means inclusion on that kind of thing which can only be a boom. In terms of what it means for development it will mean that any aspect of the line which is included within the interior of the site will probably have another level of red tape to get through from their perspective, that will need to adhere much more closely to regulations and will need to be monitored much more closely. So, with that in mind- I mean that’s the balance isn’t it? From a developer’s perspective it’s the potential for more tourism revenue against the fact that it can’t be overshared very easily, if you need to store your kayaks.
C:
Can I ask, how- what do you believe, or what would the stance of your office be towards tourism? Would you see it as a positive or a negative?
A:
For the way that the Waterline- I don’t about the stance of my office, *laughs*, because I am after all someone who just comes in, but from my personal perspective, the way that the Waterline has been developed, is tourism is a good thing. A lot of the thoughts are B&Bs, cafes- most of them have cafes if they’ve been developed, or conference centres or things like that; and tourism will be a driver for the positive according to Panorama Krayenhoff.
C:
When you said that tourism would be a positive, do you think that there could be any potential downsides to tourism? Like, is there- for example, too many people visiting the sites?
A:
Yeah, this is a big topic in the literature to do with world heritage sites, but the caveat is that when people are writing about it usually they are writing about a 15th century or 5th century temple complex and the hordes of visitors are wearing the stone away and you’re therefore unable to perceive the OUV in the way that you could. The threat to the Waterline is going to be in the development of the aspects of it rather than in the arrival- in my opinion the threat to the Waterline is going to be in the way it’s developed to attract tourists rather than what the tourists can do because after all these things are one hundred years old mostly, perhaps two hundred at a push and they were *laughs*, built to be strong, to be damn strong actually; and so the threat from tourism is perhaps indirect in terms of the fact that it’s- it’s what will they develop- how will they develop it to attract more tourists, not what will the tourists actual presence cause, I think.
C:
Do you think that due to the global recession that tourism can be a- do you think that it’s a good driver of economic recovery or more of a necessary evil as a driver for recovery? So do you think it’s a good thing or a bad thing?
A:
In the context of the New Dutch Waterline it’s a good thing, the way- if I were managing a different site, I might have a different opinion, but in the context of the New Dutch Waterline it’s a must because as I said the forts have been developed with tourism in mind, perhaps- I mean the ones that are owned by the Staatbosbeheer which is the State Forestry Agency or the- something else- there’s quite a few which are owned by various natural- nature organizations. Those- the one’s that haven’t been developed with that in mind are- are mostly geared towards attracting business, of course, and a lot of those businesses have tourism in mind. I would say that the majority of it is domestic or Dutch speaking at least, in the south quite a lot from Flanders, but that might change with the arrival of world heritage status; you never know.
C:
Ok, I think that’s everything I wanted to ask you, I just wanted to say thank you very much for the interview.
A:
You’re welcome.
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 150 TRANSCRIPT 2
Transcript 2 Koen Raats
C:
It’s Friday 30th May, interview number three, could you please introduce yourself and tell me what you do?
K:
Yeah, yeah, I’m Koen Raats and I’m doing my PHD on the New Dutch Waterline at the University of Amsterdam.
C:
And how did you get involved with that? Why did you decide to pursue that?
K:
Yeah good question, well it started when I finished my thesis, my Master’s thesis, and I studied the re-usage of old churches and Willem Salet the professor, he was my second reader- second reader, but did only read the thesis and he said ‘well it’s very interesting and I have a PHD position, not on re-usage of churches, but on re-usage of fortresses, it’s about the New Dutch Waterline’. So he asked me whether I was interested to do this PHD and then I did- well I got the job, so that’s where it started.
C:
And where are you currently working out of? The office, that you, you work in?
K:
Yeah, well the PHD position is financed by the Project Management Bureau, of the New Dutch Waterline, so they gave me the task investigate three different themes. So every Monday I worked at the management office, just to gather information, talk to people.
C:
Who were people that you would talk to? Was it ordinary people living in the areas, or management officials, or who were the main people you talked?
K:
Yeah, first of all I think that the people at the management office and the director and then I talked to- I talked actually to many fortress owners- the owners of the fortresses, which are often just public agencies, people living in the area, yes, I spoke to them, my professors, they did research on the subject- let me see, and yeah, civil servants working on the project, and I think you can distinguish three levels: the ministry, or the ministries I have to say because five ministries are involved in the project, the provinces, civil servants working in the local province, and the local level, level of the municipalities, and besides that you have the NGOs, like the forest agencies, Staatsbosbeheer, Natuurmonumenten, also NGO working only on nature preservation, and I also spoke to- well people in the field of cultural heritage- NGOs that are specified in the protection of cultural heritage, especially military heritage.
C:
It’s an incredibly multi-disciplinary- *laughs*.
K:
Yeah, yeah I know yeah, but I’m already three years working on the theme but I think that’s why I spoke to so many people.
C:
So if you could, if you could summarize the general feeling towards the Waterline?
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 151 TRANSCRIPT 2
K:
The general feeling?
C:
When you said you’ve spoken with so many different people?
K:
Hmm.
C:
Did you find that there were certain themes, or that there were overlapping feelings towards it or different groups had very different outlooks?
H:
I think different groups had very different outlooks, which is the basic general view on the Waterline, I think not- not many Dutch people know about the New Dutch Waterline- I think elderly does, but the young people never heard of it; but, that, that- I think that’s very important, it’s growing slowly last years, because all the efforts the civil servants do; but I think that the general feeling about the New Dutch Waterline is they don’t even know the New Dutch Waterline so, I think that’s different from the people living in the area, they probably know about the New Dutch Waterline, but I think they-ah it’s very general, I’m talking very general now. I think the main perception of the Waterline is just ‘oh yeah, I know about the fortress around the corner’, you know?’ It’s about that level.
C:
So it’s- so it’s more about the individual fortress than the line as a whole?
K:
I have the feeling- yeah.
C:
So do you- do you find that the forts are treated individually rather than the Waterline being treated as one project?
K:
I think that’s an interesting tension because the civil servants working on the New Dutch Waterline, they have an abstract position on this. How can I say that- they think on a higher scale, on a higher level of scale, so they see the Waterline as one coherent unit; and the specific policy goals that are mainly- mainly address this higher level of scale. So they want to find new functions for every fortress, it’s like one basic idea. They think that the complete Waterline is one coherent unit in the landscape and that it must be made visible again, this- so the unitary idea about this- is very strong, and this clashes sometimes with the very local viewpoints of civil servants working on the municipality level, or I think also people living in the area.
C;
So you said that ‘recently there has been an increasing awareness of the existence of the Waterline’.
K:
Um hum.
C:
Do you think- do you feel that that’s a good thing that awareness is being raised? 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 152 TRANSCRIPT 2
K:
Yeah.
C:
Why do you think that?
K:
I think it’s important because when the project started, it started really from a feeling that the Green Heart, you know in the Randstad, it was just disappearing a bit, you know, every municipality just, every year they built new houses in it. So- of course, it was a period of economic growth, it was a feeling we have to protect green areas in, in a metropolitan area of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, the Hague, Utrecht, so they saw this Waterline as a chance to protect this area, because from- you know for a long time there was legislation that especially the fields of the eastern side of the, the Waterline, the inundation fields, were- had- people weren’t allowed to build in that area, so it was pretty green, still. So basically the idea was to keep this area green, so there was an important reason why the project started of the New Dutch Waterline, so it was not only about fortresses, it was also about the landscape.
C:
During our last meeting, I think you described that as the ‘New Green Heart’?
K:
Yeah.
C:
Is that an unofficial title?
K:
Yeah that’s an unofficial title.
C:
Was this within your office? Or do you know where the phrase originally came from?
K:
No I saw it in- I also study some, some letters, you know, some emails that were sent among members of the group that worked on the master plan: Panorama Krayenhoff. They were talking about this.
C:
If I can ask more about Panorama Krayenhoff, how- how important has- do you feel that that document has been to the recent development of the Waterline?
K:
Let me first finish what I was talking about.
C:
Sorry.
K: 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 153 TRANSCRIPT 2
No, no, no- because I think you were asking that ‘do you think it’s important that there is more, you know- people know the New Dutch Waterline more’ and I think that for that goal of keeping the area green and open, you can just force it with all kinds of regulations, laws and stuff like that, but what’s better is that there is the- that it’s within the heads of all the people living in that area you know, I think that’s much stronger to keep that area green, and so I think it’s very good that there is more attention now for the New Dutch Waterline, people know about it.
Now about Panorama Krayenhoff, hmm, yeah- it was a very important document, I think it’s a strategic planning document, because it brought different interests of all the stakeholders involved together, and they did it in a very interactive way, so- it was published in 2004 I think, but it started already in 2001, 2002, because the first thing planners realised, when they started to work on the project- when they started on the project they realised ‘well there are so many stakeholders involved: I mean five ministries, five provinces, twenty five municipalities, three waterboard regions, all kind of NGOs, people living in the area’, it was such a complex project. Only from the government’s perspective, they thought ‘well we have to- have to talk to people, ask them what kind of interests they have, what kind of plans they have in the area’. So they organized many, many bus tours, at least I think one or two years, and it was really a positive atmosphere, like we found something, all these fortresses, these landscapes, there are great opportunities to do something with it so it had high potential.
C:
You said it had high potential?
K:
Yeah
C:
Do you not- do you think it hasn’t fulfilled that?
K:
Well it had high potential because- especially the municipalities were expecting money form the ministries and that money came, later in the process, but that was just the feeling then. Later that feeling turned, but just to- you know, in Dutch you say ‘de neuzen dezelfde kant op krijgen’ ‘the nose is in the same direction’, I don’t know, is that- is that an English saying?
C:
Yeah I know what you mean.
K:
Yeah, but it’s not, no-
C:
I think our equivalent would be ‘everyone looking in the same direction’.
K:
Yeah, yeah, so for that purpose it was very important.
C:
So, do you feel that that feeling has changed since, in the last ten years since the publication?
K:
Well I spoke to the, designer, what they basically did was asking for a landscape designers to make four masterplans, visionary documents. What to do with the New Dutch Waterline, that adapted all these different interests, and Eric Luiter won that 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 154 TRANSCRIPT 2 competition, and his idea was- I think was quite good, it was very simple in a sense that he said ‘well, it’s basically one line and on the eastern side of the line we should keep it open and green, now still that idea of the new Green Heart, and on the western side of the line there is the possibility to build; and with the money we gain from development, we could use that money for re-usage of the fortresses, the restoration, maintenance, stuff like that’; that was the idea, so a very simple idea and everyone liked it, because it was quite abstract and there were no concrete plans in it. We had the plan to do so, to put some very concrete examples in there, and then I think it was Ed d’ Hondt, he was head of the commission, and he said, ‘keep them out, keep these concrete examples out because some of these charities are not going to like that, and we have to be happy with what we have right now, everyone is happy with it, so keep it out’ you know? So that’s a very- I think that’s a very nice example of the consciousness that was back then about- there were very glad that they had reached this-
C:
Consensus?
K:
Yeah, yeah, consensus, yeah, on very abstract ideas.
C:
So how- how do you feel that the- that the economic recession 2008 affected, affected development of the Waterline?
K:
Yeah, I think it did, very much, I think in two ways. First, because when Panorama Krayenhoff was- yeah the political leaders were ok with it, they signed the document, the next question was ‘who is going to pay for it?’. I think I already told you this at the previous meeting.
C:
Would you mind covering it again?
K:
No, no, I can talk about it again; it’s of course a very crucial question, ‘who is going to pay for it?’ and there was of course some scepticism, especially on the local level. ‘Yeah we have this fancy document, everyone likes it but what are we going to do?’ So what they did, there was a national spatial planning policy document, the nota ruimte and the nota ruimte what is one big pot of money that was allocated between each country. So what they did, the management office, they said ‘ok well we want a piece- we want just a chunk of that money’, and then you have to do all kinds of cost benefit analysis and stuff like that, you have read many, many documents, so this is where the co- cooperation started with the provinces and the municipalities, because they had to hand in local projects, so they all did this, and finally they received the money, I think it €20 million or something like this. But this is also where the, the problems started, because at the management office they have very high expectations of the project and they were controlling the plans that were being made at the local level, and sometimes at the local level they had the idea to build housing, just on the other side of the fortress, because they had already bought that land, you know, something like that. Somebody at the municipality had said, ‘ok we are not going to cooperate anymore, we already have the plans to build houses here and we don’t need you’, but there you see already some tensions arising. Now your question about the financial crisis, I think two things happened, two aspects. The first, I think the political leaders, didn’t like the project anymore, the political leader that was responsible especially on the level of the provinces was also always the culture- cultural and education political and they are not very strong, very often. I think Marieke and Chris will agree with me, and in times austerity politics, the cultural sector is always on the losing end. So there was not much money anymore for the project, and no political commitment anymore, and what they did, they reserved money for projects, light restoration projects for fortresses, landscape projects, path, path or walking tracks, stuff like that, and what they did was saying first of all ‘was to build them within two years, and now they say well now we are going to build them within fifteen years’ so they stretched the period, and that’s, that’s a very- it’s a way, you know, to save some money in a way, and that’s what happened, so there- it’s not much going on in the Waterline anymore, because they- because of this technique.
C:
Of stretching out over a long- 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 155 TRANSCRIPT 2
K:
Yeah, yeah, yeah. So it has an impact on the political commitment, and on the- financial resources available for the project.
C:
You mentioned that the municipalities were less likely to cooperate as they had separate plans- do you find that any development that is taking place is being funded by alternative means, because the government’s priorities have changed. Is it up to the municipalities to fund it themselves?
K:
Um hmm, um hmm, I don’t know, I don’t know about this. I think there are not- no, there are no projects- municipalities do not have much money you know, they are very dependent on the-
C:
On the government?
K:
Yeah, yeah.
C:
Have- do you know if the- if the- if any of the fortifications are seen as an opportunity to generate money, like for example, through tourism, or commercial use- do you know of any specific examples or anything about that?
K:
Again- can you re-ask the question?
C:
Sorry- because the government’s priorities changed, now that the Netherlands is recovering from the effects of the recession, do you think that some of those fortifications are seen as, as development opportunities or a chance to generate revenue?
K:
I think it’s exactly the other way around.
C:
Really?
K:
Yeah, I think that this- I think that the lowest point is that we are at right now, but investments on fortresses, they’re actually trying to sell two fortresses now and there are hardly developers to find who are interested.
C:
Could I ask you about- about three fortifications in particular: Loevestein, Uitermeer and Vechten? On the website which covers the Waterline, I found that there are- that there is development ongoing or planned for the near future for these three sites and I was wondering if you are familiar with them.
K:
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 156 TRANSCRIPT 2
I know something about Loevestein and a bit about Vechten. Uitermeer is the black spot on my knowledge about the New Dutch Waterline, I mean I’ve been there but I know nothing about the project that’s going on. Slot Loevestein, yeah, I think- have you been there? It looks like a castle.
C:
No, I have a visit planned in the near future, but I haven’t been there yet.
K:
It has a rich history, it’s on the corner of a river, and it has a rich history in the sense that Hugo de Groot a very important figure in Dutch history, he was imprisoned.
C:
Oh, that’s in one of Alexander Dumas’ books.
K:
Exactly, he escaped in a book chest.
C:
Yeah.
K:
So it’s not only the New Dutch Waterline going on there, it’s much broader and I think they really, they take part in the New Dutch Waterline developments, but they are very opportunistic. They did this to get some money for projects, and I really like the CEO that that works there. What she basically does, she keeps on developing the site, so maybe I can make a little drawing: if you have the river here, I think it’s over here, here’s the castle- I’ll draw a little castle there, and I think there’s an extra ditch here, so what she does right now is she builds apartments for a holiday- you could spend some time I mean; because it’s- the maintenance of the castle it’s so high, the maintenance cost, so she’s really trying to find ways to get some money, and well, she receives some subsidy for this. Another this is the area here, is just nature preservation, and she is also involved in this project for education, because it is also linked to education and just like grasslands- and this was also part of broadening the river in this direction so when the water is very high you can inundate this field to give space for the water. There were farmers before but now it’s a nature area, and she is also is involved in this project, to gain some money again, you know, so she is very opportunistic in finding ways to, to receive some money for her cost, for her castle, so that’s why she is also coupling with the New Dutch Waterline.
C:
That is Miss Stijns?
K:
Yeah, Ien Stijns.
C:
I’ve tried contacting her, but haven’t gotten a reply yet.
K:
Yeah that’s a pity, she is always very busy.
C:
Yeah, since she’s the manager- the director. Before I ask about the other fort, you said that she, she is ‘continually developing’ 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 157 TRANSCRIPT 2 in order to generate revenue.
K:
Yeah.
C:
One of the documents you gave me was the Belvedere Memorandum.
K:
Um hum.
C:
And the main motto- or the recurring theme through it was ‘conservation through development’; and here you have- in this site you have a really important historic building that’s as you said, ‘continually being developed’. Do you think that that’s a good thing, that this historic site is being worked on, or should- or do you think these historic buildings should-
K:
Is think it’ a good example because she has respect for the building, the building itself is just- it’s fine, it’s maintained in a very good, way but in the area around- she’s using the area around the castle to, to make some profit, to invest that in the castle again. But I see this also in another fortress, Geofort in Nieuwesteeg, it’s basically the same principle, the maintenance of the fortresses is so high, the maintenance costs, what they basically do is keep on developing, developing, again, subsidy based development, when this stops, and that’s now, because subsidy streams dry up, they have a big problem, they can’t finance the maintenance costs anymore. So I think this model: ‘conservation through development’ is worked out in the wrong way in these cases. It appears to be fine when there are still chances to attract subsides, but today you see they are facing problems, and it’s not a very sustainable way of maintaining a historic site. So I am quite critical on that.
C:
What do you think would be a better way of generating money to maintain the-
K:
I think government just has to realise that there’s always a certain amount of money that is needed for maintenance, I mean these buildings are so extremely expensive to maintain, they always- will always need subsidy, and it’s a very neo-liberal thought, thinking just be giving space for, for the market, that that will solve the problem. On the other side I think the projects that she does, this project and this project, they are really nice and I like them, very- many interests are mixed, they enforce each other: I mean education, nature, water, they’re all in there, you know; and that works, but if you look at the main goal: protecting, conserving, conservation of this castle, it’s not very sustainable.
C:
Yeah, so earlier- earlier whenever you said you think it’s a good thing to ‘increase awareness of the fortifications and the Waterline’, do you feel that there could be a potential downside, like for example if, would increased tourism and more people visiting these sites, that the increased visitor numbers could somehow damage the buildings or the sites? Is that a concern?
K: Yeah it could be, I mean- this is- many people living in the area are worried about this. Something well, it’s nice when tourists come in and visit the place, some dynamics, as nothing is going on, that’s what they think, and others are very conservative and they don’t like it; but I think that for the protection of the cultural heritage, it’s really important that there is some, that there are some dynamics in and around the fortresses, but it’s needed, so it’s a chance yes.
C:
Could you tell me a little bit about this site? 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 158 TRANSCRIPT 2
K:
For Vechten, yeah Fort Vechten, I think it’s the biggest fort of the New Dutch Waterline, and in Panorama Krayenhoff, you know the Masterplan made in 2004, they thought ‘well we are going to make one fortress stand out, just a very big development’. It’s the representation of the complete fortification line, that was the idea, and Fort Vechten was quite soon- decided that Fort Vechten would be that place that the National Waterline Museum would come in Fort Vechten. So Fort Vechten is by far the most expensive project, has been in pretty bad weather; I think it’s a very badly managed project and I think this also has to do with why is it that- the question ‘why is it a badly managed project?’
C:
Which, sorry which level of management are you referring two?
K:
Exactly, there were many- There were basically two levels of management, first of all the management office, because they saw it as a national project: The National Waterline Museum, and the level of the provinces, the level of the province bought the province I think, and there were some managers from the province involved in the project and they thought they had the lead, so there was already some miscommunication. Who was in charge of the project? Besides that there were also- it was not clear which politician was responsible for the project, was it just the ‘gedeputeerde’ of Culture of the Province of Utrecht, or was it the Commission of the Complete Waterline, you know with the Province of Utrecht plus the other provinces, plus the ministry, so it was not clear who was responsible here, on the level- so the bureaucrats as well as the level.
C:
Do you know why this site, sorry this fortification was chosen to be the National Waterline Centre?
K:
You can ask Chris about this, but what I think is that it is pretty close to Utrecht, so from an economic perspective, this is very sensible I think. It’s the biggest fortress, so to spend- to spend the money on the biggest fortress you have. I think from a historical perspective this was the central fortress for leading the defence, but I’m not sure about this.
C:
So- what- to finish up, I’d like- what do you think is going to happen in the next- in the near future- in the next few years of the Waterline? Based on your research-
K:
I’m worried, I’m worried, because the management office, you have like the management office, then you have the five provinces, see, here you have the five ministries, and here you have all the municipalities, like twenty five municipalities. Yeah, so what happened in 2008, no no, later, I think 2010, 2011, there was one main, there was the ministry of LNV of Agriculture, Nature and Food, they took the lead on the ministry level, so they were received input from the other ministries, and they were just responsible for the national level. Here’s the management office of the New Dutch Waterline, and here you have the provinces, now what happened in 2011, I’m not sure about this, you can ask Marieke, Marieke knows about this, they say ‘well decentralization, this is just a project, we don’t feel responsible anymore, many forts are being reused and I think, it’s just a project of the provinces now’ so the LNV step out, and all the others leave OCW the Ministry of Culture, they found it still very important because the New Dutch Waterline was on the list- temporal list of the UNESCO, that was still a bit, very distant, still involved. And what then happened, it turned around, but the provinces took over, and last week, the provinces decided to get rid of the management office, so there is no management office anymore, they lost their job in a way; but the provinces took over, that’s what happened, and now, the province of South Holland- they have a very small piece of the New Dutch Waterline, it’s in the very south, they are out, and North Holland are also thinking about getting out. So this is why I’m worried, because I think if you want to, if you have the- Utrecht, you have the defence line like this, this is- this is North Holland, this is Utrecht, this is Gelderland, this is South Holland, this is North Brabant, this is all the provinces. I mean for instance, Utrecht, they have, just to give an example, they have a project here, and it’s about lekkanaal, the channel and they have to broaden the channel so- I like to draw *laughs*.
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 159 TRANSCRIPT 2
C:
Go ahead.
R:
So yeah, this is the area, you have- you have rivers here, not working.
C:
Oh here, this should work.
R:
The two rivers here, and this channel, this is a very important channel for economic purposes, but this also- and they want to broaden it in this direction, you see, but this is New Dutch Waterline area, but the province has two interests here. They find it very important to broaden the channel, but they also have this cultural heritage landscape interest, to protect this area, and this is a crucial area for the UNECSO nomination, so the other provinces, they find that it should be open, and that channel shouldn’t be broadened.
C:
So there are a lot of conflicts of interest.
K:
Yeah and what the, what the management office, they could always say, ‘well keep this interest in mind, remind the province about this interest’, because, well, you have of course political leaders who find important the economic purpose, and in these times, the economic purpose always wins. So I think in examples like this, in this new structure, well the Waterline will lose in a way, so that’s why I’m very sceptical, maybe a bit negative.
C:
Yeah I can understand that.
K;
Yeah, yeah, yeah; but still I mean if you look at this structure, this old structure, there were so many people working on the project, it was very expensive.
C:
And now quite a lot of them have left or are thinking of leaving?
K:
Yeah, yeah, yeah, but this is what is happening now.
C: It’s incredibly complicated.
K:
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
C;
Yeah I think that’s- I think that’s covered everything I was looking to ask you about, so-
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 160 TRANSCRIPT 2
K:
You were talking about frames yeah?
C:
Yes
K:
I find that very interesting because I think the management office, they have really the perspective of ‘this is one coherent line, we have to keep the landscape open’. If you look at the level of provinces, they think differently about this, they think ‘the New Dutch Waterline is just this area; we’re going to invest here, we’re going to do some projects’, that’s a completely different frame.
C:
Yeah; and then as you said there’s the UNESCO bid that concerns the entire line, the individual people who are only really aware of the fortifications next to where they live and it’s-
K:
Yeah.
C:
Each level has- has its own outlook, its own frame.
K:
And the problem in this new well working mode, is that, you know in this model the management office was always able to say something about projects like this, but the management office doesn’t exist anymore. So the other provinces are no way- they’re not going to involve in these projects like saying- for instrance Gelderland saying ‘Utrecht, you can’t do this, they’d never say it’.
C:
It must be such a- when you said that you had to- when you were starting your research and you had to talk to so many different stakeholders, *laughs*, it must have been a real headache trying to go through everything?
K:
Um hum
Well I did some research on how the private sector and how the public sector are working together in the project and I did some research on the frames and what I found out was that- yeah basically there are four frames, and you can- here is a public end, private, and cooperation and no cooperation; and this is just a spectrum where all the frames are. Yeah, what can I say about it- they always say these are the main differences between the public and the private perspective but I think that this is very mixed, this is like a false distinction, because also on the private end, frames are very scattered and in the public sector as well, it’s a very dispersed field of frames.
I think if you talk about government there are two responses to the financial crisis, the first is ‘we have to attract financial investors’, second it ‘just let it go and wait for better times’.
C:
From, from speaking to Niek at Fort Uitermeer that, before the recession there was a lot of- the funding was going to come from three sources so his- one third from the government, one third from private investors, and one third from developing the site, from- from revenue, and as soon as the recession hit, the private investors withdrew funding almost immediately, and that placed increasing pressure on their, their ambition, although he said they’ve managed to stick to their original goals, it’s just it’s taking a lot longer than they had originally hoped. So it’s- it’s- I just find it really interesting, that now- like- like for example, he 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 161 TRANSCRIPT 2 said they were able to stick to their goals but it means that they had to generate- they had to generate more funds themselves, so they’ve, they’ve managed to stay in roughly the same place on the scale, but other sites, for example you mentioned Fort Loevestein, the projects that Miss Steijn is doing herself- sorry, is encouraging, so she would be moving more towards development.
K:
Yeah, I really like this scale, and the position of the different actors on it and how they change due to the crisis.
C:
Yeahs it’ just from what you mentioned, that finance seems to be the biggest, the biggest deciding factor. Form your own research from this scale you’ve shown me with the four sections, would you consider finance to be the biggest factor, or are there any other major-
K:
I think political leadership is also crucial, and to what extent the actor is externally focused, or just internally focused, this is also very close to cooperation and no cooperation. Some actors are just really focused on protecting their own interests.
C:
Which actors would you find are- would work, would cooperate most with each other and which would be the most opposed?
K:
Depends, from case to case; I think- South Holland province, they’re just leaving right now, there is no cooperation, I find this is a very difficult question. What I also found out, that there’s a difference between the rhetoric frames and the action frame actors, So for instance, we look how responses on the economic crisis, is that something that the municipality says, ‘we are going to do things differently now, we are going to find a financial investor, we are going to cooperate close with the private sector, we are going to develop this fortress’. That’s what they say- what they do is completely the same, completely conservative, all kind of guidelines, very controlling way of operating, so we have to, to keep an eye on this I think; because what they say, it’s maybe something different from what they do.
C:
Well you mentioned earlier about this document, that the- sorry, the-
K:
Masterplan?
C:
Sorry, yeah, the Masterplan- specific examples were deliberately left out, so do you feel so- that that’s- so that promises would be made- it was to avoid making promises that wouldn’t be kept in order to- when you said the difference between rhetoric and action, do you feel that that was an example?
K:
It was only about rhetoric here, and about a very abstract strategy, everyone would agree on. The main goal was to find something everyone would agree on.
C:
To try, to try and get everyone -
K:
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 162 TRANSCRIPT 2
From no cooperation to cooperation, yeah.
C:
But since- but since the recession, it’s moved towards no cooperation.
K:
Yeah, yeah, yeah of course.
C:
Do you feel that there is any way of turning that around realistically?
K:
I think the UNESCO could be a subject- a new subject, a subject that probably all the involved actors would like, but the problem here again is that the UNESCO would have great impact on the spatial planning in the provinces, so, I just think the political leaders are a little afraid that this UNESCO nomination will lead to, well, some sort of- that they- that there is not an opportunity any more to develop the area. That is also a frame yeah, how the UNESCO is framed.
C:
Do you have you any experience on the UNESCO bid?
K:
No well, I’ve been to some meetings, and many questions were asked about the implications of the UNESCO- what does it mean? How expensive is it? You know, questions like that- how many tourists will the UNESCO status attract, questions like that- you know, a very economic perspective on the UNESCO; and the element that support the UNESCO nomination are often representing the cultural heritage sector, and not the spatial planning sector.
C:
Why do think that spatial planning isn’t-
K:
Left out?
C:
Yeah.
K:
I don’t know, you can ask Marieke about this, that’s a very good question.
C:
Ok, I think that’s everything I wanted to ask you about.
K:
Ok
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 163 TRANSCRIPT 3
Transcript 3 Rob Zakee
C:
It’s Tuesday 5th June, interview number four; would you like to introduce yourself and tell me what you do?
R:
Yes, my name’s Rob Zakee, at the moment, I am not working anymore for the New Dutch Waterline, but I learned the Dutch- I mean the English word for it: Alderman for the town of Bunnik, which is quite nearby. Before that I have been working for about eight years at the National Project of the New Dutch Waterline on several sub projects and my latest trick so to speak was the Project Manager for the world heritage nomination.
C:
Can you tell me how you got involved with that please?
R:
With the whole project or the world heritage nomination do you mean?
C:
With both
R:
With both, ok; I used to work with the Ministry of Agriculture which is now incorporated in the Ministry of Economic Affairs, and the coordinating Ministry for the National Project was the Ministry of Agriculture so when there was a vacancy I applied for that and I got the job. The project of the world heritage nomination is, something which is- which kind of evaluated during the years- the New Dutch Waterline has been on the tentative list since 1996, but kind of sleeping, and after the nomination as the biggest national monument in the Netherlands, we picked up the next step which was of course the world heritage nomination, and as I did the national monument thing as well, it was quite logical that I did this world heritage nomination too.
C:
So, when you- when you said that the nomination has ‘been sleeping’ do you mean it has slowed down or its-
R:
More at the time that the national government up until around 2010, didn’t nominate any new or didn’t apply any new sites in the Netherlands with the world heritage centre, but that was- that was just national policy because the feeling was that we had to evaluate the whole policy on world heritage nominations in the Netherlands before we could start any other application- that was done in the- evaluation was done in 2010, and then another- I think it was- twelve tentative sites were listed.
C:
So- why- do you know why the national policy changed?
R:
Yeah, it, this is- this is a very specialist stuff; we – back in the early 2000s so to speak, we had a minister that was part of the international committee for world heritage, and it was, it was felt not appropriate as being a member of that international committee to nominate as a country, that was one of the reasons I think, but that has never been officially stated that it was also a budget cut.
C:
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 164 TRANSCRIPT 3
So- Could you elaborate on that, on the budget cuts?
R:
I’ll try to because this is a bit speculative but- in the, say the late 1990s and the early 2000s we had a government which was a- dominated by the left wing parties which had, culture in the general sense high in their policy. After that we got a more right wing orientated government, in which culture played a less important role, so, and that’s still is going on- you can see that the budgets and of course the economic crisis didn’t help over the last few years. The budgets for culture and cultural heritage have come down quite a lot.
C:
Do you think that the right wing government would be more responsible or the economic recession would be more responsible for those cuts?
R
As it started before the economic crisis I would say that the more conservative governments are also responsible for that- yeah.
C:
But do you think that the recession- the economic recession definitely had a big impact on the-
R:
Yeah, yeah.
C:
Could you elaborate?
R:
Well when I, when I noticed in the project especially is that we had a very important financial boost for the project back in 2008, where the National Project- Project got a- it’s called a- you can find it- find it back on Google, the de pact van rijnauwen. Where all the parties involved got a budget of altogether around €40 million for the whole National Project; I think that would be impossible at the moment because of the economy, so that has nothing to do with left-wing, right-wing, anything else but- but especially with the economic recession; the amount of money is just less.
C:
So due to, due to the less funds being available do you find that the, that- sorry, do you find that government money has been focused elsewhere besides the cultural sector and the New Dutch Waterline?
R:
You mean that- that the money’s gone to a different- yeah. Well of course in general the government budget has gone down quite a lot on almost everything apart from infrastructure maybe, so it’s not only- it’s not only the New Dutch Waterline, or culture, it’s- we have cuts in social welfare etc. etc. so it’s all over the whole government policy.
C:
So do you have- do you have any experience with individual fortifications that have been trying to raise funds in different ways
R:
Yes, yes; there are quite a few really, and they all done it in different ways; but you- one of, one of the oldest examples I think 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 165 TRANSCRIPT 3 is Fort Asperen, near the small town of Asperen in Gelderland, where local people involved in- especially culture, not cultural heritage but culture, try to attach the ‘special object’ to a, say museum cultural function and- so that’s, so that line try to raise funds from, well funding institutes really, where they- and and they got quite a bit of money from local and regional governments for that function, not so much that cultural heritage being the fortress building itself but for the entity as a museum.
C:
Yeah. Could- sorry, you use the phrase ‘attach special objects’, what exactly does that mean?
R:
You mean the ‘special object’?
C:
Yeah.
R:
What, what I notice and I’ve noticed over, over the years is that- let’s say the general public acknowledges that these, all these fortresses are a special place, it has a- the national advisor on landscape architecture once stated that ‘these are buildings with a soul’ and ‘you can change these buildings, but make sure you never change the soul of the place’, and I think the general public acknowledges that. They consider it special places, which of course they are, they have a bit of a sense of secrecy, but- that helps with almost every new function you want to give to the building, that, that sense of speciality.
C:
Sorry, do you happen to know the name of the man who used that expression ‘buildings with a soul’?
R:
Yeah, he, he is call Dirk Sijmons. He’s, he’s quite a well-known public figure.
C:
So, one- from your experience do you feel that local people have an awareness of the fort- sorry just the fortifications which are close to where they live or do they have an awareness as the Waterline as a whole?
R:
I, I think the so to speak, the bulk of the people only have knowledge of the forts around, yeah where they live, and a- only a very small minority are interested the whole Waterline. There has been a slight shift in, you know- the amount of people that are interested because of our marketing etc. but I, I think when it comes to real involvement, the people are, are well almost only involved- interested in the forts that are you know, within their walking or cycling distance.
C:
Yeah, do, do you think that it is a good thing to raise awareness of the fortifications or a bad thing?
R:
No I think it’s a good thing, because we come from a situation where- like, back in the 1970s, 1980s these places used to be abandoned, defence objects, and, and they gradually evolved into something. It always reminds me of old castles in Ireland for example. Kind of cracked, old, with a, with a sense of- what do you call it- history, but also strangeness, and, and, and they’ve gone also into kind of green nature spots where you can just walk around.
C:
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 166 TRANSCRIPT 3
Yeah.
R:
So I, I think you- where this has, has grown quite a lot, people can enjoy these places more and more, but I think the awareness of something hard to grab like a New Dutch Waterline is a very difficult message to pass on.
C:
Yeah. Well- you mentioned earlier about the increasing awareness due to the marketing.
R:
Yeah.
C:
Could you elaborate on that?
R:
On the Marketing?
C:
Yeah
R:
I’ll try to, it’s, it’s a hard thing to do because I think one of the big issues is do you market so to speak the historic building or do you, do your marketing to other ways- I mentioned Fort Asperen which did something of course with very famous artists- had painting at exhibitions etc. I think that’s what attracts the people, we have one of the fortress here which is a, a quite, a good running restaurant, and I, I think people enjoy the atmosphere of the place because it’s a fort but they don’t really enjoy the historic background of the fort itself so it’s secondary so to speak, and I think with, what, what the national project has, has been focusing on too much has been the historic value of the whole Waterline and of course instead of using it as a kind of special background for exhibitions, shows, etc.
C:
Yeah; so would you say that you think it’s better to re-use the building- sorry to re-use the fortifications for uses such as cafes and art exhibitions as well?
R:
It, it helps, it helps, although I think what, what makes the whole Waterline as attractive is diversity in things so, I think it’s also very attractive to leave one, two or three projects, just be there, let them crumble so to speak, or let them in their original state.
C:
Yeah, like restore them?
R:
Yeah, restore them, as well- yeah, so- but I, I, I, what I want to- because I- there’s an example which is quite nearby, in the town where I live, Fort Rijnauwen, which is the biggest fort on the Waterline, which is just a very special natural place, quite close to the big town of Utrecht.
C: 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 167 TRANSCRIPT 3
Is that Fort Vechten?
R:
Fort Rijnauwen
C:
Oh sorry
R:
Fort Vechten is the second biggest, but that is also in the town of Bunnik so you are quite close.
C:
Ok.
R:
But, it’s, it’s interesting, Fort Vechten is being renovated into a National Centre with a museum etc. etc. while Fort Rijnauwen, which Is just across the road really, it’s just one mile down the road; is, is a nature conservation area really with the fort in it’ it’s original state and which is for people quite tricky. So you need both sides, both sides of the medal so to speak
C:
Yeah. I’d like to ask you about three fortifications in particular: Fort Vechten is one of them, Slot Loevestein in Gelderland, Fort Uitermeer and Fort Vechten.
R:
Ok.
C:
Do you have any experience with these or could you tell me about them?
R:
Yes; with all of them really. It is, it is quite interesting because Slot Loevestein, if you would ask the general public in the Netherlands if they know of the connection between the New Dutch Waterline and Slot Loevestein, nobody has a clue. It’s a medieval castle, beautiful, located beautifully and it’s quite well known in the Netherlands because of the history behind it. Now we have a number of these castles and they all share the kind of same, well, problem, or is well, it’s, it’s like running an old medieval, big, hard to maintain building, for the sense of making people aware of our national history, and they have done quite a lot about that but they, they, they have been an historical mus- museum for as long as I live anyway.
C:
Yeah.
R:
So, I think what you can learn form that is that it takes quite a long time before a historic place gets known by the general public.
C:
Yeah. 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 168 TRANSCRIPT 3
R:
And I think it’s, it’s worked quite well, it’s, it’s quite well visited, as a- say a historical museum; they have attached a number of things to it, bed and breakfast, a restaurant etc. which are running quite well, as well I think, but, they are never going to have a break even with private money running the place. They- because it’s a huge thing and I think it always will need, like the biggest fortresses, the big fortresses as well, they will always need some kind of government funding to keep it going. So that’s- do you need to know more about that, or-
C:
Could you- could you tell me- you said that- because the high maintenance costs and operating costs that, that the fort is using other means to raise funds and you said there was a bed and breakfast- do you know what else there is on the site?
R:
Yeah, yeah- so, so- there- so there is a museum which is running quite well, there is a place where you can have parties, can marry etc. that kind of, a conference kind of thing. They have several, yeah you need to see it but there are several small apartments where you can rent a bed and breakfast thing. They have- of course they have a restaurant, but that doesn’t raise enough money to keep a huge building like that in, in the proper status. So- so what they tried to do is, is keep looking for other functions to attach to the building. They are quite near, near big river, the River Waal for example where you have the thing of the water level raising and- so they are trying to with the national- I don’t know what that’s called in English, Rijkswaterstaat, it’s, s it’s, it’ the governmental body that is responsible for the water security so to speak. At that, at that specific point it’s really quite feasible how that should work so they’re trying to- with exhibitions on that item they are trying to raise some money as well.
C:
Yeah.
R:
But I think the, the key issue in here is that the building is just too big. That will, if we talk about Fort Vechten, that will be a key issue too- the place is just too big and too complicated a building, to have a privately- run with, or- run with, yeah, private money, because investing is just not making enough money to-
C:
Yeah, so Fort Vechtern, it’s, it’s being turned into the National Waterline Centre and that’s due to open in 2015?
R:
That’s right yeah.
C:
So- do- first of all, do you know why it was selected to become the National Waterline Centre.
R:
This has always been a question for me- when I entered with the National Project, it was already decided that, that it was going to be in Fort Vechten; which I always found strange, I think it has something to do- but I can’t really prove it- with the status of some people, who attached their name to Fort Vechten, and- and that was really a long back; and for some reason or other, the amount of money put into Fort Vechten to make it a National Centre, just- it, it, just, the money just came, you know? And it always surprised me when we talked about this pot of right now, €40 million.
C:
Yeah. 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 169 TRANSCRIPT 3
R:
About €25 million of that is going to be put into Fort Vechten. I find it surprising, because of course it is in the centre of the Waterline, but I find it a, a- that maybe that’s, that’s why the province of Utrecht, not the town but the province of Utrecht has been very keen to make a deal with the province.
C:
Yeah
R:
But I still think there’s not enough logic in it to do this. So I think it has something to do with status of people, status of a provincial government other than a really economical, sound decision.
C:
Do you think that there, that there could be better uses for the site than a National Waterline Centre?
R:
I think it’s, it’s ok, to have a Waterline Centre, but the question is ‘how big should a Waterline Centre be?’, or would it have been, would it have made more sense to invest in, in other development in or around that spot, instead of making it a museum. I have been talking to a friend and I find that part quite interesting; this friend is building mountain bike tracks and he said to me ‘well this, because it’s all flat concrete’, he said ‘this would be ideal to make, why haven’t you done that?’ I couldn’t answer the question but I think that it makes sense. What you also can see is that the big money makers at the moment at Fort Vechten are festivals, music festivals, youth festivals, which have nothing but then- nothing really to do with the New Dutch Waterline other than, what I just talked about, the- this sense of being at a special place.
C:
Yeah, there’s- you know Slaine Castle in Ireland? It’s used for festivals.
R:
Yeah, yeah. Well that’s really the same thing. It’s a historic background that gives you the feeling that you are at a special place. Actually I once stated that U2 play at For Vechten one time rather than having a national museum there for lots of years because I think that gives the economic boost to, to the place which you need to preserve the place for the, the next generation.
C:
Are those festivals going to stop once the National Waterline Centre opens?
R:
If the people who are responsible for it have any sense they don’t stop them.
C:
But you don’t know.
R:
I’m not sure, I don’t really know.
C:
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 170 TRANSCRIPT 3
Ok.
R:
That has to do with the construction, and the exploitation of the fort is run by a private body, were the impulse of making it a national museum comes from the provincial government and they don’t really match so-
C:
So just before I ask you about Uitermeer, do you- with the events like festivals and then at Loevestein there’s a museum and bed and breakfast- by attracting, by attracting visitors to all these historical sites, do you think that the site could potentially be damaged by too many people coming to them or does-
R:
I’m not, I’m not really afraid of that.
C:
No?
R:
No.
C:
It’s- Of course, they’re, they’re, they’re strong military buildings. I don’t think the- because they’re nominated as national monuments which means they have quite strict regulations on what you can do and what you can’t do, I’m not too afraid
C:
So what about the surrounding area though?
R:
…No I don’t really think so. I think people are quite aware of the specialty of the- both the citizens as well as governments are quite aware of the specialty of the places. I haven’t seen any real damaging developments in the surroundings of Fort Vechten.
C:
Yeah.
R:
That’s quite strictly regulated.
C:
Yeah. Could we move on to Fort-
R:
Uitermeer?
C:
Sorry- Uitermeer. 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 171 TRANSCRIPT 3
R:
Yes; I find that a quite an interesting example- what happened there is that, it’s one of the older forts in the Waterline, and it had been already- not damaged- but it’s really quite ruined, and what we did- or the province did in this case, they kind of conservated the ruin, so they didn’t restore it, they just made sure by all kinds of measurements that they wouldn’t, how do you say that?- ruin further? *laughs*
C:
Oh it’s, ‘made safe’ or ‘structurally sound’?
R:
It’s, it’s, have you been there?
C:
Yes I have, I also met with Nick Roozen.
R:
Ok, well it was like it was and what they did, they just made sure it stayed, could stay in that particular state, that was with the building itself, now after they had done that, they found out, and it’s really a couple of years later I would say, is that this particular spot was quite an ideal location to have a kind of recreational function as well.
C:
Yeah.
R:
So they- well I think they, they had a kind of contest, as to which development around the fort would be the best and it turned out to be this restaurant which is there right now, which I think, I think is a brilliant solution; I mean you can sit there and enjoy the scenery, and the river and the old fort and have some information on the Waterline. I think that’s the development which is for really most places the most likely one, so you sit, you enjoy the scenery, you feel that you are in a special surrounding. Of course this is not a place because it is too small- where you could do something like a festival.
C:
Yeah.
R:
So I, I think that, that there might be a kind of seizure between the big forts and small forts where in the small forts you can do developments with bed and breakfast, restaurants, nice places to sit down and enjoy scenery, where- and from that you can exploit so to speak, the fort itself because the buildings are small and not so expensive to maintain while with the big places you need to do other things like festivals at Fort Vechten. At Fort Rijnauwen, which is a- of course there’s a nature conservation area, it is almost entirely government funded, but they also had once every two years an opera running, I think three weeks in a row in summer which is always sold out completely, so I thinks that’s- and it could be U2, and it could be an opera, or it could be whatever.
C:
Yeah
R:
Or Rory Gallagher, *laughs* God bless him, *laughs*, I’m a fan of Rory Gallagher. 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 172 TRANSCRIPT 3
C:
Really.
R:
Yeah, *laughs* I’m old; but anyway I think, I think that’s what you, you need with, with the bigger places you can’t attract one single investor to have a company running the place, and you need more to have temporary things like festivals, concerts, and I could-
C:
Could I ask you about, about, about this document Panorama Krayenhoff?
R:
Krayenhoff, yeah.
C:
Have- could you tell me if you are familiar with it?
R:
Yeah sure.
C:
What is your experience of this document?
R:
I think it is a, a good vision, it has been used too strictly and too literally for the development of the Waterline. We haven’t been able to- so to speak, evaluate with time, what we needed to change on the vision, learning from what we have learned. So we’ve used it through- too strictly through time, and I think, I think it’s a very good vision but it’s been more used as a- almost a Koran, by fundamentalists, instead of saying ‘well, this is our starting point, and we’ll work with that and move with the experiences we’ve learned so far’.
C:
So you feel it hasn’t- that real world conditions haven’t been acknowledged from Panorama Krayenhoff?
R:
That *laughs* that’s a good way of saying it, yeah.
C:
That document, it’s, it- am I right in saying that it treats the Waterline as a whole rather than individual fortifications?
R:
Yes.
C:
So do you think that that is a good thing or a bad thing about it?
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 173 TRANSCRIPT 3
R:
I think in itself it’s, it’s written by landscape architects which, and I come from the University of Wageningen, and I think scientifically it makes sense, it makes sense form a historical point of view, it makes sense from a landscape architectural point of view, it makes sense from a geographical and geological point of view, but in the real world, things go differently, and what we talk about as of, of- where are people, are the public focused on the whole Waterline, or on the two or three, the one or two or three fortresses around their-
C:
Yeah.
R:
In their, in their own surroundings. I don’t think that that has been acknowledged enough as a driving force for development; and that is a problem of course. I’ve been thinking about that when I was working on that world heritage nomination; where you need to talk about the whole thing and, and the, the, the natural- the natural development is, is much more, kind of a puzzle, a jigsaw puzzle, than one whole big blueprint.
C:
Yeah, I think I’m right in saying that document was published in 2004.
R:
Yeah, yeah.
C:
And it hasn’t been amended since then?
R:
It has been- no not really, what happened is attached to, to the government itself, working programs, project programs, and there have been two of them over a decade; but the document itself never has been changed or modified.
C:
And obviously when it was written the financial conditions were very different than, there was the-
R:
Sure, sure, and yeah and also- not only the financial and political background itself- well- and I, I think things like- well how the real world has changed with, say especially with a full production is more local and everything is gone more local over the last decade, and I, I think we have moved parallel to that.
C:
Yeah; just- the last topic I would like to talk to you about is the different stakeholders and people involved with the New Dutch Waterline. Do you find that there are any, any major conflicts between certain groups or-
R:
*Laughs* Oh definitely *laughs*, that’s, that’s a leading question.
C:
Yeah. 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 174 TRANSCRIPT 3
R:
Yes there is, it’s it’s- and the funny thing is, it, it’s a kind of a guerrilla warfare- there are- yeah there are several kind of borderlines between groups. One of them is, the- about the funding- should it mainly be governmental funding or privately funded.
C:
Yeah.
R:
There is a- one which is about conservation vs development.
C:
Yeah.
R:
There is one between nature and cultural heritage and development. While one of- when you want to develop you always encounter bats in the building, and that is a, rare species, and thus protected quite strictly. So there, there are, there are several, several groups and, almost religions- yeah, well not, not in the literal sense, but it, it has kind of a- it’s it’s not a scientific discussion but it is a belief.
C:
Ok.
R:
In that sense it is kind of a- people strongly believe in making it a, a, bed and breakfast, or having it- letting it turn into a room; and these discussions are not, not- we know that they are there, but they are not out in the open, and it, it, it always turns out that in redevelopment of one certain spot, this argument comes up.
C:
Yeah.
R:
And then it’s solved in a practical way, but it is always there, and, and-
C:
When you said that ‘it’s solved in a practical way’ what does that mean?
R:
Well, for example we’ve- there’s a small fort in the north of Utrecht called Fort aan de Klop, which the municipality- the municipality wanted to turn into a restaurant, of course there were quite a few bats there. What they did is, and I think they did it quite, quite well, is they looked for funding, to kind of separate the basement of the building where the bats lived.
C:
Yeah.
R: 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 175 TRANSCRIPT 3
And the restaurant, and that cost about- the whole development and the structure that needed that cost about €3 million.
C:
Yeah.
R:
Really very expensive, they got EU funding for that, so- so the, so there was a practical solution for that; and this is one of the- one of the few items were of- of course there was, this was done as one of the first projects, and there was still money, so this was solved but when- when money is not involved, you get these.
C:
Conflicts?
R:
Conflicts between groups.
C:
So do you find that these different groups- either they argue with each other or negotiate or form alliances with each other?
R:
Yeah- well all of them- but, in different- in different places, and, and not as one thing within the whole Waterline, so- so, depending on- on, ownership, on, involved government, in funding, there comes a solution or sometimes there comes a solution and then it takes ages.
C:
Yeah.
R:
But there’s not one general vision as how to deal with that.
C:
So it’s, it’s always on a case by case basis.
R:
Yeah.
C:
Can, can you think of any examples- when you mentioned conflicts you mentioned conservation vs development. Can you think of any of examples?
R:
A specific place you mean?
C:
Yeah; with the different groups involved. 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 176 TRANSCRIPT 3
R:
Yeah, an interesting one is, there’s two fortresses about ten miles south of here: Fort Honswijk and Fort Everdingen, maybe you’ve heard of them?
C:
Yes.
R:
There’s still- there still government property and they are being put on the market; now I think what you find there, and that’s been going on for quite some time already is, the conflict between conservation and redevelopment; which, basically goes back to, yeah, yeah a conflict between nature and redevelopment. I’ve been at a meeting where, where developers were involved as well, the municipality of Houten, which- where these, where one of the forts is, wanted to turn Fort Honswijk in this case, into a luxury residence, maybe a hotel and, I- to, to, to- I always tell this story to, to my Dutch colleagues- what happened there, this developer started, he talked to the project leader of the town of Houten which was to redevelopment in- in a fancy way. The first thing- this developer stated is, is ‘well, I can’t come here by car’; ok, that’s quite a setback for a redeveloper. The second thing he said was ‘well, beautiful but if I want to turn it into a hotel or into apartments, I would have to break, break down the whole eternal structure, is that what you want?’ And then another member of the group who used to be a prime Minister, stated ‘well, there’s three thousand bats here; EU legislation, no way that’s going to happen, end of story’.
C:
Yeah
R:
So that’s a kind of metaphor, how that is going to be a problem.
C:
So you, you find that that’s *laughs* for- that for every case there, there’s always some sort of argument between these conflict groups.
R:
Yeah, always, yeah; and, and the funny thing is in, in, in, in that maybe has to do with people either, I don’t know, in, in some cases it’s very easily solved, and in other cases it’s not going to happen.
C:
Something that- when I met with Niek Roozen-
R:
Yeah.
C:
Something he mentioned, was that there were a couple of, a couple of citizens in Weesp, that- he said that they, that they might have had the right intention at the start, but he mentioned a specific example where, his group wanted to cut down some reeds that were at the edge of the water, and the citizen group called the police on them because that area had a- that they said that they were damaging the local environment, and do you find that there are ever groups who, may have, may have good intentions but, but deliberately want to hold up the development.
R:
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 177 TRANSCRIPT 3
Yeah.
C:
Why do you think that, that is?
R:
Well it’s for different reasons; some of them are historians, or, and they feel that redevelopment is, a damaging the historical thing. They can be ecologists, and that’s the example you mentioned. People feel that over the last decades, because of the seclusions so to speak, these places have turned into a special, green, ecological area, which you shouldn’t touch; and they have only theirs’ as well. Another thing, and that’s the case with for example, Fort Asperen, that, people living quite these forts, in a really peaceful, tranquil area, fear that redevelopment brings along more traffic, more noise, etc. etc.
C:
Yeah.
R:
And they have a point.
C:
Yeah
R:
So there’s always several, several groups that will oppose it from a, a different angle.
C:
Well, yeah I think that’s- that’s everything I wanted to ask you, so thank you again for meeting with me.
R:
Thank you for having a chat, thank you.
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 178 TRANSCRIPT 4
Transcript 4 Marieke Muilwijk C: It’s Tuesday 10th June, interview number 6. Could you please introduce yourself and tell me what you do? M: I’m Marieke Muilwijk, I’ve been involved with the New Dutch Waterline since 2006, in various projects, self-employed, and whenever they need extra hands they call me. Currently I’m involved in an international Europe knowledge exchange project about preservation through development of military heritage throughout Europe and I’m the Secretary of the Quality Team; well that’s it for now. C: Could you tell me a little more about the Quality Team? M: It has been appointed by our board the Linie Commissie, it consists or the chairman or chairwoman is the state advisor on landscape and water, at the moment that’s Eric Luiten, that’s a landscape architect, there’s another landscape architect, that’s Michael van Gessel we have a planner economist Gert Middelkoop and a professor in history of architecture Ed Taverne, except of the state advisor for landscape and water, the others are retired already, and well they’re at the top of their expertise. They advise all stakeholders in the New Dutch Waterline, of their own initiative or when they are asked for advise, but it doesn’t have a legal status: their advice. We are a democracy; it is not an elected Quality Team, that’s not the way it works. But as they are really of high standards and respected, hardly ever happens that they don’t use the advice, mainly when industrial areas are involved then local councils are really hesitant to follow the advice because usually it means *laughs* they are trying to build an industrial are within the New Dutch Waterline and that is not what we had in mind. C: So it’s just the, when it involves an industrial area are there any other cases that the council would be reluctant to seek their advice? M: Housing, sometimes, I mean they are not obliged to seek advice, but they are willing to make the most of it usually, but then- but they are all major infrastructural projects, that sometimes just clash with the outlines of the New Dutch Waterline, that happens and then, well, it takes a lot of time and lot of effort from all stakeholders involved. Usually we, we can actually mediate between the different stakeholders, through design. C: So your Quality Team, would you- you would act as the mediators in all or most of these disputes between stakeholders? M: Yeah C:
Do you- can you tell me a little bit about that process? Do you try to find the best solution for everyone or- M: No *laughs*. Well sometimes you just have to use just some common knowledge and say well ‘it is going to happen’ so we just have to work with the Department of Infrastructure for example. C: Yeah. M: But often enough there are projects where we just say ‘well, we aim for the highest quality and not for the most friends’. C: Yeah
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 179 TRANSCRIPT 4
M: Well, not everybody likes us, because it’s- if you want to, well it’s not just the New Dutch Waterline but spatial planning as a whole, if you want quality to be your main goal, your aim that’s difficult because you can’t define it into an excel table for example. C: Yeah M: And quality it is subjective, but for the New Dutch Waterline we have written a grammar, what the, what the essence is of the New Dutch Waterline, it’s not that we are against any development, not at all, they have a slogan, it’s the- let’s see how to translate that- ‘strict on the main issues, and curious on details’. C: Could you tell me where that slogan came from? M: Well I think it was distilled from the first years of advice, I mean it gives a lot of freedom to the developers and owners within the New Dutch Waterline to keep it as a recognizable unit, it’s of 85 kilometres, you do have to have some, some basic rules, they have to be identified, and sometimes it happens that those basic rules are messed with, it happens, then we are strict *laughs*. C: Yeah, so the- was it the Quality Team that established that initial rules about the Waterline. M: Um hum. C: And do you know what process they went through to determine that set of rules? Was it from a design standpoint or a historical- M: It is integrated. C: Integrated? M: Historical spatial planning design, common sense. C: Yeah. M: It’s only in Dutch available so that’s a bit of a shame C: Yeah M:
But actually it’s not that difficult what should be done within the New Dutch Waterline, I mean if you see how it works you have the main defence line, then you have the set of fortresses and you have the inundation planes, and you, well, you have the axis, whether it’s a real world highway or a river, I mean those are those the three elements, don’t mess with that structure, keep it recognizable, and as a whole you want to have this Green and a bit tranquil atmosphere, green and open, but open doesn’t mean only fields of grass are allowed, open means ‘low dynamics’.
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 180 TRANSCRIPT 4
C: Could you elaborate on that: ‘low dynamics’? M: Well open- some people say ‘it should be open so no trees are allowed’ for example, but open, you could see that as a visual aspect and you would say ‘well nothing higher that two and a half metres’ for example, but open is also, say kind of an atmosphere, but if it is just the original rural landscape with the hedges and the trees and some housing, that’s open enough, once you start introducing new roads or really activities that attract a lot of traffic so you have to expand the infrastructure, so you have to start introducing complete new blocks of housing, then you have the spin-off of a lot more activities, that’s why it’s not open anymore. C: So, I’d, I’d like to come back to this point, but I would like to ask: do you see, do you see the Waterline as a whole or would you see it rather as the individual fortifications because it does cover quite- just from the map it covers a huge area through five different provinces, and do you find it is possible to treat it as one single- M: Unit? C: Unit, yes M: Well for me personally, it’s either the whole or nothing. C: Yeah. M: I mean that’s the strength. C: Yeah. M: I mean on the scale of Holland 85 kilometres is huge. C: Yeah. M: And on the scale of Europe it’s nothing. That’s the strength and also the strength in current spatial planning, that’s the challenge you have: to keep it as a unit, and I’m not worried about fortresses, not at all, I’m worried about the open areas behind on the, one the eastern side of the defence line. I mean for me that’s the most precious area where loads of developments were prohibited because of military legislation until 1963. I mean that’s, that’s the strength and that’s unique in Holland, to have a such a crowded area around the city of Utrecht, it is a bit; well they were the first to build the university area put it, but I mean that was after 1963 so they didn’t well- they could have done it differently, but at the time it seemed really logical. For the rest, the- the surface that’s, that’s the strength, the difficult part, because there are some municipalities are 100% New Dutch Waterline. C: Yeah. M: But, as for spatial planning legislation, I’d really prefer that the point of view of the Quality Team as well that you shouldn’t forbid things, you should just have quite a simple regulation, welcome, you’ve entered the New Dutch Waterline, we do expect something from you, and that’s the quality of the project you are going to deliver and you can turn to this and this and this 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 181 TRANSCRIPT 4 organization for consultation, for checks, for information, and that way you challenge people, that’s the idea. I mean there’s an example that’s a world heritage site in the North, in the province of North Holland Beemster , which was a cheese factory, and it wanted to expand, it really had to be, well they needed a new factory, and then at first they said ‘well, this can’t- this just can’t happen within the outlines of the world heritage site so you have to go outside and we’ll give you planning permission’, but Beemster cheese, that’s a brand, and you can’t sell it as Beemster cheese if its outside the Beemster the factory. C: Ok M: So, I mean that’s geographically, well those are the rules. I mean you can’t sell cookies from Utrecht if they are not made in Utrecht. C: Yeah M: So they had this challenge of how to design a factory, a huge factory, I mean not just a block like that but huge, within the limitation of a world heritage site and they had an excellent designer, but the process around was even more excellent, and that’s, well it’s- everybody agrees with what’s there: it works for the owner, it works for UNESCO, it works for everyone, it takes a lot of effort. C: Yeah. M: But then things can happen, and things will happen even more beautiful than you have imagined beforehand, but to focus on quality instead of whether it’s yes or no, that’s difficult and that’s mainly difficult for the authorities because they want to have this checklist ‘yes, no, yes, no’ C: And as you said, ‘quality is subjective’. M: Yes, it could be, but it doesn’t have to be, but it is a profession of course. C: Yeah- so I’d like to ask about how the role that finance plays, particularly the global- the global economic recession, do you feel that it has had a significant impact on the- on the Waterline? M: The, the shift in budgets within the National Government, it’s obvious, you see that culture has a lot less to spend. C: Yeah. M: So in that respect, yes. C: So could, could you elaborate- like how has it impacted on the- on the Quality Team? M:
Well,s it’ a bit difficult and the Quality Team has been there for ten years and now we’re near, well the idea is that the project should be finished, or at least- the First Phase should be finished in 2020, so it’s obvious that less projects will be presented to the Quality Team, but I do know of some projects that were planned for last year and that’s still not going to happen because 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 182 TRANSCRIPT 4 of lack of finance. C: Yeah. M: Well we come from a decade of quite luxurious circumstances of course. C: Yeah. M: Yes but I do know that some of the entrepreneurs who are working on fortresses are having a really difficult time. C: Yeah. M: I mean, the costs for heating for example, they won’t become less, at least *laughs*, they’re going to be more expensive, so- but I do have the impression that last year was difficult, that this year is looking a bit better, but it will slow down, I mean with the Provinces taking over, the organisation of the whole project, that means there will be, well like a break because they have to rearrange everything in the meantime no budgets will be allocated. C: Ok. M: At least, that’s what I see happening; and I’ve no idea whether they’ll have it fixed after summer or not. C: Yeah. M: I don’t know. C: Do, do you, did you find that the government were heavily behind the New Dutch Waterline before the recession or that their support was already waning, before the recession. M: It was already diminishing. C: It was already? M:
Yes, and that, I mean in the first year such a project is new and people like to identify themselves with it, after a few years, on a graph, rises, and then slows down and then, there’s- well that’s what happens on any project that will take more than five years. C: Yeah. M:
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 183 TRANSCRIPT 4
And that’s provincial level and you can see that, they, they are for four years and then there are elections and so they are not going to make decisions for the person who will be after, and then next year spring, there will be provincial elections so yeah- this is always slow, slow period, like that. C: Yeah. M: They are not going to commit themselves to any long term publications. C: So a change in government at either the national or the regional or local level? M: Regional yes, local sometimes, and so I said at first people really liked the project, then if it stays the same, they- it’s not that interesting anymore, they have to, need to boost new things happening but, I mean it’s a huge job, we’ve decided on and it takes a lot of work to be done, and it’s not always about cutting nice ribbons because something is finished and opening. C: Yeah. M: You have to keep on working on it, and it’s- even after 2000 there’s still loads of work that needs to be done, just for maintenance for example. C: So, do you find that it’s- that the, the individual fort- you said that the entrepreneurs are struggling? M: Um hum. C: And, do you find that individual fortifications will have to find ways to generate funds themselves, for example for the maintenance costs and to finish projects that are ongoing? M: Well, most fortresses are not being run by the owners, C: Yeah. M:
I mean the state forestry service, they have about fifteen fortresses and on each side they have an entrepreneur who is doing both his or her business there, and it’s always an negotiation, for the maintenance for the cost for the entrepreneur. I mean they’ve sorted it out, the rent they pay is, somehow connected to the maintenance costs, and as you see for the Municipality of Utrecht, they really have a good, at least as far as I have heard, on some fortresses they can ask quite some rent, Fort aan de Klop for instance, it’s really working out quite well there, their restaurant, catering and meeting facilities and a little campsite, and like a youth hostel. C: Yeah. M: So they can ask a lot more rent than another location where there is just a day care centre. C: 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 184 TRANSCRIPT 4
Yeah. M: So they say ‘so for these fifteen fortresses, we need so much money for maintenance and if we balance the different rents’. C: Yeah, as- as part of the Quality Team how do you feel about that when a site or a fortification has multiple uses rather than just one use or a few uses. M: I can’t say anything about that in general. I mean it just has to fit with the building and the location. C: Yeah . M: I mean it’s obvious he can’t save the Waterline by just selling cups of coffee, that just won’t work. C: Yeah- could you please tell me about this document, about Panorama Krayenhoff? M: Yes, well this was the first management plan, and the funny this is, Eric Luiten who the state advisors on landscape and water was also the author, as an assignment, for some of the people that are still involved, so well yeah they set the layers of the New Dutch Waterline and you have to, the water, the ecological, the infrastructure, and then they made a first- well they stated the ambitions for the project as a whole, ‘well by 2020 we want to aim for…’. Well there is a preliminary selection of functions for the different fortresses and should stay nature could be more open, so that were the, well the starting point for the development of the individual fortresses; they also said ‘it would be wise to divide the 85 kilometres in different sections’, the selected seven sections, envelopes; nowadays these are joined now and now they are talking about joining the two of those as well. Here they point out, some of the issues they, for- already for saw , the New Dutch Waterline and one of the big, well our biggest issue is the widening of the canal just in the middle of the New Dutch Waterline and a sluice has to be added, and this industrial area has been planned, I mean that’s just a nightmare for the UNESCO nomination. C: Yeah. M: And was already indicated here, I mean after ten years now we’ve almost solved it, almost solved it. I think it’s here; this is the essence of the national project and I believe on the website of the New Dutch Waterline there is an English summary, yes. C: Oh really. M: Yes, there is, there is an English summary; and I suppose the, the essence of the National project will be indicated there. I will just go through them. C: Oh yes please. M: The Waterline is in the experience of the Dutch people and foreigners, in a cultural, historical and leisure aspect a recognizable unit with some specific attractions, for the major part of the inundation plains, the openness of landscape will safeguarded through spatial planning and where needed the openness should be restored. The fortresses and hydrological works are restored and long term maintenance is safe guarded and either by bike, walking or by car you can reach them and they are interlinked, and that’s really, really essential aspect. Part of the fortresses new functions will be introduced that have a 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 185 TRANSCRIPT 4 contribution to the communication and exploitation and maintenance of the fortresses, and the rural area, the other spatial developments that could strengthen the continuity of the image of the New Dutch Waterline, well they should have been finished, there is a location or several locations where the history and the way the New Dutch Waterline works can be demonstrated, well Chris has probably talked to you about a Museum, Fort Vechten. C: Yeah. M: There’s an organisation that safeguards the maintenance and communication about the New Dutch Waterline, and the New Dutch Waterline should be added to the world heritage list. C: Well it’s very comprehensive. M: Well it’s what we’re working on since 2004 and some, some locations even way before that, and the shift from the national government to the Provinces they said ‘well we still aim for these same ambitions’, meanwhile they said ‘we don’t have money and we don’t want this and we don’t want that’ and that’s a conflict, so you want the world but you are not willing to- but there, there should be a summary of this document, and then after several years they said ‘well we have to update our implementation plan’ so this is the second one, and there’s a map in the bad, interesting enough, the ‘ambition map’. And here they said ‘well, all the fortresses that’s been, there, they all, most of them have a good start or are already in development or are already in the planning phase, what should we do with the linear structures?’. So this was a focus on the routing and interlinking of the different elements, and we said ‘well this is the, the- the main Defence Line’. C: Yeah. M: ‘But the back is interesting well, so that should be accessible as well, through little pathways’. So they said ‘well on certain locations you actually miss, a bridge’, so here- well it’s not actually going to be there, just a bit south. They are going to build a bridge over, across the Amsterdam Rijn kanaal so people from this- the outskirts of Amsterdam so you can cycle from here, and then enter the New Dutch Waterline, and there’s another bridge here, the plofsluis and that bridge will be, should be ready in a year’s time. The preparations are already being made and they are building the bridge near Rotterdam so it will be transported as a whole to here and then *laughs*- it will be amazing to see it, I mean it’s a bridge of probably 120 metres. C: And it’s literally being built somewhere else and then being moved into place? M: Yes C: That’s incredible. M: Yeah, because they are only allowed to block the river for twenty four hours or something like that. C: Oh my God. M: So that’s how probably going to be on a Saturday or Sunday during the night when they have permission to obstruct the river, C: So that’s-
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 186 TRANSCRIPT 4
M: I mean these are the, well the development on the fortress sites itself, it’s really good but if you want people to experience the New Dutch Waterline it’s not just visiting the fortress, but it’s about going into the inundation fields and seeing the relationship between the defence line and the inundation plains. C: Yeah, so that’s- you feel that’s important that, that people experience the Waterline and are able to access it with more ease, for example through the bridges. M: Yeah, yeah. C: So- I realise that, that the- this is such a big project that involves a lot of- a lot of different levels: the National, local, regional government, private developers, etc. but have you- what do you feel that awareness is like among ordinary Dutch people? M: It’s a really select- probably a bit left orientated, highly educated group who probably knows about the New Dutch Waterline and locals because you also have people who fish in moats. C: Yeah M: Always walk their dog, and well it is starting to, to spread because on some locations they have wonderful events, or really good coffee and that, then there’s a point when, if people enjoy themselves on one of the fortresses, could that just be enough? Or do they have to be this, give them a sermon *laughs*, ‘oh but it’s part of this’, to put in the whole picture. C: Yeah. M: Sometimes for me, these are little pieces of paradise, just hidden within the urban spread, just a little green area with good coffee and that’s it, and that’s wonderful as well. C: Yeah M: So there should be this, we called it, ‘a secret weapon of Holland’, it was meant as a secret weapon. C: Yeah
M:
So, some of this mystic, this aspect should be maintained but it’s a necessary to- well it’s also a secret area that nobody could enter because it was owned by the Ministry of defence, and I think the only way you can, explain why it’s so much public money is being put into a project like this, it’s to say, ‘we are making a high quality public area of it’.
C:
Yeah.
M:
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 187 TRANSCRIPT 4
I think that’s the main, I mean you can state those eight ambitions, but we’re going to make a public area out of it, high quality and quite diverse activities, and that’s good enough I think.
C:
Do you not- *laughs*, do you see there’s the potential contradiction you want that- you would like to raise awareness of the Waterline but you also like the fact that it’s secret at the same time?
M:
Yeah but the secret could also be a visual aspect.
C:
Yeah.
M:
It’s not completely, wall with neon, flashing lights *laughs*.
C:
Yeah.
M:
I mean you could do that.
C:
So you said that, that it’s mostly educated middle class people and people who actually live near the fortifications-
M:
That know it.
C:
And- every, every other demographic or group within the Netherlands, why are they not- why do you feel they are not aware of the, the existence, is it because of that secret element?
M:
…Yes, and well even though it’s 85 kilometres, as they are well hidden, well some people probably will have passed a fortress for twenty years without knowing what it was behind those trees.
C:
Yeah.
M:
And, it’s growing because with volunteers that are being involved, I mean they know it, they re-branded it ‘their fortress’, and that’s a bit, that’s a bit-
C:
Are those, are those volunteers organised, or sorry do you- is, is there a formal organisation that is responsible for recruiting volunteers or is it-
M:
We are working on it, it’s another European project, to see whether, what would work out best: one organisation for the whole 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 188 TRANSCRIPT 4 for the 85 kilometres or focused on one particular fortress and some volunteers said ‘I want to work here, I’m not interested in a fortress 25 kilometres to the north’.
C:
Yeah.
M:
It’s a colleague of ours who is working on that.
C:
Which colleague is that?
M:
Jeroen Bootsma.
C:
Do you have a- would you have any contact information for him.
M:
Oh he’s here.
C:
Oh really?
M:
Yeah, I’ll introduce you; so they’re, they’re seeing what would work out best because ideally if you go on to the website of the New Dutch Waterline there should be a link ‘I want to be a volunteer’.
C:
Yeah, so you said that you are working on that at the minute, do you find that it’s leaning towards a collective group for the entire Waterline or it’s towards individuals?
M:
I don’t know.
C:
Oh you don’t know.
M:
I trust Jeroen so I am not involved.
C:
Ok.
M:
Could, for my thesis I am working on, I have three case studies in particular and I would just like to ask you if you are familiar with these three sites, or what you knowledge is of them?
M: 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 189 TRANSCRIPT 4
Well, I do know things about Loevestein, but I haven’t seen any recent plans to be honest, I do know they are now leading to the museum, in Vechten and Naarden museum.
C:
Yes Chris was telling me about that.
M:
What I like about Slot Loevestein they had this combination I mean they have a lovely bed and breakfast, a little café, they have of course Slot Loevestein, every child learns about in history class, they- you can rent it for big conferences or parties so they really try to make the most out of it, but is has a name of course and that’s already there, they don’t need to invent something extra. They are also experimenting on implementing sustainable energy, with thermal heating if I remember well, and that’s I mean the investment is bigger, but in the end their daily costs will be lower.
C
Yeah.
M:
Yeah, I don’t know in particular what you would be interested in.
C:
Well, any development that is ongoing or planned for the near future on these sites, I mean you said about the sustainable energy, that would, that would be very interesting, things like that.
M:
I know last year they started on the renewal of the museum, and I don’t know at what stage it is, it hasn’t been at- through the Quality Team recently. Fort Uitermeer, well I’ve been there, but I’ve never been involved in their planning and projects and design, and I believe it’s owned by Natuurmomumenten?
C:
It’s- well I’ve actually met with Niek Roozen and as he was part of an organization of various designers and landscape architects and well- they won a competition to, to design the- sorry the, the Province held a competition to find a new use for the Fort and his group were the winners so they are, they have completed Phase One and are working on Phase Two of their plan.
M:
Ok, but well, they’ve never asked the Quality Team.
C:
Oh, no?
M:
No, I wouldn’t be surprised if he actually didn’t know we actually existed- it doesn’t matter but it sometimes is a missed chance because we have such a bunch of experts collected and- well you can use them for their expertise of course, so I can’t really help you on Fort Uitermeer. Fort Vechten, there is so much going on and has been done there, I’ve been involved in the- you know there are quite some bats living on Fort Vechten.
C:
Really?
M:
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 190 TRANSCRIPT 4
Yeah.
C:
And they have EU protection.
M:
Um hum, each and every one.
C:
So that must be causing a lot of problems or negotiations.
M:.
Oh well some frustrations of course, and they’ve dedicated some of the buildings to the bats, well just bad luck. For the exploitation of the fortresses, well that’s how it works; they’ve well, as far as I know they are on speaking terms, with the owner the entrepreneur and the ecologist so it has worked out fine, but not at first, not at first.
C:
So because of, because of the bats in the fortification, that created a dispute between the owner, the entrepreneur and the ecologist, and they had to negotiate and reach some form of agreement about what could-
M:
Well I mean as we said it’s European nature legislation, and you first need this twelve month survey.
C:
Twelve month surveys?
M:
Yea all year round, well I don’t know if you know anything about bats but they are really, quite difficult mammals.
C:
Really? Honestly I’m not very *laughs* I don’t know a lot about them.
M:
Well, I mean you have different species, quite different species, and on different fortresses one species uses it as a hibernation location, another species uses it for mating, another just to eat, another as a summer- a holiday home.
C:
*laughs*
M:
There’s two, it’s a- a birth ward.
C:
Yeah
M:
So, sometimes people say ‘no, no, half April they’ve all gone, they came out of hibernation they’re gone’, they don’t know the next species is already in there.
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 191 TRANSCRIPT 4
C:
Yeah.
M:
So it could be used all year round.
C:
Yeah.
M:
By different species and that’s why it’s quite- quite- it’s really difficult establish an alternative location because you have to have all these functions compensated, well in theory it could be possible but in practice it is really difficult, really difficult.
C:
Yeah.
M:
There are more and more experiences with let’s say artificial bat hotels that you make, but it could take a few years before they are actually convinced before it’s good enough and they start trying to move.
C:
Yeah.
M:
But you can’t help them, you are not allowed, so if they are there you have to live with them.
C:
Yeah, so sticking to Vechten, the plans- it’s currently being developed into a national Waterline Centre and- just from speaking to Chris I am aware that quite a lot of money that has been invested- or has be allocated for that fortification in particular.
M:
Um hum.
C:
Do you know, do you think that that’s, that that’s part of the ambition to increase awareness of the, of the Waterline by creating the National Centre to, to attract people?
M:
Yeah, I mean it was one of the ambitions to have one or more locations where the history, and the working of the New Dutch Waterline are explained.
C:
Yeah.
M:
And that’s why it has been in the plans from the very beginning.
C:
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 192 TRANSCRIPT 4
Yeah, do you think that that’s a good thing that Vechten was chosen as, as the site for- or could it have been- or could the money have been better used elsewhere?
M:
Wells that’ my personal opinion, Vechten is difficult to reach if you want to attract a lot of people and have a reasonable turnover, it should be at Fort Vechten, but if you don’t take that into consideration, the design of Fort Vechten as it was, the original design in combination with the design of the museum, I mean that’s wonderful, that’s really amazing but it’s the location that’s really worrying me and I think that well maybe in ten years time they still will be, have to rely on external funding, subsides and that’s not healthy, not at all.
C:
Why is, why is that not healthy? Could you elaborate?
M:
Well I think you should keep on investing public money in something well more or less commercial.
C:
Yeah.
M:
That’s just not why I’m paying taxes.
C:
Yeah- so you said that the, that the site isn’t easily reachable and then earlier when you were showing me this diagram you said that not just the fortifications themselves which were interesting, it’s the areas around them. Do you think that if we use the example of Fort Vechten, to make the site more accessible that means infrastructure such as road, and they would have to be going through those areas around the fort so that could potentially damage the area?
M:
So well, it’s next to the A12 and it’s just on the other side, I mean- well it’s here: this is Vechten, this is the A12 the highway for the Hague to Arnhem, this is the A27, so you can see it from the highway, so you can see the cranes and all, you can see the fortress, but this is not one of the locations where I have the- well now I’m here, now it’s a lot more difficult to explain the working of the New Dutch Waterline, when I’m on well, one of those fortresses, and that’s just the way it is, that’s just nothing wrong or anything, well- but it’s really worrying me and that’s a lot of money being invested and I think it’s fair to invest a lot of money in an Information Centre and I like the design I really do and well for the future I am worried, but it wouldn’t be- well some people say ‘well you should have just taken a quarter of the money for the museum and three quarters you should have invested in lots of other fortresses’.
C:
Yeah.
M:
I don’t agree with that, if you do something like this you should do it well, maybe it could have been my personal opinion not to have chosen Vechten, but well here we are *laughs*.
C:
It’s happening,
M:
Yeah it is, so we should make the most of it.
C: 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 193 TRANSCRIPT 4
So, so what do you think will- will happen in the next, in the near future of the, of the Waterline?
M:
As for the UNESCO nomination, there are I think eight potential world heritage sites in Holland, some are in Holland some are overseas, they’ve all received a letter with some questions and we need to answer them before the 1st November; these questions involve spatial planning, the outline of the potential world heritage site, about the site holder, about financing the site holder but lots of well- but main issues of the New Dutch Waterline and now the five provinces, well one has dropped out, four provinces have to answer this letter, so they have to make decisions, but they are always postponing decisions, and they just don’t want to say ‘ok the Province of Utrecht going to be site holder, or this will be the outline of our nomination’. They just don’t want to decide on that.
C:
Why is that?
M:
Because then they have to make a choice and say something and that’s not their strongest point, I mean with the member of the board we have I think because they are involved in the Department of Culture, and this has a lot more to do with Spatial Planning, Economics, Infrastructure and of course they are not allowed to say anything about that of course.
C:
No?
M:
No, I mean it’s the weakest department of the province, so we don’t have the right people on our board, so this is going to be really tricky because all the Provinces should sign this letter. If they don’t then we can just forget about the UNESCO nomination.
C:
Is this- how important do you feel a successful UNESCO nomination would be?
M:
The nomination in itself is not that important but if the Provinces prove unable to cooperate then that’s the end of the project as a whole.
C:
And if they are able to cooperate.
M:
All the better, then we will be able to finish these ambitions, and everybody lives happily ever after *laughs*.
C:
*laughs*.
M:
I mean, yeah, that’s my biggest piece of headache, and even as one province has already dropped out.
C:
Which province was that?
M: 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 194 TRANSCRIPT 4
South-Holland.
C:
Oh, and they have they cover, they only have a very small part.
M:
It’s tiny, yeah but I mean the intention they say ‘bye bye, we’re fed up with all of it’.
C:
And that’s why they-
M:
Yeah they don’t want to spend money on it because they have the Old Dutch Waterline.
C:
Yeah.
M:
And that’s what they prioritize; fair enough but well on a management level and a policy makes level it is a mess at the moment.
C:
I think that has, that’s covered all the topics I wanted to ask you about, so I would just like to say thank you again for the interview.
M:
You’re welcome.
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 195 TRANSCRIPT 5
Transcript 5 Peter Kuypers C: This is Tuesday 10th June, interview 7, could you please introduce yourself and tell me what you do. P: Yes I am Peter Kuypers- Cooper in English *laughs*, Kuypers. I’m the project manager- project manager for the building of a museum of the Dutch, New Dutch Waterline; we do it on Fort near Vechten. Vechten is an old name for a Roman village, it’s called Fectio. C: Fectio? P: Fectio- this is the place that we have the crossing of the Roman limes, the border of the Roman limes, and the New Dutch Waterline, so we have two separated limes. I’m the Project Manager, I am employed by the Province of Utrecht; originally I am an architect. I’m the principle for the architects now for this, for this reconstruction of Fort Vechten and all we are doing to make it a new museum, the new museum, yeah. We are investing in the museum, about €90 million; the money is coming from the National Government, the Province, from Europe, Brussles; and we are in the reconstruction, we are, I can see I have an animation. C: Yeah. P I will show you the animation, you have a totally built of view of the- what we are doing there. Shall I do that first? C: Yes, please. P: It’s in Dutch, it’s not a problem? C: Oh, if it’s an animation I can- P: Ok- You see it, the whole Waterlinie, Waterline- There’s a new entrance, a bridge, and a small- C: Wow. P: The ticket centre, it’s an old building, now we are going through the old building and we are coming into the building, the exhibition gallery. C: Yeah. P: So the model show in the middle- C: Yeah?
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 196 TRANSCRIPT 5
P: We are there fifty metres long, a model of the whole New Dutch Waterline, so you can see- you can open- um too fast *laughs*- A part of the fort we are reconstructing 1880. C: From the original fort? P: From the original shell, the original 1880- We did it on a part of the fort, because the old fortress is very natural, natural area. C: Yeah. P: Ok. C: I just have a- I’d like to ask a few questions. P: Yes. C: Starting with the original part from 1880, are- P: Yeah. C: Are you trying to restore it to how it looked at the time or are you using similar materials, or in what way- P: The part is fully restoration. C: Yeah. P: Of the buildings but also the ground, we have no new grounds- several, yeah, I don’t know how to *laughs* for it- yeah. Yeah we could see, I could see it, I don’t know the word, the construction of all the grounds in the original situation, 1880. C: Ok. P: Yeah. C: And whenever, whenever the National Waterline Centre opens, how many- how many visitors are you hoping to attract each year? P: 100,000.
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 197 TRANSCRIPT 5
C: Per year? P: Per year, yes. C: And is that the, is that the minimum amount that you need to generate or a profit, or is that- what is that figure based. P: This- we have an expert- private investor- no not an investor- a private entrepreneur, we want, we have to, to exploit the whole fortress. He made this- also, the maintenance of the fort is the total exploitation of the museum part, and therefore he, he can make some, commercial activities: weddings, parties, whatever, and outdoor management trainings, all kinds of that stuff, and eight festivals. C: Yeah. P: And he makes money to, to complete the maintenance of the whole fort, so we have, as a government, we have to invest, but we did not expect the fortress and museum. C: Ok. P: The private party- partner. C: Can you, can you tell me a little bit about how Vechten was- was chosen for a- for a museum- for a National Waterline Centre? Why that site in particular was chosen? P: Why the Fort Vechten fortress was chosen for it? C: Yes. P: This vision *laughs*. C: Panorama- P: Fort bij Vechten was chosen to be the central part and to be the visitor centre for the New Dutch Waterline. C: Yeah P: And the province of Utrecht, has to- to manage it, to manage it in money, to manage it also in contracts. C: 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 198 TRANSCRIPT 5
Yeah, so Panorama Krayenhoff was really the deciding factor? P: The deciding factor, yes. C: And, how do you- how do you feel that the economic recession has affected the development? P: Not development of the investing- investments, we have the €90 million and that was to do it and I- there was no problem because of the economic recession- economic recession; but the entrepreneur, you see he didn’t invest what- he didn’t invest what he, he – he offered in the expectation, this is very low. He has to earn this money before he can give it out. C: And he’s earning that money through these other uses- sorry the other activities on this site? P: Yes, yes, the other activities on this site. C: And do you feel that even- that there has been strong national government support for this- for the- not just the Water- sorry- for the National Waterline Centre, even, even after the recession? P: No, it’s declining. C: Declining? P: Yes C: Could you elaborate on that? Could you tell me something more about how it has been declining? P: The national government has given it a- to the five provinces, so they have to do it now. C: Yeah. P:
It is also the money from the National Government is stopped- stopped, and the five provinces they have to make a- extra money if it is necessary for the exploitation. C: Something that has been mentioned in the other interviews I have conducted has been the, the UNESCO nomination bid. Can you tell me what role Vechten is playing in that? P: It’s a very great role, because of- when you have a UNESCO- status? C:
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 199 TRANSCRIPT 5
Yes. P: Yes- when you have it you have to start somewhere and on this place you can start to see what is the New Dutch Waterline and how it works and all those kinds of things. C: Yes. P: Then you have a very international public. C: So- P: Then you have very international visitors, you have to do something about the information. C: Is this also very important to the Province of Utrecht as well? P: Yeah. C: And, how- do you feel that it’s also important to the other four provinces? P: The UNESCO status is very important for all of them. Also for the National government, so you can have that status for a new branding, from the branding for the Dutch Waterline. C: So, when, when you say ‘branding’ you say that the Waterline could be marketed internationally? P: For marketing yes. C: Have you heard any, any suggestions of how it might be marketed, would it focus on the historical aspect, or the culture, or the Netherlands’ relationship with the water? P: The last. C: The water? P: Yes the water. C: That’s the focus? P: 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 200 TRANSCRIPT 5
We have in the Netherlands the water as an enemy, but we also use the water against enemies *laughs*. C: Yeah. P: This is the national team for this place, both sides of water. C: Oh ok. Something that was mentioned in the interview this morning that I had with Chris Will was- he told me that Fort Vechten is going to be cooperating Slot Loevestein, and- P: Naarden? C: Yes, in the north- could you tell me a little about this planned cooperation between the three fortifications? P: Yes, it will be one organisation, at last, we hope one organisation with three places where you can something, to see about the Dutch Waterline, but the centre, Fort Vechten is the most important centre of that. But you have to want- another team also, Loevestein, you see is a very historical item, and Naarden is also, is also a city, as an old item, but there are three places under one organisation. And maybe Chris Will, he will be the conservator of the three. C: Does this organisation have a name yet? P: Stichting Nationale Waterlinie Musea. C: Could you tell me where the idea for this cooperation- sorry this organisation came from? P: Yeah we- I had an interim director for the new Museum, to start the museum, and he had several meetings with persons also with, Ien Stijns. C: I’m meeting with her next week. P:
Yeah, ok- and they both are very small, and it is very difficult at this time to exploit your place. C: Yeah P: But when you are going together maybe you are stronger in the world of the musea, and sometimes maybe get some money from the national government for the cooperation- and maybe we can also get money from Europe for the cooperation. We are trying that *laughs*. C: Have there been or do you see any potential conflicts between these three different sites? P: 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 201 TRANSCRIPT 5
No I don’t think so. C: They’re all willing and happy to cooperate with each other? P: Yeah yeah yeah, There is conflict of intention for it already. C: And- just one more question about that, is- do you know when it will officially- is there an official start date, or when- how- does this organisation exist already or are they operating. P: No not exist, maybe in 2016 or 17; we started just with the opening of Fort Vechten in 2015 and after that we are working on the cooperation. C: Yeah- they next thing I would like to talk to you about is the perception of the Waterline and the individual fortifications by ordinary people who- ok first of all, do you think that there is a high awareness or a low awareness of the Waterline among ordinary Dutch people? P: I think it is very low. C: Very low? P: Yes- so we have to work on it with good marketing, and maybe with this museum it will help us to make more knowledge about the Waterline. Not only the New Dutch Waterline, but also the system of all the waterlines in the Netherlands. C: So, if- if you were to- if you were to market the Waterline, you would emphasize, how the system works? P: Yes. C: And the history? P: History, system, how you can feel it out, how it was at that time and yeah, we want, we do it in a very interactive, and also with school children, the families, but also for the very interested visitors from the international scene. C:
And then for- for people- for people who would live near a fortification do you feel that they would only be interested in that fortification which is closest to them, rather than the Waterline as a whole? P: Yes I think so. C: I’ve gotten- I’ve gotten-
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 202 TRANSCRIPT 5
P: It’s a recommendation for recreation. C: Yeah, I’ve gotten the impression from the other people that I have interviewed, that ordinary citizens are quite protective of those fortifications and they don’t like to see- any construction work or any trees or hedges being removed, or they worry that development will encourage too many people to come to the area and somehow spoil- P: It wasn’t- it wasn’t a problem in the planning. C: No? P: No. C: Has the proposed National Waterline Centre had any opposition from local people? P: No not from local people, just a few friends of the forts. C: Could you tell me- P: No, no neighbours, people from the city of Bunnik- Bunnik. No it wasn’t a problem, we all- just we have a problem with- we call it ‘Menno van Coehoorn’, they’re protecting the whole system of- the army systems and the past. C: Ok. P: They, they did have an objection; objection against the plans. C: And what exactly were their objections?
P:
Because if we make a new entrance.
C:
Yeah.
P:
A new entrance is in , the line against the enemy, you make breasts.
C:
*laughs*
P: 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 203 TRANSCRIPT 5
*laughs* That’s the only one.
C:
That was their opposition? *laughs*
P:
That was their opposition. And we did the highest college of justice, we won it.
C:
Wow, ok.
P:
*Laughs*.
C:
And- sorry before that you mentioned the Friends of the Fort?
Yes
C:
Was that the same organisation?
P:
No that was- they were just a few friends of- they were friends of the fort and they were also there- volunteers- because they would like it to be so it was.
C:
Yeah.
P:
No, no. C:
Development?
P:
Reconstruction- development and reconstructions.
C:
And were these Friends of the Fort?
P:
They don’t exist anymore *laughs*.
C:
But you were able to reach a compromise?
P:
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 204 TRANSCRIPT 5
Yeah, no not to deal, just to explain it and that we have other plans and talked and at last they- they went off.
C:
They were happy with you explanation?
P:
Yeah, yeah.
C:
So, I’d like to ask you when- about when the National Waterline Centre does open next year, what do you, what do you will anticipate will the- will it be like on the site over the next few years because you said there is going to be this National Centre but also a private developer at the same location- no sorry, the entrepreneur who is having to raise funds through his other commercial needs. Do you see that there could be any potential conflicts of interest there?
P:
There could be- so, the entrepreneur who is responsible for it for the total but for the content of the museum is the Stichting Nationale Waterlinie Musea *laughs* is responsible for the content, just content to make money from others for expositions and so for materials- that kind of things.
C:
Yeah
P:
They are making a good contract between each other, because of- yeah, it, it, when they would like to have a festival on the same time you have to, have to open the new exhibition, yeah- maybe it could be in conflict, so they have to speak to each other about that things.
C:
But besides that, do- you don’t- do you think that the National Waterline Centre will be successful in, in attracting the 100,000 visitors every year? Are you confident of that?
P:
The 100,000 visitors are 40,000 just for the museum.
C:
Oh I see what you mean.
P:
And 60,000 for the festivals, the parties, the weddings.
C:
Oh I see what you mean.
P:
Yeah *laughs*. And we are trying to make a combination when the wedding guests so also can see something about the museum.
C:
Oh ok.
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 205 TRANSCRIPT 5
P:
Also with the, when there is a conference, the guests of the conference, they were also making the tour about the fortress in the museum so you make a combination in the hope that they are coming back with their families *laughs*.
C:
So it could- then- as people visit they can recommend the Wateline?
P:
Yeah.
C:
They can recommend the Centre to their friends and family.
P:
Yes.
C:
And- can I ask, how- how heavily- how heavily promoted has the National Waterline Centre been? Have you- how have you been marketing it?
P:
Not yet.
C:
Not- but when do you plan to start.
P:
This year, this year- after the summer.
C:
After the summer?
P:
Yeah starting with the marketing the only marketing is the marketing of the, the festivals and the, the parties, the marketing for this moment- because then otherwise there is nothing.
C:
Yeah.
P:
Yeah, building and the yeah, is not very attractive at the moment.
C:
Yeah, but when you do start marketing it will be towards schools and international visitors as you mentioned earlier?
P:
Yeah, yeah.
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 206 TRANSCRIPT 5
C:
So you will be advertising it outside of the Netherlands?
P:
I don’t know how we are doing that.
C:
No?
P:
It’s not my problem *laughs*.
C:
Ok. Yes I think that’s- I think that’s covered- that’s covered all the topics I wanted to ask you about. Is there anything else you would like to add about Fort Vechten or about your experience of working with it or, at the Waterline?
P:
It’s a very long time to make good plans.
C:
Yeah.
P:
It can cost you ten years.
C:
Ten years?
P:
Yes, before that I was the Program Manager, but I’m now five years busy with the fortress.
C:
Yeah.
P:
And the problem we have, is also on- with our the tax.
C:
Taxes?
P:
Taxes, the VAT-
C:
Oh the value added tax?
P:
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 207 TRANSCRIPT 5
Value added tax yes, we have a very, I made the construction for it, so we are also as a province and an entrepreneur for the tax. Maybe I can get back the 21% from the tax, get it back.
C:
Really, wow.
P:
Yeah *laughs*- we have a special construction made for it.
C:
Yeah.
P:
But also for the expectation, the investor’s expectation, we want it for a long time so we have chosen it for thirty years- thirty years.
C:
Thirty years?
P:
Yes.
C:
For the-
P:
Exploitation- so this entrepreneur has a right for thirty years to exploit.
C:
Ok I think that’s, that’s everything so I just wanted to say thank you again for meeting with me.
P:
Ok.
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 208 TRANSCRIPT 6
Transcript 6 Ien Stijns
C:
This is Monday 16th June, interview number eight, could you please introduce yourself and tell me what you do?
I:
Yes I am Ien Stijns, I am the director of Slot Loevestein, it’s an independent organization and it, it gets some money from the government and it owns a lot of money by itself. I am working here for about fifteen years already. Our organisation is very large, about twenty paid colleagues, about eighty people who aren’t paid for their work-
C:
Oh, volunteers?
I:
They are mostly volunteers but there are also some people who get some money from the government but they are not able to find a normal job, so in that case they are a volunteer but they are not really a volunteer. I don’t really know how I should tell you in English that there are social, they have people who get some connection with the environment, they can do some work, and at this moment we have ten of these colleagues.
C:
Ok, ok are they asked to work here, or do they choose where?
I:
They, they, no there are some ways that we get them, we have the, the government who talks with us because we have an environment which is very nice and safe for the people, and they asked us whether we have some place and work for those people, and they are working sometimes three days, sometime one day, depending on the possibilities of the person, they are disabled in a way, this can be a mental disability or a physical disability and we now have about ten people who are working. So there are volunteer and not volunteer, they will not be paid by us for the things they do. They are paid by the government,
C:
Ok.
I:
We just pay them a little amount just for getting here buy bus, or boat or bicycle, but that’s-
C:
So you said that you’ve been working here for fifteen years?
I:
Yes
C:
Can you please tell me what Loevestein was like when you started working here?
I:
…We had, we had a small organisation, about ten people, we had an amount of visitors of around 60,000 visitors, now we have around, about 105, 110, 115 it changed a little bit every year but it is between 100,000 and 120,000 visitors. We had a deficit, we had lost a lot of money by the former director, so our deficit was ƒ1.5 million at that moment, and guilders should be equal to about €750,000, the deficit so we had a lot of financial problems at that time and, yeah we had a lot of problems also with people who worked here because they didn’t have the trust, the belief in the director at that time so I was asked 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 209 TRANSCRIPT 6 to take it over and that’s how I started fifteen years ago. Now we have an exploitation of €1.4 million , every year it changes a little bit but it is around €1.4 million and the deficit we worked at, we have no financial problem at the moment, the only problem is that the government gives us less support so that’s a little problem also; we have some money from the province, in Holland you have three parts of a government, you have the national government, you have the provinces and you have the gemeente, the only large amount we get is from the national government to keep Slot Loevestein open for the collection and we get a little bit money to keep it open for the public, and nearby we have some money from the province, the Provincie Gelderland, because Loevestein is a part of Gelderland, and they have given us €1.7 million for reorganisation and rebuilding some elements in the area.
C:
Could you tell me about that €1.7 million from the province; did you approach the province?
I:
Yes, you should always approach the government, it was money especially meant for projects of the Dutch Waterline, and that’s why described our plan to get the money, within the contours of the Dutch, the, the Dutch Waterline Project, and that’s why we got the money, otherwise, we didn’t got the money, perhaps I could find another way to get some money but the question is if we had get so much as we have gotten now, €1.7 for us was very specially because the government, the national government was normally the party who gives us the money, so when the national government gives you something, it’s the province or the lower government who says “yeah well you get already government money so we, it’s not necessary for us to give you some more money” so that’s always a discussion that the national one has given you something, the other one thinks “oh so I don’t, I don’t need to give you some money, so that’s difficult”.
C:
Yeah, so- you said that when you approached the province you- it, it was- you explained it within the NDW, could you please elaborate on that? How exactly did you focus on the Waterline?
I:
We focused by giving attention and information about the southern part of the Waterline, it’s separated into three large parts, its eighty five kilometres, and it’s Muiderslot, Naarden in the northern part, then you have Utrecht, Vechten, Rijnauwen, two large fortresses around it in the area of Utrecht, then you have Slot Loevestein in the southern part, it’s the largest one here in the southern part of the, the Dutch Waterline, so it’s separated in north, middle and south and you can make some projects and you can ask for money and we have told them that we want, we wanted to give information about the southern part of the Dutch Waterline, it’s up to Culemborg and Werkendam , you know, the places that you see, the places within the Dutch Waterline.
C:
Yes from the, the- I saw the map outside.
I:
Yes, the map and the southern part, that will be I think about twenty fortresses, we give them some information about the fortresses here at this spot.
C:
Yeah.
I:
That’s one thing that was important, another part, what we asked for was to let the visitors get an introduction about life in a fortress, life, living here by soldiers, but also by normal people who like you and me who are not soldier but who are living here, one of them was a priest, one of them was a baker or, they had nothing to with defence, the system of Holland but they only were working here, living here and to make sure that the soldiers had enough to live with and amuse themselves a little bit, because it was much, very much boring to stay here and, they did everything but, there was no question of defence because before the, the Linie was built it was taken over by aeroplanes and other instruments, for the defence systems, so actually it is built but it never took in use for real defence as a real defence system here at this part. SO a lot of soldier that were here, they were disabled, they were getting old here, so they didn’t amuse themselves without, they have to do things to do so that was very lucky. But we ask, to tell the visitors about life during that period and that’s also sometimes very small stories, the 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 210 TRANSCRIPT 6 story of the baker, or the story of the washing women, who washes, who did the washes for all the soldiers, so it was very little things we show them.
C:
Yeah.
I:
But we let them see how, and which part of Loevestein are rebuilt for getting involved with the Dutch Waterline.
C:
Yeah, and you, you mentioned about the, the three sections, the north which had fortress Naarden, the middle which had Vechten and the south Loevestein-
I:
Yes.
C:
I have previously met with Chris Will and Peter Kuypers and they both mentioned that there, there’s going to be cooperation between Naarden, Vechten and Loevestein?
I:
Yes, we are, we are, at the moment we are aware of- to, to do research if it is possible, it is not sure that we will be involved with the three of us, but we will do the research, if it is a possibility to have one national Waterlinie museum with three locations and that’s Naarden, Vechten and Loevestein and we hope that when we have one organization with three locations that we can do things cheaper, you don’t need three directors but perhaps you can do with one or two, you have one marketing strategy, you have one human resource organization so we hope one organization that will do the research for the history things, conservation, all kinds of things so we hope that when we are able to go to work together, that we have given out less money so we can do new innovative things; it’s, it’s very difficult when you are working to innovate or to the future to get into new things, it takes a lot of time, a lot of money, a lot of research, and we are as an organisation we are too small to do it only by ourselves so that’s why we hope we are, yeah do the research if it’s possible if we are going to work together that we can do things faster, better and also more, to reach more people, to reach more visitors, and that is working at the moment.
C:
Was, was that planed cooperation, was that related to the €1.7 million from the province or was that separate?
I:
No, no, that’s separate.
C:
And can, can you tell me where the idea originally came from? Was it the idea of one person?
I:
No, I am looking for four years already to work together, and my first search was looking in the area in which there are organizations who will have the same methods as Loevestein because we are getting money from the National government, we have to- we are involved with a system of management information and, from that way I was looking for a same organisation as we are, and I asked Muiderslot, it is also a castle, I don’t know if you know Muiderslot?
C:
Yes.
I:
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 211 TRANSCRIPT 6
And also Huis Doorn, it’s also a castle in Utrecht, those two castles I ask to are, to go to work together, because they are all three paid by the government, the national government, they have the same management influence systems, and the same payment systems for the people who are working here so it is easier to make a movement like that because we are all equal in management systems and you can do it easier, but they didn’t want to, so I asked another one, and then I was looking in the area here around Slot Loevestein, de Waal , it’s a very nice river and is coming in by Arnhem, Nijmegen and leave at the North Sea by Rotterdam, and if you are looking east and west side from Loevestein we have very nice water systems but also very nice businesses like the molens by Kinderdijk I don’t know if you know them?
C:
No I don’t.
I:
The mills of Kinderdijk it’s very famous by people from abroad, they always want to see the mills and we also have a very nice, trust in landgoed Marienwaerdt , and we are looking for the area and here in this part of the country because everything is going to the big city Amsterdam, and we want to have more focus in this area of Holland so we are working together. And I call it the ‘horizontal work flow’ because the water is flowing from the Waal from Eindhoven in the eastern part to Rotterdam in the western part, on this floating trail you can enjoy some nice places like Loevestein, like the molens by Kinderdijk and some other nice museums, and we are working now, we are cooperating together, and then there was Hein Reedijk , was a kwartiermaker he was getting his kin involved with the start of the National Museum Vechten from the Dutch- Dutch Waterline and he asked me if I was- how do you call it? If I wanted to work with him together and look if there was a possible way for to get those three organizations involved with each other so that’s a long story for, I think it’s Hein Reedijk but I also heard that the Linie committee asked to give him- asked him really to, to, do the research if it’s possible, because Vechten being by itself was not a good opportunity it has to be larger organisation, and they had to learn a lot about going on with the money, getting people involved to come and visit you and pay- buy a ticket and they said “well Loevestein has done well, the last 15 years, so perhaps when we are working together we can learn from each other”- that’s the simple thing, how it came.
C:
You previously mentioned about raising awareness, and are you, are you trying to raise awareness of Loevestein- sorry of the castle itself or would you focus on its role within the New Dutch Waterline
I:
That’s very difficult, when you are looking at the period Loevestein is built, it’s older than the New Dutch Waterline, so that’s a problem, and we have Hugo de Groot, I don’t know if you know Hugo de Groot?
C:
Oh, he was imprisoned here?
I:
He was a very important lawyer and in the 16th century when the Dutch people were involved by going overseas with a lot of boats to Indonesia to Asia, to Portugal, no not Portugal, South America, the Dutch recovered the world by boat, it’s the old free sea period in the 16th/17th century and there were a lot of struggles about the law of going by pirates, going by sea laws, and Higo de Groot did a lot of work to do in that period and he is for us, an Icon of liberty and that’s very important, but it’s also the theme ‘water’; if you are looking to the history of Loevestein, water had always a very important role here in this area, but the one who built it Dirk Loef van Horne, by the one who wrote the twelve miles zone defence system Hugo de Groot, also water issue and now the old and the New Dutch Waterline, also water systems in my opinion water is leading and gives also the possibility to write new history because when we are 100 year further on you can write new history and water will be influencing Loevestein also in the future and that’s why my proposition with the Loevestein that the theme of Water is very important and in that way the old and new Waterline system is interesting. And I also am thinking about, we will get people always make war, and there will one time be a war about water because we won’t have enough water anymore, now we have some war things with gas and oil and in the future we will have war because the water it, the drinking water at least will not be enough for all the people in the world, so perhaps you write a new story and a new history by the theme water.
C:
Yeah. So, if you were to- would your marketing strategy, the main focus would be as you said ‘the theme of water’?
I: 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 212 TRANSCRIPT 6
Yes,
C:
And then the, the history of the castle itself would follow along from that?
I:
Yeah, there are always people who will visit Loevestein because of its place, it’s a nice place it’s a nice castle you can always enjoy it here but water will give us the opportunity to go further on with our history and make also new history, that’s what I think is very important, we will write new history with Loevestein, but the people in these times will visit Loevestein, because of its situation lying in this area, lying with water involved, and sometimes we will have so much water that you can’t reach Loevestein, so water is always the thing in this area. Also for the Dutch water is very important; three part, three quarter part of Holland is below water level, so it is bizarre they are living so many people in the Netherlands and we can have some, how do you call it, themes? To be involved, to get involved with the water and Loevestein, we can tell stories how we are treating the enemy water but also treating the friend that water is- without water no life, so- yeah.
C:
Yeah, I wanted to ask about actually accessing this site- as I told you that I, I took the water taxi here, and you mentioned that there, that there would be a really high cost to creating other connections?
I:
Is that?
C:
Is that- so money and infra- money to create infrastructure to reach Loevestein is a problem?
I:
Ok, Loevestein is reachable by traffic, car traffic is no problem, we are very well- but it’s the other way of reaching Loevestein- I don’t know the English word, we call it openbaar verrvoer, you have come by train and by water cab, but as for a lot of people this is a very difficult way to come, so when we had a bus station here and there was a bus coming from Zaltbommel , that’s the fastest way to get here. Loevestein, you should walk for fifteen, you walked from fifteen minutes, something like that? From the nearest station, the bus station?
C:
Yes:
I:
And then you took a walk about fifteen minutes?
C:
Yes:
I:
And then the cab, and then a little walk, so it takes a lot of time, and when you have one quick bus stop to Loevestein it would be easier but that costs too much because for the government to do it, people don’t- are not prepared to pay more than €20 for a bus trip from Zaltbommel to Loevestein, so it’s not possible; but the infrastructure in the Netherlands is getting lower because it’s too expensive. There are a lot of small buses with volunteers that are driving the buses but this is also in small areas, and if you have to make a long distance of travelling possible in that long distance because it is more than twenty five kilometres, something like that, it’s not possible, and another problem is it’s the provinces who pay the money for that but when you are coming from Gorinchem that’s the southern part of Holland, and you go by car to North Brabant and then another province, that is Gelderland; every province has its own borders, places its own money in that border but to reach Loevestein from Gorinchem you have South Holland, North Brabant and Gelderland so they won’t pay, there’s no communication between the three provinces to each to pay a little part of the total amount to get some buses; this way a train is not *laughs* it’s not 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 213 TRANSCRIPT 6 reachable, that takes too much to get a train. C:
Has there been any attempt to communicate between the provinces to create
I:
Oh we do them often, but it’s- everybody is busy, everybody has his own vision and its own targets, it’s terrible.
C:
Ok- the next thing I would like to ask you about is; at the start you mentioned you have around eighty volunteers working here, are these volunteers local people?
I:
No it’s not only local, it’s- there are people who are travelling more than fifty kilometres.
C:
Wow.
I:
As a volunteer, it’s very strange, this area is very dominated by a very old belief, it’s a Protestant, and they are very looking inside themselves, so they are not so, looking to the world as a larger thing, and people who are living in this areas are a little bit narrow minded, so it’s almost always people from other part of the country who are living here in the area who are working at Loevestein, who are working as a volunteer. The people from here, they are not that easy to get, they asked us several times if we wanted to close on Sunday because they don’t like to work on Sunday because of their beliefs. Did you hear about the Reformation, as belief, and that they are very strict on getting rest of Sunday.
C:
Oh, yes.
I:
You have the third, who visit the church on Sunday, you do your prayers on Sunday, but the children are not allowed to go and play outside, and dress not properly, they are sitting inside and it’s very dogmatic belief system, which is in this area still going strong *laughs* I would say.
C:
Yeah.
I:
And that makes it- there are also people who say ‘I want to be a volunteer’ or ‘I want to be a friend if you are closed on Sunday’ because they don’t like that we are opened on Sunday. That’s also something you shouldn’t forget, and that’s why Loevestein is, as a castle a and environment, is not too close by, it’s far away, they accept that it’s, that we are doing it but they don’t want to be involved too much.
C:
Yeah- so, you are, you still open on Sunday?
I:
Yeah, sure, there are a lot of people visitors come from, the area of South Holland, which are coming to visit us, from Utrecht, and Brabant, but Gelderland, the eastern part here, is a very small part of visitors, I think it’s only 12%.
C:
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 214 TRANSCRIPT 6
Only 12% visit from this province?
I:
Yes, it’s very less visitors.
C:
Do you have any other problems or disputes with local people?
I:
Oh you shouldn’t say ‘problems’ because you know they are as they are, you accept it, we have no problems or strife, but they won’t come so that’s it, so they won’t come because we are closed- not closed on Sunday.
C:
Ok, I see what you mean.
I:
But it’s not really a problem other way, they won’t come, that’s it, and they won’t accept working for us because we are open on, on, on Sunday. And you also see between the years things are changing little by little but it takes a long breath, it takes a lot of time.
C:
So, do you feel that there’s a- within the Netherlands there would be a very high awareness of this Castle? You said that it has a- has a very important history, so do you feel that a large percentage of Dutch people are aware of its existence? Or-
I:
I think that there are perhaps, no it’s not that all the Dutch people know who or where Loevestein is. There are a lot of people who heard the story about Hugo de Groot story and then escaped from the book chest, but there are also a lot of people who knew the story but they think it’s Muiderslot or another castle so the awareness of Loevestein lying here, being, getting involved in this story about Hugo de Groot and this castle, I can’t mention a number of people because we have I sixteen million people, inhabitants here, no I don’t know. I’m sometimes astonished about the amount of people who know that we are here and know that we are existing, and even also astonished about the people who never heard before, heard about Loevestein, so I can’t say it’s equal or, a lot of people know Loevestein are but I want to have more people know Loevestein, because they need to come and to pay a ticket and so we can do more things to get the marketing strategy larger and better done because we have not enough money to do all the things we want to do, but when we get more visitors, we can have more money, so we can do more marketing profits so- not enough people know who Loevestein are or not enough people know what Loevestein is, come to visit us, because then you have sixteen million people living in the Netherlands and then not yet 1% is coming so we have a long way to go.
C:
Ok, could you tell me how the global economic recession has affected development at Loevestein?
I:
Now it’s the government who give us, from the €1.4 million exploitation budget, we own about €1 million ourselves, €400,000 we get from the government, and it’s a fact that last year we had, I think about 10,000 visitors less than the year before, but it’s not really fair because there was a reconstruction for more than a year. Everything was different, everything was not nice, not ready, so the restoration took a lot of time and it’s possible ‘oh we won’t come this year to Loevestein, we are going next year’.
C:
Yeah
I:
I can’t say if it’s a matter of the economical situation or because of our reconstruction and our restoration so, the thing we, we, 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 215 TRANSCRIPT 6 we, we actually see that is going much worse, that’s our business part, we have one part is a museum and the visitors they buy a ticket, they buy a cup of coffee, or some cakes or something like that, that is going on, that is no problem, but another part of the income of Loevestein is our business events, and we have a lot of parties, business events, marriages, and that is going less better than before and that costs almost €200,000 per year less income and that’s, that’s a problem. So the museum income is reasonable, ok but the business income is reduced with 25%.
C:
So, you mentioned earlier that you were looking for new and innovative strategies, could you tell me about some ideas that you do have for the, for the castle, or what would you like to develop here?
I:
What I want to develop is the theme ‘water’ which is very important all over the world; to get enterprises involved with Loevestein on that team so they want to help us getting public information in relation with water defence and not water defence system by war but for to getting the water out of the Dutch countries, and, and we have some information issues here, a new dyke is rebuilt which you didn’t see because you came by boat, but when- if you should come by car you see that the area here, everything is changed at the moment, because of the water defence system. That gives us the opportunity to get accomplish with some companies who wanted to involve with us, now that’s where I see there are some possibilities. Another possibility is innovation in education things and themes because young people are very spoiled by modern communication things: apps, smartphones, our system is going to, how would you say it, to slow, people, even children want to enjoy them, it must be a large experience, and everything you want to explore with modern communication methods and that costs a lot of money to keep it going on, and to change them a lot. We build some multimedia things yesterday and before they are built they are already old so you can’t go up with it so fast, and we should because it’s, it goes so fast. That’s also a problem, the invest- you have to invest, invent things and when you are working together you can do it together, you can keep your costs lower if you do it with another museums together I hope so that is what I am looking for, if it is a possibility for working together so that we can faster make, on a proactive way change the thing.
C:
Yeah; could I ask you about the maintenance costs of the castle? I can imagine they are quite high for such a big area?
I:
Yeah but there is one thing you should know because keeping the castle and it’s environment in their proper construction, environment; the government pays money for it because we are a national monument, so our exploitation from €1.4 million is exclusive, the costs of the part of reconstruction or, not to keep the house clean, so we don’t pay really, not a much, not a lot of money for the reconstruction or the construction costs from the castle and its environment because of the government pays it, and the amount they pay per year is around €300,000, so we don’t get the money, but we are involved by, the things they are doing, or are planned to do.
C
Yeah
I:
We can ask them to reconsider the choices they’ve made, but we don’t need to pay them by ourselves. So if there is a toilet not working, or the heat insulation is not working or the gas is not working, we don’t need to pay those things; all of the insulations, who are taking care of the system that is working, we don’t pay for damage in that way; they don’t cost us anything, it’s the government who pays them, who keeps them going on, it’s going concern by the government. SO what we pay is an amount of the hire of the castle, the people who are working here, those kinds of things we pay, and our presentations, our education plans for the visitors, those things we pay, but getting involved by the castle and it’s environment and it’s relation to get it working and done, we don’t pay.
C:
Ok, I’d like to ask about your knowledge of this document (Panorama Krayenhoff).
I:
I think it was ten years before that I saw it, it about ten years.
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 216 TRANSCRIPT 6
C:
Yeah, 2004 it was published.
I:
Yes ten years; Ed d’Hondt; what do you want to know?
C:
How has this document impacted upon Loevestein?
I:
Actually, it did not, because when I used the things that are written here, down in the little book it was not the Province who wanted to pay money for Loevestein, they said ‘no it’s the government, they should pay’ and it cost me a struggle of five years to get the province €1.7 million so it was very – for the fortresses, the other fortresses it was very good but the fact that we were already a castle, I think as, as a lookalike, the fortresses, we are not a lookalike because other fortresses have other buildings other forms, and the castle was a little bit strange, in the thing, Dutch Waterline position.
C:
Yeah.
I:
Just a small part of Loevestein is a part of the New Dutch Waterline and a lot of fortresses in the area, they are built in 1885- something like that, we are built in 1360 so, it was not possible to get so much money for the reconstruction because we- the government paid already for the reconstruction of the castle, in further centuries, and the fortresses you- I am sure you have visited a lot of other fortresses, I don’t know which one but-
C:
Fort- the other case studies I am working on are Fort Uitermeer and Fort Vechten.
I:
Yeah, ok, they are fortresses built in the 1800 and 1900 century, and it’s Utrecht, who wants to get very important with starting and influencing the Dutch Waterline so Loevestein in the southern part, but it is more of a political issue. They southern part of the Waterline and especially the Bommelerwaard , is not a strong region if you speak of political influence, the Utrecht are is a strong part of the Dutch Waterline who used a lot of political influence to get the things done and the Bommelerwaard that’s where Loevestein is lying in between, it’s a small community, it’s not very famous people who are not that involved with the Dutch Waterline, Loevestein is nice already so, it’s going on, let it go, it’s ok. That’s the problem, but it’s more a political issue, so Fort Vechten, I don’t know $30 million- eh euros, something like that.
C:
€25 million I was told.
I:
€25 million, I thought it was more, so you can’t compare Loevestein because Loevestein is already is as it is and some little parts within the ramparts are a part of the New Dutch Waterline. Fort Vechten is built as a New Dutch Waterline thing and it has to be restored, rebuilt, and restored so they put a lot of money in it that is some political things.
C:
Ok, I’d also like to ask you about the UNESCO bid of the New Dutch Waterline, I was wondering if you were aware of it or have you had any experience of it?
I:
I, no- I have not really had experience, I know that in the beginning this was nominated for the UNESCO, but now as it seems 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 217 TRANSCRIPT 6 now, it will be not give, will get its own nomination but it’s nominated within the Stelling of Amsterdam. That’s another Dutch Waterline, the Stelling of Amsterdam and it’s one part of the Stelling of Amsterdam, so you have start in 2018 there will be a nomination for the Stelling of Amsterdam including the Dutch Waterline, the New Dutch Waterline so that’s less I think important than it it’s got i’s own nomination because the Stelling of Amsterdam already I think for more than twenty years had a nomination, and they have to accept that a Dutch Waterline is part of the Waterline defence. Perhaps you should say there are more defence systems, we have also the Roman defence system, the limes, and they also wanted to have their own nomination so I think it’s, that’s, that’s difficult.
C:
So the last thing I would like to ask you about, when, when I spoke to a lot of the other interviewees and asked them about Loevestein most of them said that there was ‘continual development happening here’, that there was always some new project or some construction or redevelopment and, I was wondering, is that, is that purely for financial reasons or do you- do you see that the area is a development opportunity, to, to create new things and new opportunities
I:
It’s the last thing you say, I, I, I believe that if you are, if you don’t, if you are not committed to get involved looking for new ways to get your visitors, your existence is getting the visitors to Loevestein and these days visitors are very spoiled in my opinion. We offer them every day a new plaything, so you have your way of getting new awareness, getting new things, getting new experiences, way of presentations, makes if you, if you are interesting enough or not. That’s not only a problem of Loevestein, that’s a problem of museums, the old way of a museum doesn’t match anymore so people are asking other ways of getting involved, getting curiosity so that’s very difficult and I believe that when you are not, organized new things, people won’t find anymore Loevestein so you should be aware of the fact that you always get done new innovative ways of presentations. Another part of the reconstruction we have done last year is- I compare it always with your own home, when you are living twenty five years in your own home: when you need a new toilet, and you need a new bathroom and you need a new kitchen because it’s not nice any more people are very- well I told you before: spoiled. Everything must be new and be gadget so if you are not growing up with that they will, yeah lose contact and that’s because after thirty years of reconstruction we made a reconstruction now last year.
C:
Yeah.
I:
And the last reconstruction of Loevestein was in 19- between 1965 and 1986; so it was necessary to change some things to get, to be attractive for our visitors
C:
Are you confident that you’ll, you’ll be able to meet this ever changing demand of the visitors?
I:
No that’s why I am also looking for another way but, I think it’s very hard I’m also a little bit afraid. I think if you are going on, and you are perhaps, twenty five, fifty years further on, the world is changed again, a lot, and I think that people will look for some places where they can find their rest, their peace, their- how do you call it? Contemplation, perhaps, Loevestein is one of the fifty spots in Holland, where, where you go, where you can stay, where you can sit, where you can meet people, where you can join discussions and I think it will be something like that, so we will see.
C:
That, that’s covered all the things that I wanted to talk to you about so I just wanted to say thank you again
I:
Ok.
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 218 TRANSCRIPT 7
Transcript 7 Jeroen Bootsma
C:
This is Thursday 3rd of July, could you please introduce yourself and tell me what you do?
J:
My name is Jeroen Bootsma. I’m a program manager, I’m working for the Project Bureau of the New Dutch Waterline and I’m working on the maintenance, maintenance is probably the best way to translate it, beheer, maintain- maintenance, green keeping, countryside management, those aspects of the New Dutch Waterline, so both the built, and the listed and unlisted buildings and all the landscape and green elements surrounding those buildings. My job is to make sure we have a shared level of ambition on the maintenance and ‘we’ is the five provinces, state or national- national parties as much as they are involved and most important the owners, related to the central ambition of keeping the New Dutch Waterline, enjoyable, recognizable for the broad public and the nomination process of UNESCO world heritage, we’ve set up a, we’re setting up a shared ambition of- I keep explaining it, it’s maintenance, countryside management and the level of it
C:
Yeah
J:
And what I am trying to do is getting those, the parties that matter, the decision makers together, to realise that, and subscribe that level of ambition and meanwhile, this is all, a lot of talking and paperwork, meanwhile, on the same level we are also trying to get some experience on the practical level so the New Dutch Waterline is participating in a European Intera B project called ‘Share”
C:
Oh, yeah, this was what you mentioned the last time, the Share Project.
J:
Yeah the Share Project, that’s right, that’s right, yeah. We are one of the six partners within Share, and Share, well as you wrote down it focuses on heritage and rural economies and the maintenance of heritage and keeping alive those rural economies with non-=professional, so within Share, Share is, Share is not a not a target or a goal we are trying to achieve, but with- within the share project we can, we try to make some progress on this practical level
C:
Yeah
J:
We have got fourteen pilots running right now, most of them are located in the southern part of the New Dutch Waterline where we work with volunteers and other categories of non-professional to- to do some work on the countryside management, green-keeping etc.
C:
Yeah
J:
And, and non-professionals, is a broader- understanding is a broader than just volunteers are the- form the bigger part of the non-professionals involved in the- in the pilot. Most of the pilots have been running from the beginning of this year and will end October/November so will be closing the project by the end of the year, maximum the- the first quarter of 2015 and we hope 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 219 TRANSCRIPT 7 to present conclusions of those fourteen pilots and the lessons learned by the end of this year.
C:
Yeah. Can you tell me how- how the fourteen pilots were selected? Those fourteen, what was the decision making behind the selection
J:
It varied because, co-founders had a word in that- well twelve of the fourteen running pilots are co-financed by the Province of Gelderland and with them we said that the definition of- freely translated, sustainable maintenance and sustainable in an ecological way but a way- we, we tried to define, tried to define management and green-keeping concept of ‘people, planet, profit’ and that was- one of the issues of what would they had to integrate into their pilots, proposal and besides that there were actually there’s a list of selection criteria they had to meet. Ones I work- trying to integrate several aspects such as the ecological aspect of the maintenance- integrate that with the more technical aspect of, of, maintenance of the listed buildings, so renovations and things like that. What’s the other- most important- well the focus on non-professionals of course, or at least to co-operate with, so the- from, from our perspective, we had the- we would like to see the Share goals integrated in the pilot proposals and the more specific criteria, regarding the sustainable part in the ‘people, planet, profit’, came from their financer, the Province of Gelderland.
C:
Yeah.
J:
For those pilots in Gelderland, was a, how you say that- open procedure? So there was an announcement made through different channels in the media and you could subscribe to this, with pilots to this tender, I don’t know what the proper word in English. So we’ve used several proposals and then first there was pre-selection to see if they all met the criteria.
C:
Yeah.
J:
And afterwards the formal decision making was done by a body of, what’s the word, not mayors, but the executing politicians.
C:
Ok
J:
On, on county level, in, in this part of Gelderland. There was an existing body which made the final decision and approved the, the formal proof of the parts.
C:
So as far as getting the non-professionals involved, was that done exclusively through the Share project website.
J:
No, no…or?
C:
Or, was it the, the existing bodies in Gelderland, or did you appeal through different media channels for people to volunteer? 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 220 TRANSCRIPT 7
J:
Yeah, yeah, but the initiative for reaching out to those future volunteers and other non-professionals was done by the co- ordinators or initiators of the pilot; it wasn’t us. We- for us to meet the goals of the Share project, we set up this possibility of those pilots, so it, it has been the parties who wrote the pilot proposals who have done the, the reaching out-
C:
The appealing?
J:
The appealing thanks, to the, to the non-professionals.
C:
Do you know if they all follow the same methods of appealing or was it on a site by site basis?
J:
Yes, yes, I would say so, and they vary quite a lot in using existing networks of volunteers and vary also in numbers of volunteers they reached. I’m thinking twelve of them are in Gelderland and at least one set up completely new group of volunteers, they’ve been quite successful so far, and all the media attention about the kick-off, about the launch, a lot of interesting people, they had sixty, close to seventy people showed up at the first meeting, and they now have- the group is working since December/January this year, and they stabilized around twenty five members, so that’ a good score from the first sixty/seventy people who showed up. Other, other pilots, let me see, let me see, ouderhoorn, I feel like, let me get a list so we can- you want to run them through.
C:
Yeah please,
J:
Yeah?
C:
Yeah that would be fine.
J:
Yeah? Ok, it’s easier for me both remembering and translating at the same time, I will grab a list…. Here we are. This is hard to remember *laughs*.
C:
I can imagine.
J:
We had begun, we had three launches, so after the first one was four parties with the one I just mentioned by stichting landschapsbeheer Gelderland, they set up the liniewacht that’s a completely new group, we had two from the county of Culemborg, hemeente, is county a proper translation for that?
C:
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 221 TRANSCRIPT 7
Oh, municipality.
J:
Yeah, municipality that’s great, the municipality of Culemborg, they have a a casemate along the motorway A2 which was of National Forestry but wasn’t maintained, totally overgrown, changed ownership to another party. The Foundation of National World Heritage but they were, situated in Amsterdam so they didn’t have any feeling with this specific site, so the aim of this pilot was to hand ownership back to a local party and the maintenance/ green-keeping as well, which is set up and realised with a local- a sheep farmer, so they’ll do some grazing and they’ll have the local community of farmers to do the bigger maintenance work because they have the tools for it, so there is volunteers- there is voluntary work involved but not with a group but based on individual cooperation.
C:
Yeah
J:
That’s,s that’ a big difference regarding the other but they set up a specific group of volunteers, the other one is werk aan het spoor, that was more, they focused more on the, profit and ‘planet’ part of, of the definition and their aim was to lower the, the, the net costs of the green-keeping.
C:
Ok
J:
Werk aan het spoor is the one with the, with art, with the theatre, do you know that? The theatre site at, at, at the fortress.
C:
I’m trying to remember off the top of my head
J:
It’s. it’s here, I know the location if that helps anything: 41, it close to Culemborg, close to Everdingen, it’s on the river dyke.
C:
Sorry I can’t remember.
J:
No, I was thinking do we have; there werk aan het spoor, well they have, it’s with the; yeah it’s with this thing; this is a new cafeteria area and on the side of that they have the slopes.
C:
Yeah.
J:
And were restyled as a theatre, so, so, yeah, plateau setting where people can sit, on the bottom they can have a look at a play.
C:
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 222 TRANSCRIPT 7
Oh, an amphitheatre.
J:
Yeah, thank you; and that’s quite expensive mowing, so it needs either specialized tools or it’s worked by hand, and that takes a lot of hours and it’s expensive. So that was a more technical pilot, then batterij Brakel, voluntary work; well, non-professionals were used because we, we define a farmers’ cooperation also as non-professional. Individually they are a professional party because the farmer has to run a business as well but the corporation, or the group of, of farmers, yeah, it, we had, we had firm discussions about it but they take us this work also because of their interests in their local community and heritage, got paid for it though and a fair level, let’s say; and this pilot, this pilot was initiated by them, cooperation by the State Forestry, they’re the owner, they’re the owner, and they’re also working with a local school, and besides the ‘planet’ matter that the site was, there was a lot of neglected green-keeping which they took care besides that with the, with the students or pupils, made a GPS tour and on specific sites you could get some information on your handheld or cellular phone etc. and with that they achieved more awareness in, in, in the community and specifically with this group of students and pupils about the New Dutch Waterline and, and this site around batterij Brakel specific, so this one was a corporation of a farmers’ collective body with a school institute. Lingewaal, was also focusing on schools, trying to see if they could create an intermediate body between, a body who would coordinate, the demand for internship or apprentices?
C:
Oh, yeah, internship.
J:
Yeah, and from the school wise yeah well, we have, we have ten, up to thirty students of this and that, what could they find, so there’s no, there’s no match between demand and offer and that was, what this pilot was about, and well actually it failed, they did some good conclusions, and they weren’t able to make that connection, which is, which, yeah, that’s a result as well; the other one Fort Asperen, is a fortress a little bit below, close to Asperen, they are working with volunteers already, and what tried to achieve was a high level of maintenance and grrenkeeping and cost saving by minimizing the effects of scattered ownership so around the location of Asperen, there are several owners who own just a smaller part of the site.
C:
Yeah
J:
Which is very inefficient in its maintenance, so that’s what they focused on, what they, were focusing on, and so that was the main target and the realization of the green-keeping and maintenance could be done by either their volunteers of the fortress because that’s what they own, or a professionals in case, if the type of work demanded that.
C:
Yeah.
J:
And then you have Avelingen groep, they are working with reintegration people, people with a long distance to the labour market, social problems, so; and that’s, this is, this body is a private party, doing or performing those reintegration projects with this group of people, and normally they do more commercial green-keeping jobs, and here they worked together with the, owner if they could do some specific mowing jobs on a battery site which also because of taluut, the steep slopes, that’s actually the steep slopes are the biggest problem for green-keeping besides building maintenance, so they, they try to work with this category of people.
The Avelingen groep is working with, with a different category, it’s, it’s not a volunteers but we regard them also as non- professionals and it’s a more technical, the goal they are achieving; stichting ouderhoorn was one with volunteers involved but local volunteers, working on a basis of, six year plan and, and financing of a restoration project.
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 223 TRANSCRIPT 7
C:
Yeah .
J:
And they realised that and they said “Who’s doing the maintenance now? The building is spick and span *laughs* but we see that the owner doesn’t do anything with the surroundings so who is taking care of that?” They realised that they had this covered, they only had covered the listed building part but not the integration with countryside management so to speak and they partly succeeded in getting the owner interested in, in, in undertaking actions and, at least they succeeded in raising awareness, this is also part of maintenance, and it’s, it’s a continuous matter returning on the agendas of the, of the two Foundations who are either owner or user of the, the site so volunteers involved but not more on a process matter than, than the actual physical work
C:
Yeah.
J:
Which is also at Pannerden, the most eastern fort we have on the German border, with the Poederoijen, is a pilot, it’s, it’s a foundation which will exploit- can you say that? Is it the proper way, try to run a business or take care of two, of two battery sites in the area of Slot Loevestein, so quite in the south, and this one they’re as, as a Foundation of volunteers, they’re doing their own green keeping and financing restoration projects, but they’re also cooperating with two schools and that makes it interesting, they’re working with a hire agrarian school, and there were two students who made a decent multiple year green- keeping and countryside management plan for them and also, transferred that plan to simple basic down to earth check lists and work lists for pupils of a school for kids with learning disabilities who can execute part of that order.
C:
Ok
J:
So, voluntarily or part of an educational program, but they’re also non-professionals. Now, let me see, this one is phase two of an earlier mentioned one, it’s a technical solution, is not, not really about working with volunteers but trying to find ways- possibilities for the exploitation of smaller parts of the New Dutch Waterline such as the battery locations, they are way smaller than the fortresses, but if you can run a business on such a location would it be possible that you donate a certain percentage of your ‘made-money’ to either a fund or directly to the owner so that you could take care of the management of such a site.
C:
Yeah.
J:
Loevestein is, is the last, they’re setting up a corporation with also parties who works with people from- well I would say, people from a day care program for mental institutions, so not really the mentally ill but, but yeah people with problems in, in that type, in that area, which maybe they can live on their own but they need a daily program, education and what so ever, and they are setting up a green-keeping for, for these people, which is very, low scale, maintaining a small vegetable garden, walking paths, a footpath, very low profile, but they’ve just started because of the changing of laws and subsidies and financial issues around this topic, municipalities aren’t quite willing to cooperate and give some money. Then in Brabant, the southern part, the most southern part, the most southern blue area, yeah right over there, a group, a new group of volunteers will be started as well, so that’s, this one’s comparable with the first I spoke about, only they will start right after the summer, September they will do their first info, info meeting and then they do the approach to the future volunteers. The one is Utrecht is more about care patients, so that one’s comparable with Loevestein, and then the last one is up in the North, so Pampus which is in the Ijsselmeer.
C: 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 224 TRANSCRIPT 7
This one here?
J:
Yeah, yeah, and they cover three other sites, let me take this one; Pampus here, and they’ll cover parts of Muiden and Naarden and this one is Uitermeer.
C:
Yes.
J:
Yes, four sites where a new group of volunteers, specifically trained in green-keeping so they have their chainsaw certificate, and working on, on steep slopes and that’s also a new group of volunteers set up specifically for this, for this aim and they’re doing onsite green-keeping.
C:
Do you know the name of the group?
J:
Yeah it’s called liniewacht.
C:
Actually, you’ve mentioned; I have, I have three case studies for my thesis and you’ve actually mentioned two of them. So Loevestein, Uitermeer and also Vechten.
J:
Yes, yes.
C:
So, could I just ask you a little bit about each, I’ve spoken to Ien Stijns already-
J:
Yes.
C:
And she mentioned about the volunteers with learning difficulties, but something she also mentioned about, trying to get locals, local residents involved.
J:
Yes.
C:
And she said that the main problem she had was because of their religious beliefs.
J:
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 225 TRANSCRIPT 7
Ah.
C:
And that they, they didn’t like the, that the castle was open on Sundays.
J:
Aha.
C:
And because it was open on Sunday, they couldn’t volunteer because they couldn’t work because it conflicted with their beliefs.
J
Yes.
C:
And I was wondering if you have had any experience of that elsewhere or was that-
J:
A little, I know it is mentioned at Fort Asperen which is a bit more up north but close to the religious area, regarding this matter and so in, in a way yes, but broadly no.
C:
It’s not really a problem?
J:
No, regarding involving volunteers, no, rather occasionally, no it’s mentioned once, in these fourteen pilots it’s mentioned once at Asperen.
C:
Oh ok.
J:
That’s where I’m, that’s where I’m, as far as I’m aware.
C:
Ok.
J:
Yes, if you, looking at the map behind you, the area of the more, of the religious, the religious groups, with this point of view, how did that go? See it’s either, see, it, it runs a little bit more west, it comes from the south, it’s, it’s diagonal over part of the Netherlands so it comes from Zeeland through here, and stays on this side, so Asperen is here, and this is why they feel it runs over here, and it doesn’t really sort of cross here, there’s- there’s surrounding of Utrecht it’s not that hardcore *laughs* so you say, I don’t think it runs up here, so it crosses, a more; oh yeah here it takes up and then more up north, going to Overijssel, and I would, I would say, as you can see here this is a more forestry area, this is the Utrechtse heuvelrug, and there it isn’t as strong
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 226 TRANSCRIPT 7
C:
Ok
J:
So here in the southern part I can understand from, from these perspective, let’s see where are we here Loevestein is here and Asperen is here, at the other side, it wasn’t an issue, it hasn’t been mentioned.
C:
Could you tell me a little more about Uitermeer, you mentioned it was part of the three-
J:
Yeah, it, it, it’s, it’s, it’s a new group; so these volunteers were, yeah contracted, but this, this group, previous they, they, some- I think the bigger part wasn’t active in the New Dutch Waterline, they’ve been, they’ve, they’ve been trained, they had the opportunity to do specific green-keeping courses, one of them has been taking part of the international exchanges within the Share program as well. I believe it’s quite a motivated group, and what they do is they work, they change, so they go round the specific areas, this is there proposal, and you should run through Google translate. They had cooperation from Pampus, Muiderslot, Muider Muizerfort, which is also in Muiden, Fort Werk IV which is in Bussum, and Uitermeer, and also the municipalities of Muiden, Weesp and Bussum cooperate. Besides the onsite green-keeping they are also trying to – how do you say that-. Trying to set up or level, their green-keeping maintenance plans, for these sites they all, they all have their own green-keeping plan and especially at the municipalities there are budget cuts so the coordinator of the groups said “well what we want to do is to see if we can take over certain activities of your management plan that will realise, you’ll save money, and a small part of that saving, put that in maintaining the group for courses for clothing materials and, and etc. so you’ll able us to continue also after the Share Project and in that way they’ll finance themselves.
C:
And this is due to begin-
J:
They’re already.
C:
Oh, operating?
J:
Yes, operating, yeah I don’t know if they run a website but they are operating.
C:
Has it been successful so far?
J:
All the physical work, yes. Maybe next week, otherwise after the summer break I’ll have an evaluation meeting on the matter of the levelling of the management plans, and also, more important if the municipalities are willing to spend money on them, and that I don’t know yet
C:
Yeah; when I I visited Fort Uitermeer I spoke to Niek Roozen who is the, the leader of Uiteraard Uitermeer.
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 227 TRANSCRIPT 7
J:
Yes
C:
Sorry my pronunciation is quite bad.
J:
No, that’s ok yeah. I would; for me in that case stichting translates as ‘foundation’.
C:
Oh Foundation Uitermeer, and he told me about a problem that his group had; they were trying to build a small dock and it meant that they had to cut down some reeds which were a metre and a half in height and two local concerned residents phoned the police to say what they were doing was damaging nature and it was illegal and he said that his group have had quite a lot of problems with these two citizens.
J:
Yeah.
C:
And I was wondering do, well do you- not just this, not just Uitermeer, overall have you found any conflict with ordinary citizens who are opposed?
J:
No, no and this a weird cases, because the legal system is, is, is well set up for these issues, so if you wanna do countryside management, at some point of some activities you need to have your, vergunningen, your legislation-
C:
Oh your permits?
J:
Permits, thanks; and if you have a good story with a goal the activity serves you’ll get your permit because most of the time the activities also serve the ecological goal, sometimes a forest needs to be renewed and the older trees need to be removed so a- new succession stadia will be able to take place.
C:
Yeah.
J:
And, and in this cases, I think but I didn’t dug into it because there is too much of a background and a legal setting, but there’s something in the legislation of the municipality of Weesp, which is wrong, there is something not right about their legislation at this topic so if you look at the whole of the New Dutch Waterline, no I’m not aware of any imposing citizens or people living in the direct surroundings. What I do know is that the major owners, for example National Forestry or State Forestry, I don’t know how to translate them, Staatsbosbeheer.
C:
Yeah. 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 228 TRANSCRIPT 7
J:
You’ve run across that? *laughs*.
C:
*laughs* Yes.
J:
They, they’re very keen on informing the inhabitants and, and direct, the direct inhabitants if they are going to do something with a big impact on, on, green-keeping or, or the management; they need to cut over ten trees and they’re tall, everybody knows them because they’re too old and they will renew them. There’s a lot of PR attention on how to bring across that message.
C:
Yeah.
J:
Yeah, so from that point of view I know there is a lot of attention, if, if, if big works need, need to be done, but that’s, that’s more an issue of the bigger owners, than with regard to the green-keeping work that these volunteers do or the projects, the fourteen projects within the Share program.
C:
Yeah, so the big owners are very conscious informing people if they are going to be-
J:
From my point of view I would say yes, yes, the Waterschappen and the water board bodies, I don’t know how you speak of them in English-
C:
Oh yeah, water-boards?
J:
Yeah, that would be, yeah and the bigger owners like State Forestry, Natuurmonumenten and the, the non-profit owners at provincial level, they’re very keen on informing the inhabitants that-
C:
Yeah, just when you were mentioning earlier about the legal system, as long as you had a permit the legal system would protect that right?
J:
Yes, yes.
C:
But Weesp seems to be an exception?
J: 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 229 TRANSCRIPT 7
Well something went wrong there along the process, either you don’t get your permit, but then that’s there’s something very rigorous to be done, ok that’s good that you won’t get it, and the easiest one is that you will get your permit straight away. Most of them are in between which regards- well in English, mitigate first you do a quick scan, this here what kind of species, flora and fauna, and if there is some species of let’s say mouse or birds or whatsoever, you make sure that before the work is started there, they set out elsewhere in, in, in a comparable habitat, and if that isn’t in the area then you have to create it and then you can do a job and afterwards, so there are actually people catching fish setting them out elsewhere to make sure you’re not- yeah to protect the flora and fauna on site. So that’s, that’s, in Dutch it’s called the Flora and Fauna Wet, it’s quite strict on possible native effects and how to eliminate those and well as I said that’s, that’s done by making sure in advance the vulnerable species are protected or placed elsewhere, so of course with plants and stuff that is difficult so you could also get your permit if you’re compensating those compensating those square metres of vegetation elsewhere, but that’s concerning vegetation.
C:
Yeah.
J:
And with regards to countryside management green-keeping, most of the activities don’t have an impact, because it’s management of the existing flora.
C:
Earlier, just going back to something you said earlier about the Waterline being one of six partners within the Share Project, did, did the Share Project initially approach the Waterline, or was it the Waterline project that was trying to-
J:
The, the, for a good answer you should ask Peter Ros, because- I don’t know if he’s on your list.
C:
Oh he’s in charge of the finance, is that right?
J:
Yes.
C:
He, I’ve been trying to arrange a meeting with him.
J:
Yeah, but he’s quite busy.
C:
Yeah.
J:
Because he was at the, what they formally call the inception of the Share Project but several partners knew each other from previous cooperation’s and I would say that the partners and at least some of the partners set up the Share Project so it was more bottom up fitting under a specific program, so they, the six- yeah three or four from the six set up the project.
C: 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 230 TRANSCRIPT 7
Ok, and whenever, when the project finishes and the conclusions have been reached, what, what do you think will happen after that? Will there be a formal organisation set up to coordinate volunteers for the whole Waterline?
J:
That’s, that’s- one of the goals is to have a network realised for volunteering within maintenance in the New Dutch Waterline and the network doesn’t necessarily have to be a formal part. What we want to set up is a network of volunteers regarding the management.
C:
And, would that be, would that treat the Waterline as a whole or would it be on a site by site-
J:
Our goal- yeah so as we spoke about like for example, this group of volunteers in the North, we have one in, well more or less the middle which is stichting landschapbeheer Gelderland, and we have one in the south, Brabant which still has to begin. Next to that there are a lot of local volunteer groups, not specifically working for the New Dutch Waterline but are active in the area so what we would like to see if there is maybe a small coordinating body or group just above that to make sure that they, they know from each other’s’ existence; know what their specialties are, maybe group A could ask group B for a specific type of work, or for specific type of machine that they somehow have to learn from each other, for experiences, that would be part of the network so they don’t have to, yeah they could maximise usage of each other’s’ knowledge and experiences. Other thoughts regarding such a body but that’s in a more formal way are about funding, that’s within, we haven’t made much progress at that point, but yeah the idea is the renewal of the total New Dutch Waterline.
C:
Ok, has funding been impacted by the global economic recession? Has that played a role?
J:
I would say yes, yes, but we are able to show the necessity of a management of both the listed buildings and the countryside, so yes in a way there is a less willingness to pay, at for example the municipalities, and commercial owners have a tougher time running their businesses at fortresses, so also there is less money to set aside for the maintenance; but that’s strictly the willingness to pay the, the concern of the necessities is nevertheless there.
C:
Yes, and I would just like to ask you about the awareness of the Waterline among, among ordinary people; well you said- mentioned the non-professionals, well nationally what do you feel like the awareness levels are like?
J:
I think we as professionals have the tendency to over-rate the awareness level.
C:
Over-rate?
J:
Yeah so I would think it would, it would, it is higher than it actually is, because to me it’s common knowledge but-
C:
Yeah.
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 231 TRANSCRIPT 7
J:
Even close to the New Dutch Waterline it’s unknown so, yeah, it’s very hard to, very hard to say Conor.
C:
But, you would like to raise the awareness among the- well obviously that’s one of the goals of the, the Share Project; and, so you think, you think it would be a good thing to raise awareness?
J:
Well I think- the previous meeting I came from was the evaluation of the, the Gelderland group and they also said “one of our main focuses is about”- they define it as “mental ownership of local citizens”.
Ok
If they feel themselves mentally owner of that part of the Waterline, they’ll be more motivated to take care of it, so to speak. And so that is what they’re focusing on in their approach to future volunteers.
C:
Was, was there a positive reaction to this idea of mental ownership?
J:
…Yes, yes, because they’ve a group, still a group of twenty five and at the first meeting they had a group of over sixty people, enthusiastic.
C:
Ok; one last thing I’d like to ask you about is the goals of the Share Project; these two in particular:
J:
“Maximize rural heritage and culture to meet social economics of target groups through engagement activities”
C:
So, so the target groups,
J:
Other non-professionals.
C:
Non-professionals ok; so; the social and economic needs, would you try to find a balance between those or would there be an emphasis on economic needs over social?
J:
Eh…
C:
Or do you always try to find the middle ground?
J: 10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 232 TRANSCRIPT 7
Yeah there is not always an emphasis or a specific choice made in that. The idea is that both of them will benefit from the preservation of heritage and culture and the engagement activities is the way to realise that and the other- the other one, the second one is to “ensure high quality restoration, conservation and maintenance of tangible and intangible heritage”
C:
Yeah, could- the intangible heritage, what exactly does that mean?
J:
Well the, one of the partners, the French partner is more focusing on, untold stories.
C:
Ok.
J:
They decide they, they are participating in an area with a great history in granite, and granite, I don’t know how to say that in English- the artwork?
C:
Ok.
J:
From it, statue making and stuff like that.
C:
Oh, sculptures?
J:
Yeah, thank you, yeah, and also tableaus, and things like that and this site is, is the biggest producer and deliverer of granite so over the centuries a lot of history and tradition is created at that topic so they’re all, they’re focusing on, it; on the part of that tradition within this local society and that’s, that’s; yeah they do that mostly by archiving and interviews and things like that. They, they take a lot of interviews with the elderly people who were active as a partisan within the granite and the role of- that seems to be quite male, society so we will see- they are focusing more on the cultural aspect of that granite tradition. What was the role of the women within this area and tradition.
C:
Do you feel that this aspect, the intangible heritage is becoming more important for the Waterline or do you feel it is important?
J:
Well regarding the Waterline we had the initiative of people who were serving in World War II and of course there’s fewer and fewer of them so yes within that matter yes and I think it also fits quite well within the current trend of- how you say it in English? ‘The experience trend’; as a, as a, as a place, for example Fort Vechten, you have to, it has to be something that you experience and I think those, that type of information can also add to the whole, can add something extra to the whole experience, as in understanding the context and stories told around what happened there besides the cold facts.
C:
Yeah, lastly could I ask you about Fort Vechten, I know that it’s going to become the National Waterline Museum, due to open 10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 233 TRANSCRIPT 7 next, year have you had any experience of it or do you know of any conflicts of interest at the site? Because I am aware that there is an entrepreneur working there, so he has, he has his commercial interests and there is also going to be a National Museum at the site.
J:
Yeah, yeah, this is, this is really complex, I’m not aware of any specific conflicts, but the entrepreneur also has a role in the more,s let’ say scientific part of our timing and the usual part of this location, and yeah of course that’s tricky. It’s easy that it could, that conflict of, he can hardly make, well let’s, let’s put it this way, his, his, the museum part won’t be the strongest part in his business case; so you see what you mean. Other, on the other hand, it’s a museum with a lot of potential for his business to run over there, and for more information I would say talk to Chris Will.
C:
Oh, yeah I have interviewed him already.
J:
Oh good.
C:
Yeah he was able to give a lot of information about the site.
J:
Good, good,. You spoke with Ien about Fort Loevestein, I could give you the contact information of the person who is running the, the pilot in the North which also covers Fort Uitermeer,
C:
Oh, yes please.
J:
So you could contact him; and Vechten, I’ll have a- I think the last meeting and not the final evaluation, but the last meeting, a progress meeting tomorrow, so they will be rounding up their pilot as well and I am speaking with Auke Vos.
C:
Ok.
J:
I don’t know if you have-
C:
No I haven’t.
J:
Well I’ll ask tomorrow if he’s ok with it and if you have any specific questions around their pilot you could contact him as well.
C:
Ok, thank you very much.
10085467 Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 234 TRANSCRIPT 7
J:
If they are ok with it you can have some more in depth information about what they are doing and how they are trying to continue with the Share pilot. The Share Project will finish ideally by the end of the year, and part of next year will be used for some financial and administrative matters but most of the work should be done by the end of this year and hopefully they can tell you some more about the, how to continue the initiative afterwards, so that would be yeah, Vechten and linie land at Fort Uitermeer.
C:
That’s great, thank you very much, that’s the last topic I wanted to talk to you about so thank you very much.
J:
You’re welcome, you’re welcome.
10085467 MSc Urban and Regional Planning Master’s Thesis Project CONOR COREY 235