THE PRIVATISATION OF PUBLIC SPACE IN AMSTERDAM DIVERGENT PERCEPTIONS OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR ACTORS

Student: Job Sijbrandij Student ID number: 11780002 Email: [email protected] Skype: Job Sijbrandij / +31629733725

Supervisor: Sara Özogul Second assessor: Federico Savini

Master Thesis Urban and Regional Planning University of Amsterdam Date of submission: August 15, 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... 3 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 4 2 THE EMERGENCE OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC GOODS AND SERVICES ...... 6

2.1. THE IMPORTANCE OF URBAN GOVERNANCE ...... 6 2.2. PROPERTY-LED DEVELOPEMENT ...... 7 2.3. THE DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLIC SPACE ...... 7 3 THE COPRODUCTION OF PUBLIC SPACE ...... 9

3.1. DEFINING PUBLIC SPACE ...... 9 3.2. DEFINING PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACE ...... 10 3.3. THE SOCIAL ROLE OF PUBLIC SPACE ...... 12 4 THE PUBLICNESS OF URBAN SPACE ...... 13

4.1. DECLINING PUBLICNESS OF SPACE ...... 13 4.2. ANALYSING PUBLICNESS ...... 14 5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...... 15

5.1. PROBLEM STATEMENT ...... 15 5.2. RESEARCH DESIGN ...... 17 5.3. METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION ...... 18 5.4. DATA ANALYSIS ...... 20 6 CONTEXT ...... 21

6.1. THE PUBLICLY OWNED PUBLIC SPACE AT THE WESTERGASFABRIEK ...... 21 6.2. HISTORY OF THE WESTERGASFABRIEK ...... 21 6.3. THE PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACE AT THE SOUTH AXIS...... 22 6.4. HISTORY OF THE SOUTH AXIS...... 23 7 DIVERGENT PERCEPTIONS OF PUBLIC SPACE ...... 25 7.1. THE PUBLIC LIVING ROOM ...... 25 7.2. THE PRIVATE PERSPECTIVE ...... 27 8 THE PUBLIC-PRIVATE INTERACTION ...... 29

8.1. PUCCINI HANDBOOK ...... 29 8.2. PERCEPTIONS ...... 30 9 THE PUBLICNESS OF URBAN SPACE ...... 33

9.1. OWNERSHIP ...... 33 9.2. MANAGEMENT ...... 35 9.3. ACCESSIBILITY...... 37 9.4. INCLUSIVENESS ...... 39 10 CONCLUSION ...... 41 REFERENCES APPENDIX

2 ABSTRACT

The contemporary production of urban public space is changing. Traditionally, local authorities have had the sole responsibility for the management and the production of public space in many inner cities. Nowadays, due to the increasing involvement of the private sector in the production of public space, an ever-growing number of urban public spaces are both controlled and owned by for-profit organisations. This phenomenon is also defined as the privatisation of public space, many examples of which are discussed in literature, where business interests were favoured over the interests of the general public. However, little is known about whether and how the private sector participates in the production of public space in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. This research empirically focussed one publicly owned public space and in one privately owned public space to explore how the production of public space is perceived, how public and private sector actors interact in the production of public space and how the publicness of urban space is affected by this established interaction. The analysis is based on data from thirteen in-depth interviews, in-field observations, secondary data and the OMAI model which consists out of four dimensions of publicness: ownership, management, accessibility and inclusiveness. The findings show that the private sector is involved in the production of public space in Amsterdam, even though the City of Amsterdam has a strong leasehold system in place, and that even though the publicly owned public space and privately owned public space differ the most in terms of ownership, the publicness of space is not highly affected by it.

3 1 INTRODUCTION

“Why don’t we mix public and private? Why isn’t public space a vein system that goes through a private space? Public space can be a lot better with some private space to contradict it and vice versa. It keeps the system alive. If the system is just one thing, then it’s closed and it eventually dies.” (Vito Acconci 2011, cited by Santo & Newman 2011, p.53).

With this statement, the highly influential American artist and landscape architect Vito Acconci (2011) argued that public space can be much improved when it is mixed with some private space to contradict it. However, this mix between public and private space should always be based on a clear distinction between the two (Santo & Newman, 2011). When focussing on the contemporary production of space, the distinction between public and private is becoming less clear by the day. One of the main reasons the nature of contemporary public space is changing is related to the increasing involvement of the private sector in the production of public space, also defined as the privatisation of public space (Banerjee, 2001; Kohn, 2004; Németh & Schmidt, 2011; Voyce, 2006). Langstraat and van Melik (2013) emphasise that while these privately owned public spaces may look and even feel similar to publicly owned public space, they are not to be considered truly public, because “access to and use of the space is only a privilege, not a right” (Banerjee 2001, p.12). Due to the increasingly blurred lines between public and private, it has become difficult for citizens to determine which regulations are in place (the Guardian, 2017a). Today, an ever-growing number of urban public space are both controlled and owned by for-profit organisations (Langstraat & van Melik, 2013).

Traditionally, management of urban public spaces has been the sole responsibility of local authorities (Langstraat & van Melik, 2013). These authorities have always remained responsible for urban public spaces, such as streets, squares, parks and other publicly accessible space, that enable people to meet other people in public (Mehta, 2014). However, when local authorities became increasingly unwilling and unable to bear the full responsibility for the provision of most public goods and services, the private sector started to participate in the production of public good, like public space (Langstraat & van Melik, 2013). Now, New York City and many other cities worldwide have enacted an incentive zoning policy or similar mechanisms that facilitate the involvement of the private sector in the production of public space (Schmidt et al., 2011). In New York City, the quality of these privately owned public space is still questionable, since Kayden (2000) found of that fifty percent of the privately owned public spaces in the city did not fit the local legal requirements and forty-one percent of these privately owned public spaces are of marginal quality.

On the other hand, from a more optimistic point of view, privately owned public spaces are considered bonus public spaces that provide publicly accessible space in locations where space is scarce (Schmidt

4 et al., 2011). Even so, regulations that are applied to so-called pseudo public spaces are not always determined with the interests of the public in mind (Schmidt et al., 2011). One year ago, the British newspaper the Guardian (2017a) revealed a startling spread of privately owned public spaces across many of London’s most prominent parks and squares. Siân Berry, leader of the Green party in the London Assembly, commented about the pseudo-public spaces that:

“This culture of secrecy on the part of landowners is scary. Being able to know what rules you are being governed by, and how to challenge those rules, is a fundamental part of living in a democracy” (Siân Berry 2017, cited by the Guardian 2017a)

In November 2017, London mayor Sadiq Khan stated that he will draw up a charter that regulates the management of privately owned public spaces in London (the Guardian, 2017b). Although the size and the impact of the Guardian’s (2017a) discovery is unique, the development itself is not. In Berlin, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, lots of vacant public space at the famous Potsdamer Platz emerged from oblivion because of the private sector (Allen, 2006). In New York City, the local authorities have engaged the private sector in the production of public space for almost sixty years (Schmidt et al., 2011). However, in Amsterdam, little is known about how the involvement of the private sector in the production of public space works in practice. Articles like the one in the Guardian (2017a) have not yet been published in one of the Dutch newspapers.

The increasingly blurred distinction between publicly owned public spaces and privately owned public spaces affects the whole system of public space, the publicness of space. Vito Acconci stated that public space can do a lot better when it is contradicted with private space and vice versa, but what happens when public space is contradicted with privately owned public space? This distinction seems less clear. As mentioned, this development is unnoticed in the Netherlands. By focussing on two locations in Amsterdam, this study attempts to deal with two shortcomings defined in contemporary researches. The first is related to the Anglo-American dominance in academic literature on private sector interests in public space (Langstraat & van Melik, 2013). The conclusions drawn from these types of research are not always equally relevant for cities in Europe. Second, most literature focusses on flagship projects (Langstraat & van Melik, 2013). By comparing public spaces that are affected by private sector interests in a primary location and a secondary location, this study hopes to overcome these shortcomings. The next sections will show why private sector actors are involved in providing public goods and services, how they are involved in the provision of public space and finally how the publicness of space is affected by private sector interests. All this helps answer the main research question:

How do perceptions of public space influence the interaction between public and private sector actors and ultimately the publicness of urban space?

5 2 THE EMERGENCE OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC GOODS AND SERVICES

Traditionally, the involvement of private sector actors in the provision of public goods and services has remained limited. This started to change when due to the process of decentralisation, several responsibilities were transferred to lower levels of governance and power in the decision-making process shifted (de Magalhães, 2010). In a way, municipal governments needed to reinvent themselves to deal with the increasingly complex problems of inner cities. A lot of cities suffered from high levels of unemployment, declining numbers of inhabitants and other consequences of deindustrialisation. The shrinking fiscal capacity of the state made the provision of public goods and services challenging. As a result of budget cuts, local authorities’ financial ability became too limited to invest in public goods, such as public space, and to prioritise it in policies (de Magalhães, 2010). While other more pressing issues like sanitation were prioritised, the management and design of public spaces received little attention (Carr et al., 1992). This chapter explains how a more decentralised approach increased the importance of urban entrepreneurial governance, how cities turned to the direct promotion of property- led development and how the closer collaboration between public and private parties affected the distribution of urban public spaces.

2.1. THE IMPORTANCE OF URBAN GOVERNANCE A neoliberal ideology based on belief in open, deregulated and competitive markets emerged around the 1980s and increased the importance of urban governance (Theodore et al., 2011). Governance, as defined by Taşan-Kok (2010), is the process where institutions, social groups and other actors coordinate the political decision-making process in a particular institutional context (DiGaetano & Strom, 2003). Together, they operate in an uncertain, fragmented environment (Le Gales, 2001) to “attain appropriate goals that have been discussed and collectively defined” (Taşan-Kok 2010, p.129). The importance of urban governance has been affected by the deregulation of state control, the downsizing of public services, the dismantling of national welfare programmes and similar measures focussed on promoting capital accumulation to improve the comparative advantages of the city on a global scale.

The increasing importance of urban governance required municipal governments to shift in their role. Instead of just implementing urban development policy, the municipal government now needs to operate in a more entrepreneurial way by taking on a leading role as an active negotiating party (Taşan- Kok, 2010). This entrepreneurial approach, where municipal governments or other public authorities increasingly cooperate with private sector parties, is considered an efficient measure to lower the costs of administration by putting the production of public goods and services partially in the hands of the

6 market (Needham, 2006; Theodore et al., 2011). It also created the possibility to incorporate new social actors into the urban arena of governance to better use local knowledge (Swyngedouw, 2005). Municipal governments needed the financial ability of private sector parties to fulfil their neoliberal policy agenda to attract higher-income residents, businesses, tourists and investments (de Magalhães, 2010). Madanipour (2003) states that the increasingly popular entrepreneurial way of urban governance resulted in well-designed, well-maintained and even spectacular public spaces. These spectacular public spaces are helpful for marketing purposes to brand the city globally and thereby contribute to the city’s neoliberal policy agenda. Investment partnership between public parties and private parties became even more popular when local authorities shifted from the indirect promotion of entrepreneurship towards the direct promotion of property-led development (Swyngedouw et al., 2002).

2.2. PROPERTY-LED DEVELOPEMENT Property-led development is defined as “the assembly of finance, land, building materials, and labour to produce or improve buildings for occupation and investment purposes” (Turok 1992, p.362). Even though it is context dependent, how municipal government promote property-led development shows a strong focus on the stimulation of capital among some of the actors involved. In pursuit of social and economic restructuring, public parties sometimes initiate property-led development projects, for example, large-scale restructuring projects, to revitalise, upgrade, or strategically renew different parts of the city (Swyngedouw et al., 2002). By strategically offering various kinds of spatial restructuring projects, the municipal government hopes to increase the number of investments to improve the social and economic conditions citywide and not just the selected parts of the city. Part of the neoliberal municipal policy agenda is the success of property-led development affected by the harmony on a micro-level and on a macro level (Taşan-Kok, 2010). The ties between individual actors on a micro level and the more general institutional macro-level context both influence local urban policy.

2.3. THE DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLIC SPACE A clear differentiation in the distribution of public spaces is useful to understand how the emergence of private sector actor in the provision of public goods and services influences public space in different types of locations. Langstraat and van Melik (2013) differentiate two forms of public spaces based on their location. The first is public space that is located in a primary location. In primary locations, the effects of neoliberal urban entrepreneurialism are most concentrated and property-led development is an accepted strategy (Harvey, 1989). Examples of primary locations are flagship projects, financial business districts and touristic parts of inner cities, where well-maintained and well-designed public spaces are relatively common (Langstraat & van Melik, 2013). Even though they only cover a small proportion of public spaces, they are important due to their focus on capital accumulation (Langstraat & van Melik, 2013).

7 The second is public space that is located in a secondary location. In secondary locations, public space is importance for the people living nearby (Burgers et al., 2012; Paddison & Sharp (2007). Compared to primary locations, secondary locations have a more important function for its surrounding neighbourhoods and are often not located in or near one of the primary locations just mentioned. However, they are still located within the city boundaries. Paddison and Sharp (2007) call secondary spaces banal spaces. This says something about the level of attention these secondary public spaces are sometimes treated with. This lack of attention could result in secondary public spaces that are not spectacular or well-maintained (Burgers et al., 2012). How municipal governments prioritise these public spaces directly affects the extent to which they are defined as banal. Both primary public spaces and secondary public spaces are relevant for this research to see whether private sector interests influence the public realm in various types of locations in the city, and if so, how this influence differs.

As mentioned before, the process of decentralisation increased the importance of urban governance. Municipal governments started to operate in a more entrepreneurial way and even turned to the direct promotion of property-led development. A distinction between public space in primary locations and secondary locations helps show how a closer collaboration between public parties and private parties affects public spaces throughout various parts of the city.

8 3 THE COPRODUCTION OF PUBLIC SPACE

Throughout history, public space has always been of great importance. Particular public spaces were used for “basic survival communication and entertainment needs and to perform several political, religious, commercial, civic and social functions” (Mehta 2014, p.55). Consider the social function of a medieval market. The medieval market was not just a place to exchange goods but functioned as a local meeting place that people needed for basic communication. The production of space is still relevant today, even though the dependency on public space is different. In his book The Production of Space, the French philosopher Lefebvre (1991) argues that space should not be approached from an empty, geometric view. He believes that space is full meanings and power relations. He conceptualised his ideas by defining a spatial triad where he differentiated space into perceived, conceived and imagined space (Leary, 2013; Lefebvre, 1991). These three elements are used to understand how changing power relationships in the production of space matter and how various stakeholders perceive space. This chapter discusses what scholars define as public space, how it is influenced by private sector interests and why public space is still relevant in modern developed societies.

3.1. DEFINING PUBLIC SPACE Mehta (2014) states that public space is defined in terms of ownership, control, access or use. Madanipour (1996) defines public space as “space that is not controlled by private individuals or organisations, and hence is open to the general public” (Madanipour 1996, p.144). This definition is clearly based on the terms of control and access. Although the definition of Madanipour would probably be suited for most public spaces in or around Amsterdam that are controlled by a public organisation, it does not it fit with the focus of this study, which investigates how private sector actors participate in the production of public space, be it in management or ownership. This definition excludes spaces that are controlled by private sector actors, even if these places are just as publicly accessible as public spaces controlled by public sector actors. This could also be linked to the first element of the spatial triad of Lefebvre (1991). The first element, perceived space, is space that a person directly observes through the senses (Lefebvre, 1991; Leary, 2013). Perceived space is also emphasised by Leary (2013) as the material or physical element of space. When a space is open to the public, even when it is provided by private sector actor, it is questionable whether citizens directly observe the private control. This is especially true of late, when security measures are also increasingly implemented into the design of spaces that are owned and controlled by a public sector alone (Coaffee, 2008). For citizens, it could be harder to determine whether they are watched by a public authority, a private security company or a combination of both.

9 The perception of public space has almost become the spatial representation of the increasingly blurred lines between public and private parties that resulted from the neoliberal restructuring of state powers. According to Leary (2013), the changing links between private sector actors and the state is a defining feature in Lefebvre’s (1991) work. This feature and the fact that Madanipour (1996) does not consider how privately owned space could also be perceived as public makes the definition unhelpful for this research.

This study instead uses the definition of Carr et al. (1992), who define public space as “publicly accessible places where people would go for group or individual activities” (p.50). They define public space in terms of access and uses rather than ownership and control. Unlike the definition of Madanipour (1996), this one includes places that are controlled by private sector actors but are open to the public. The definition clearly points out the extent to which private sector involvement in the production of public space still counts as public. Shopping centres and other private spaces that are not always publicly accessible, for example after opening hours, would not fit the definition of public space. Streets, squares, plazas, parks and similar examples that are always publicly accessible fit the definition of Carr et al. (1992), no matter who provides these spaces.

3.2. DEFINING PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACE The involvement of private sector actors in the provision of space created a new type of public space, defined as privately owned public space. Privately owned public space is space that serves a public function but is characterised by private sector involvement in management or ownership. Although the public function of privately owned public space is explicitly mentioned in the definition of Banerjee (2001), it is not specified in terms of access and use as in the definition of Carr et al. (1992). Most other definitions of privately owned public space in literature are not useful, because they are often too embedded in a local context. A suitable definition in the Dutch context does not yet exist. This does not automatically make all other definitions irrelevant but does make them less suited to define why and how private sector actors are involved in the public realm in Amsterdam. Still, alternative definitions could provide an understanding on the evolution of privately owned public spaces from different perspectives.

Most of the well-known definitions of privately owned public space are linked to the use of density bonuses and similar mechanisms. In 1961, New York City was one of the first cities that instituted an incentive zoning system, where developers were encouraged to implement publicly accessible space on their lot in exchange for extra floor space (Smidt et al., 2011).

10 Fifty years after the zoning system was instituted in New York City, more than five hundred privately owned public spaces have emerged in the boroughs of Brooklyn, Manhattan and Queens (Smidt et al., 2011). In 2011, the involvement of the private sector in the production of publicly accessible spaces encompassed an area of thirty-five hectares in three relatively dense areas of New York City.

These so-called bonus public spaces are initially owned by the developer, who takes full responsibility for how they are managed (Yoon & Srinivasan, 2015). Developers are willing to participate because they profit in at least in two ways from the incentive zoning system. First, they are allowed to increase their building density, which generates more revenue (Smidt et al., 2011; Yoon & Srinivasan, 2015). Second, the value of a building will increase when it is located on or near a high-quality public space (Punter, 1990). Today, the number of privately owned public spaces has successfully increased, because more cities use similar incentive policies, but the overall quality of this new type of public space has been questioned by scholars like van Melik et al. (2009) and Smidt et al. (2011).

In respected newspaper and in the literature privately owned public space is increasingly viewed as so- called pseudo-public space (Langstraat & van Melik, 2013; the Guardian, 2017a). Defining it as pseudo- public relates to the wider debate of Kohn (2004), who argues that private sector actors are too concerned about profit and care too little about how they can contribute to a public good or service. How some of society perceives space as pseudo-public through their direct senses is also strongly affected by the second element in the spatial triad of Lefebvre (1991), the conceived space. The conceived space is the official representation of how space is rationalised, conceptualised and intellectualised for analytical purposes (Lefebvre, 1991; Leary, 2013). It is also emphasised as the space of architects, designers and scientists. Regarding conceived space, measures in the design of privately owned public spaces can be distinguished that are targeted on certain groups of users. Smidt et al. (2011) identify various measures implemented in the urban design so that less-desired users do not use the place too long, or do not use the place at all. Examples of measures are benches that feel uncomfortable to sit on, spikes on ledges to deter loiterers and even strategically located water sprinkles to prevent homeless people from sleeping on the grass. Technically, developers could still stick to the predefined set of requirements that are set up by the municipal government, that could, for example, demand a minimal number of benches located on a plot, but strategically implementing benches that are not appealing to use for a long period does not benefit the overall quality of the public realm.

11 3.3. THE SOCIAL ROLE OF PUBLIC SPACE In 1958, Arendt pointed out the important democratic function of public space. She stated that public space provided and still provides the ability for people to come together, talk about various topics and protest against issues they do not agree with (Arendt, 1958; Mehta, 2014). Both Arendt and Mehta state that democratic right is crucial to democracy. For example, in January 2011, a large number of Egyptians gathered and occupied the Tahrir Square in Caïro to protests against the administration of president Moebarak, just as they did in 2003 when they disagreed with war in Iraq. Today, Tahrir square has become the symbol of the Egyptian Revolution (Kandhil, 2012)

Although it is an extreme example, it shows how people need public space to display images and symbols of society (Thomas, 1991). This could be link to the third element, the imagined space, of Lefebvre (1991). The imagined space is not like the other two dimensions, which are more focussed on the official representation of space, but it is the space that is associated with the “cultural memory, images and symbols imbued with cultural meaning” (Leary 2013, p.8). The imagined space differs for each individual. Of course, the social role of public space is probably more present in day to day life. Thomas (1991) argued that public space should function as an arena for public life, where social groups meet each other to develop and enrich their lives (Mehta, 2014). He stated that it is important to meet up with colleagues, friends and family in public space and to come into contact with people outside of one’s normal social circles.

Some of the functions public space was used for have moved from the public domain to privatised and virtual realms (Banerjee, 2001). For example, the basic survival communication function of public space is less relevant in most developed societies due to technological developments. However, this does not automatically decrease the important social function of public space. In urban areas, especially in mix-use neighbourhoods and inner cities, citizens are highly dependent on public space (Mehta, 2014). They use it to go from one place to another and as a place to relax or meet other people, expected and unexpected. This dependency highlights that public space still plays an important role, especially in today’s modern societies. It opens up the debate regarding whether private actors should be allowed to contribute to the amount of public space and if so, under what conditions.

12 4 THE PUBLICNESS OF URBAN SPACE

In 2017, the Guardian published a comprehensive map of London, where the newspaper exposed, as the title states, the insidious creep of pseudo-public space in London (The Guardian, 2017a). The newspaper found out that the private sector was, almost unnoticed, involved in the production of publicly accessible space in the public realm of London. The most striking example is the privately owned public space around the City Hall of London. In theory, reporters are not allowed to interview politicians on the space outside City Hall. Although the concept of publicness involves a degree of relativeness, it is one of the most important concepts in relation to public space. Publicness cannot be considered as something you do not have or do have. The current form of urban public space where business interests are sometimes favoured over the interests of local communities is questioned by scholars and popular media. This development related to a wider discussion in the literature, where multiple scholars have argued that publicness of space is under threat (Banerjee, 2001; Sorkin, 1992; Madden, 2010).

4.1. DECLINING PUBLICNESS OF SPACE Sorkin (1992) spoke about a possible “end of public space” when he discussed modern urban life. This well-known statement has already been questioned and challenged by multiple scholars, who all concluded more or less the same. Questioning and challenging a possible end of public space has not resulted, even in a different context, in enough evidence to support such a statement in any literal sense (Langstraat & van Melik, 2013; Paddison & Sharp, 2007). Sorkin spoke in 1992 in terms of the “end of public space” for the same reason the Guardian defines pseudo-public space as “insidious” in 2017— to stress the importance of this phenomenon. Restrictive security measure that intentionally exclude people are present and need to be addressed by scientists, journals and papers to draw attention to contemporary public space.

De Magalhães (2010) view, where he describes “the demise of truly public space” (de Magalhães 2010, p.560) is more nuanced and more constructive to work with. His view does not automatically introduce the demise of the publicness of public space. The publicness of a certain place is often characterised along a continuum, from complete public ownership at one end to completely privately owned at the other (Németh and Smidt, 2011). However, defining public space along ownership lines is not sufficient to encompass the diversity in management styles of privately owned public spaces (Langstraat & van Melik, 2013; Németh and Smidt, 2011). Differences between national planning systems throughout Europe are relevant for how countries deal with privately owned public space (Langstraat & van Melik, 2013). For example, the United Kingdom has a strict formal legal role division between the public sector and private sector that is based on a strong culture of informal partnerships (Heurkens, 2012).

13 Because most of the responsibilities and risks are transferred to the developer, the role of private actors is relatively more important than it is in the Netherlands, where local governments are “still reluctant to hand over total responsibility to private parties, but rather wish to join forces” (Langstraat & van Melik 2013, p.446). So, a dichotomy between public and private is not sufficient to deal with existing divisions in ownership and management.

4.2. ANALYSING PUBLICNESS Two methods of analysing the publicness of public spaces are relevant for this paper. First, the tri-axal model of Németh and Schmidt (2011), which that consists of the three dimensions of ownership, management and uses/users. The tri-axel model of Németh and Schmidt has been visualised in Figure 1. Ownership and management, two hard factors to measure, are also present in the OMAI model created by Langstraat and van Melik (2013), complemented with two soft factors, accessibility and inclusiveness. The OMAI model of Langstraat & van Melik (2013) has been displayed in Figure 2. So far, the tri-axal model has not been tested, because the model is not suited for comparison different dimensions of publicness. The OMAI model is suited for comparison because it ranks publicness on a scale from one to four but lacks focus on the uses and the type of users. When one of the four dimension of publicness is allocated with a higher score in the OMAI model it is considered to be more public (Langstraat & van Melik, 2013).

Figure 1. The tri-axel model Figure 2. The OMAI model

Németh & Schmidt (2011) Langstraat & van Melik (2013)

14 5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

To understand public and private roles in the production of public space in practice, this research focusses on two public spaces in Amsterdam. Although the selected spaces differ in terms of ownership one is publicly owned and one is privately owned, they both defined as public space under the definition of Carr et al. (1992), who define public space in terms of access and uses. Focussing on how the production of public space is perceived is most important, because it informs the roles the actors take on, how they interact with each other and how the publicness of urban space is affected by this interaction. Finally, several methods were used to collect, analyse and interpret empirical findings to answer the research question:

How do perceptions of public space influence the interaction between public and private sector actors and ultimately the publicness of urban space?

5.1. PROBLEM STATEMENT In terms of organisation, it is not necessarily a problem when the private sector wants to participate in the production of public space. There are some good examples in the literature where the public sector has actively engaged the private sector in providing publicly accessible spaces. For example, the incentive zoning policy of New York City successfully increased the quantity of publicly accessible space in locations where it is extremely expensive for the public sector alone to create public space (Schmidt et al., 2011). Another example is Potsdamer Platz in Berlin, where after the reunification of Germany in 1989, the public sector engaged the private sector to redevelop the entire area, including public space (Allen, 2006).

However, as discussed in the previous chapters, there are various examples of privately owned public spaces where the private sector has intentionally manipulated the design and enacted regulations that did not benefit the public. In these spaces, private sector actors sometimes intentionally “filter uses and users of public space through the manipulation of different design and management techniques” (Schmidt et al. 2011, p.271). Managers of privately owned public space are often less concerned with the public good and more about earning profit (Banerjee, 2001). When the managers decide to regulate control, the publicly accessible space no longer completely fulfil the social and democratic functions of public space (Mehta, 2014). Currently, not much is known about whether and how private sector actors participate in the production of public space in the Netherlands. To the author’s knowledge, only two studies have appeared that focussed on the private sector involvement in the production of public space in the Netherlands. Most of today’s literature is focussed on privately owned public space in the Anglo- American world (Langstraat & van Melik, 2013). This Anglo-American dominance in the literature is

15 defined by the authors just mentioned as one of the problems scholars need to overcome when analysing privately owned public space. It seems less likely that the Dutch private sector participated in the production of public space in the same way they did as in New York City, because the Dutch national government has long maintained a strong, central, top-down role in urban development (Priemus, 2002). However, the increasing entrepreneurial method of urban governance and the ongoing decentralisation of the Dutch national government are two indicators that public space in Amsterdam could be influenced by private sector interests.

This research builds on the work of Langstraat and van Melik (2013), who developed the OMAI model and tested it for the first time in practice. They compared Dutch and British cases to reassess the implications of the private sector involvement in the production of public space. Focussing on how the publicness of urban space is perceived by different actors involved is extremely relevant, because “there is a significant scope for future research to fully investigate the feelings, perceptions and subjectivities behind the publicness of public space” (Langstraat & van Melik 2013, p.446). This is also emphasised by Schmidt et al. (2011), who state that any nuanced understanding of the production of space requires in-depth interviews. Therefore, the influential spatial triad of Lefebvre (1991) was used as a framework to integrate the feelings, perceptions and subjectivities throughout all three sections. A visual representation of the conceptual model is given in Figure 3. To answer the main research question, the following three sub-questions were formulated:

1) How do public and private sector actors perceive public space in Amsterdam? 2) How do public and private sector actors interact in the production of public space in Amsterdam? 3) How is the publicness of urban space in Amsterdam affected by the interaction between public and private sector actors?

Figure 3. The conceptual model

16 5.2. RESEARCH DESIGN This study concentrates on two locations in Amsterdam. The differentiating comparative analysis as described by Pickvance (2001) was used to analyse the same phenomenon, private sector involvement in the provision of public space, but from constructed differences—a primary and a secondary location. All four comparative analysis techniques are shown in Table 1. One case study needed to be located in a primary location. According to Harvey (1989), the effects of neoliberal entrepreneurship are most concentrated in primary locations. The second case study needed to be located in a secondary location that has an important function for its neighbourhood (Burgers et al., 2012; Paddison & Sharp, 2007). Starting from different types of locations helped find the variation within the same phenomenon. To achieve this, the differentiating comparative analysis was the most suited option.

Table 1. Types of comparative analysis according to whether the starting point is similarities or differences

End point: explanation in terms of: Principle of variation Principle of universality Starting point: Observed or constructed Differentiating comparative Universalising comparative analysis analysis with plural causation differences Observed or constructed Differentiating comparative Universalising comparative analysis with plural causation analysis similarities

Source: Pickvance (2001)

Next, public space in Amsterdam that are not completely controlled by the municipal government or spaces where the legal ownership rights did not solely rest with the municipal government needed to be identified. This means places that would not be labelled as fully public in terms of management or ownership in the OMAI model of Langstraat and van Melik (2013). This step is crucial, because a descriptive study of this phenomenon does not yet exist. Personal observations based on opinion pieces, articles in newspapers and messages on social media platforms, such as Twitter, helped identify two public spaces that were suited for the differentiating comparative analysis of Pickvance (2001). The two locations are displayed in Figure 4.

Figure 4. An overview of the two selected cases in Amsterdam

17 The first case is a public space located in a primary location. This privately owned public space is a little square between the 900 Mahlerlaan and 1000 Mahlerlaan building and is located in the financial business district of Amsterdam, the Amsterdam South Axis. The second case is located in a secondary location. It is a publicly owned public space located on the terrain of the Westergasfabriek in the Westerpark of Amsterdam. The terrain around the Westergasfabriek is not directly connected with the touristic inner city or the Amsterdam South Axis. On paper, the buildings on the terrain belong to the private company Westergasfabriek BV and the public space around it belongs to the District Council West Amsterdam. So officially, the public space around the Westergasfabriek should be labelled as fully public in terms of management and ownership in the OMAI model. However, the website of the Westergasfabriek BV states that a private-public partnership is in place and that “the combination of the park and the buildings is perceived as one entity” (Westergasfabriek BV 2018). Combining this information with the numerous events the Westergasfabriek BV and the City District West Amsterdam are allowed to organise in public space makes it a suitable option to analyse how private interests affect public space in a secondary location.

5.3. METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION First, a stakeholder analysis was performed to identify the actors, their characteristics and their links with other stakeholders. This method of actor analysis is useful because it both identifies stakeholders that are already included in the decision-making process and stakeholders that are directly and indirectly affected by decisions during the decision-making process (Hermans & Tissen, 2009). This includes users and non-users.

The group of non-users and the spatial characteristics of the public spaces are identified by passive participant observation. This means the researcher has little contact with the population in the field but observes people and activities carefully. The researcher conducted fourteen sessions of participant observations. Timeslots on Monday and Friday were selected to find out how citizens use the type of public space during and after work hours. Also, timeslots on Saturday and Sunday in Westerpark were selected to find out how the publicness of urban space was affected by an event that was organised at the public space at the Westergasfabriek. However, it should be noted that the selected data from the participant observation is influenced by the researcher perception. The data collected does not cover the full description of what happened when the researcher was not onsite. Tables 2 and 3 give an overview of when the researcher was on site for participant observation.

18 Table 2. Participant observation Westerpark Table 3. Participant observation South Axis Data Time Day of the Data Time Day of the week week 05-03-2018 10.00 – 12.00 Monday 09-03-2018 17.00 – 19.00 Monday

12-03-2018 17.00 – 19.00 Monday 12-03-2018 10.00 – 12.00 Monday

20-04-2018 18.00 – 20.00 Friday 13-04-2018 18.00 – 20.00 Friday

12-05-2018 22.00 – 23.00 Saturday 12-05-2018 20.00 – 21.00 Saturday

19-05-2018 20.00 – 21.00 Saturday 19-05-2018 22.00 – 23.00 Saturday

20-05-2018 12.00 – 13.00 Sunday 20-05-2018 13.30 – 14.30 Sunday

28-07-2018 10.30 – 11.30 Saturday 28-07-2018 12.00 – 13.00 Saturday

Most of the intrinsic information was collected through semi-structured interviews with experts. These experts included architects, real-estate agents and civil servants of the municipality as well as the final users of these places. In contrast to an article of the Guardian (2017a), where only two of fifty private developers cooperated, the actors involved in the two selected public spaces were willing to cooperate. All the interviews have been transcribed in order to analyse the data. In Table 4 is an overview of the actors that have been interviewed displayed.

Table 4. Overview interviewed actors Name of the interviewee Organisation Function Referred to as:

Daniel de Wit City of Amsterdam Park Management public sector representative Westerpark I Paul Nieuwenhuizen City of Amsterdam Account Manager public sector representative Westergasfabriek II Tessa Pormes City of Amsterdam Area Manager Westerpark public sector representative III Linda Schot City of Amsterdam Area Manager public sector representative South Axis IV Maarten van Ettekoven City of Amsterdam Area Manager public sector representative South Axis V An-Jes Oudshoorn City of Amsterdam Policy Advisor Public Space public sector representative & Pedestrians VI Loek Buter Westergasfabriek BV Head of Productions private sector representative I Wietse Siebert CBRE Associate Director private sector representative II Cayentano Segond von CBRE Associate Director private sector Banchet Investments representative III Kasper Hesp G&S Vastgoed Develop Manager private sector representative IV Kees Tolk Kees Tolk Ontwerp Landscape Architect private sector representative V John Bosch OEVERZAAIJER Partner private sector representative VI Jessica Bekker Hello Zuidas Project manager public private sector space and safety representative VII

19 5.4. DATA ANALYSIS This study links the primary data obtained from the interviewees to the secondary date from the academic literature and other secondary sources. The OMAI model of Langstraat and van Melik (2013) helped asses both cases and provided an overview of how the involvement of private sector actors affected the publicness of public spaces. The information obtained from all the sources have been used to allocate values in the OMAI model of Langstraat & van Melik (2013) to the two selected cases. These values been displayed in Appendix 1. While most other researchers remain critical about contemporary involvement of private sector actors in the provision of public space, this study followed a more constructive approach by focussing on the perceptions of the actors involved. Finally, a presentation with different consultants of CBRE was given by the researcher on the August 1st at the CBRE headquarters at the Amsterdam South Axis.

20 6 CONTEXT

This chapter will briefly discuss the exact location of both cases, the history of the Westergasfabriek and the South Axis and how the publicly owned and privately owned public space look like today.

6.1. THE PUBLICLY OWNED PUBLIC SPACE AT THE WESTERGASFABRIEK The first selected case is the publicly owned public space of the Westergasfabriek. The Westergasfabriek is located in Amsterdam West and is enclosed by railway tracks to the north, the historical Westerpark to the east, a canal to the south and numerous allotments to the west. The Westergasfabriek is a secondary location because the area is of great importance for its surrounding neighbourhoods. However, the park also shows some primary location characteristics because many events are organised in the parks and many people visit the park every day. The exact location and some visual representation of the space are displayed in Figures 5 and 6.

Figure 5. The location of the Westergasfabriek Figure 6. Visual representations of the Westergasfabriek

6.2. HISTORY OF THE WESTERGASFABRIEK The Westergasfabriek was constructed between 1883 and 1885. Originally, the site was used to produce coal gas (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2012), first by the British Imperial Continental Gas Association and later by the City of Amsterdam. In 1967, the municipality decided to stop the production of coal gas at the Westergasfabriek. All that remained was a heavily polluted area (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2012). Even though the terrain and the seventeen buildings received monument status in 1991, the municipality decided to engage the private sector in redeveloping the whole complex and sold all buildings to a project developer (Cobouw, 1996). Together, the buildings were worth ten million guilders which is less than five million euros today. One of the interviewed public sector representatives stated that the City of Amsterdam needed the financial ability of the private sector. She commented:

21 “We notice that we [the City of Amsterdam] would have never be able to redevelop the Westergasfabriek the way it is today without the involvement of the private sector” (public sector representative III).

This statement shows that the public sector sometimes needs to promote property-led development to revitalise, upgrade and renew areas within the city (Schwyngedouw et al., 2002). In pursuit of social and economic restructuring, she defines the redevelopment of the Westergasfabriek as one of the biggest success stories in town, but she questions whether public and private sector actors can maintain the success they have now (public sector representative III).

Today, the Westergasfabriek is the second most visited park in Amsterdam (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2012). All seventeen monumental buildings are owned by the non-subsidised enterprise Westergasfabriek BV, which leases out the buildings to various organisations and for events (Westergasfabriek BV, 2018). In January 2018, the legal ownership rights of all buildings were transferred to a group of investors, including the famous Dutch businessman Duncan Stutterheim (Het Parool, 2015). Collectively, they bought all buildings for seventy-five million euros. The City of Amsterdam has the legal ownership rights of the public space on the terrain of the Westergasfabriek and is therefore responsible for how the space is managed and for the programming of the outdoor events. However, as stressed out before, it should be noted that “the combination of the park and the buildings are perceived as one entity” (Westergasfabriek BV 2018).

6.3. THE PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACE AT THE SOUTH AXIS The second case is a privately owned public space located between the 900 Mahlerlaan building and the 1000 Mahlerlaan building in the Amsterdam South Axis, the city’s financial business district. The site is enclosed by two buildings—the Gustav Mahlerlaan in the north and the George Gershwinlaan in the south. The exact location and some visual representations are displayed in Figures 7 and 8.

Figure 7. The location of the privately owned Figure 8. Visual representations of the privately owned public space at the South Axis public space at the South Axis

22 6.4. HISTORY OF THE SOUTH AXIS The (re)development of the Amsterdam South Axis started during the eighties, when the construction of new offices rapidly expanded (Klijn & Teisman, 2003). Klijn and Teisman (2003) argued that the construction of the 105-meter-high headquarters of the ABN AMRO bank symbolised ongoing and future developments. Today, multiple high-rises have emerged in the Amsterdam South Axis that are just as imposing as the ABN AMRO building. The excellent geographical location of the financial business district is one of its key success ingredients. By train, it takes under six minutes to reach the international hub of Schiphol Airport and Amsterdam’s attractive city centre is less than five kilometres away. By contextualising the urban environment around the privately owned public space, this study hopes to get a better understanding how the direct surrounding affects the place.

The selected privately owned public space is a little square located between the buildings 900 Mahlerlaan and 1000 Mahlerlaan. This square was built on top of an underground car park and is located on the same lot as the 900 Mahlerlaan and the 1000 Mahlerlaan. The car park, both buildings and the privately owned public space are all developed by G&S Vastgoed (G&S Vastgoed, 2015; G&S Vastgoed, 2016).

The 900 Mahlerlaan building is a residential tower that houses 127 apartments for rent and for sale (G&S Vastgoed, 2016). The building consists of two towers. The southern tower has nine floors and the northern towers has twenty-two. Several commercial spaces are located on the ground floor. The current investor for the rental apartments is Syntrus Achmea Real Estate & Finance. This company operates as an investment manager in mortgages and real estate for institutional investors. The construction of the building was completed in the summer of 2016.

The construction of the seven-story 1000 Mahlerlaan building has already been completed one year earlier in the spring of 2015 (G&S Vastgoed, 2015). The ground floor consists of several commercial spaces and the other six floors are office spaces. The current investor, Chanel International, bought the 1000 Mahlerlaan before the construction was completed for forty-five million euros (Het Parool, 2014). All actors involved in the construction of the 900 Mahlerlaan, the 1000 Mahlerlaan or the privately owned public space are displayed in Table 5.

23 Table 5. Actors involved in the construction of the privately owned public space, 900 Mahlerlaan & 1000 Mahlerlaan Organisation Description G&S Vastgoed This company developed the underground parking garage, the privately owned public space, 900 Mahlerlaan and 1000 Mahlerlaan Inbo This company is the architect of the 900 Mahlerlaan OEVERZAAIJER This company is the architect of the 1000 Mahlerlaan Kees Tolk This self-employed landscape architect designed the privately owned public space CBRE This company is responsible for future renters of the 1000 Mahlerlaan. They were also hired as technical and commercial advisor of Chanel International Van Gool Elberg This company advised G&S Vastgoed about the realisation the both buildings NautaDutilh This international law firm advised G&S Vastgoed Chanel International This company currently owns the 1000 Mahlerlaan Syntrus Achmea Real Estate & Finance This company currently owns the rental apartments in the 900 Mahlerlaan

G&S Vastgoed (2015); G&S Vastgoed (2016) 900 Mahlerlaan and 1000 Mahlerlaan are remarkable in two ways compared with other buildings in the Amsterdam South Axis. First, where most other building are designed as high-rise office space, the residential tower of the 900 Mahlerlaan and the low-density Chanel building feel different in terms of heights compared to other buildings in the surrounding. Also, the legal ownership of the 1000 Mahlerlaan is different than other transfers of property rights in the Amsterdam South Axis. Almost all other existing properties in Amsterdam’s financial business districts got a new owner between 2012 and 2014 (Het Parool, 2014). Whereas a majority were German real estate investors, the 1000 Mahlerlaan was bought by the French company Chanel.

24 7 DIVERGENT PERCEPTIONS OF PUBLIC SPACE

The following chapter discusses how public and private sector actors perceive public space in Amsterdam. To reveal the production of space, we should focus both on the history of space and on the ideologies of the actors involved and how they relate to practice (Lefebvre, 1991). In the end, focussing on these ideologies helps to understand why the public-private interaction in the production of public space in Amsterdam is as it is today. The first part of this chapter focusses on how the public sector defines public space, how they perceive the production of public space in Amsterdam and how they perceive their role in it. Once the perceptions of public sector actors are established, the second part of this chapter answers the same questions from the perspective of the private sector.

7.1. THE PUBLIC LIVING ROOM First, it is important to establish how the public sector, specifically the City of Amsterdam, defines public space in Amsterdam. In 2017, the municipality published a report in which they formulated five ambitions for how public space should be in 2025. These ambitions are displayed in Table 6.

Table 6. Public space 2025: guidelines for the development and management of public space in Amsterdam

1. Public space should be designed for current and future uses 2. Public space should support the dynamics of the city 3. Public space should be designed and managed sustainably 4. Public space should be maintained on a high level 5. Public space should be managed and designed collectively

Gemeente Amsterdam (2017)

In this report, the City of Amsterdam defines public space as “all urban spaces within the municipal boundaries that are not buildings” (Gemeente Amsterdam 2017, p.12). This definition shows that the municipality includes publicly accessible spaces that are managed and owned by for-profit organisations. However, the terminology used in the rest of the document reveals that the municipality only focusses on urban spaces that are provided by the public sector alone. For example, in the fifth ambition, the municipality states that they want inhabitants and local businesses to be more involved in the maintenance and the design of urban public space (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017). Simultaneously, they also state that they want private initiatives to be better regulated (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017).

In both cases, the municipality only focusses on space that is provided by the public sector, not space provided by the private sector. The municipality does not explain under what conditions the private sector is allowed to participate in the production of public space in Amsterdam. The way the City of Amsterdam defines public space is similar to Madanipour’s (1996) definition of public space in terms of access and control. They both exclude spaces that are provided by for-profit organisations. However,

25 in contrast to Madanipour (1996), the municipality does not exclude the privately owned public spaces on purpose. Interviewing the public sector representatives showed that the privatisation of public space is simply not anybody’s focus within the municipality.

Most of the interviewed public sector representatives reacted with complete surprise when asked about the increasing involvement of the private sector in the production of public space in Amsterdam. Some of these reactions are given in Figure 9. These reactions show that most of the public representatives are not fully aware of this development in Amsterdam. One of the public sector representatives could not believe that this important responsibility of the public sector was influenced by private sector interests:

“It may have been because I am stuck in the old days but I find it very difficult to hand over the responsibility of the production of public space to other actors. For me, it is absolutely a responsibility of the municipality” (public sector representative IV).

Figure 9. Reactions of public sector representatives when asked about the involvement of private sector actors in the production of space

“Within the “This is “Policy municipality completely “Are you needs to do this is not new to me. sure? In something anybody’s Really Amster- with this” focus” particular” Dam?”

public sector representative VI public sector representative IV public sector representative III public sector representative I In the report of the report where the City of Amsterdam displayed the five ambitions, the municipality paints a positive picture where they state that public space in Amsterdam should continue to contribute to the social and economic success of the city (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017). One of the policy advisors of the municipality commented that public space in Amsterdam should be perceived as a living room:

“We truly want public space in Amsterdam to be for everyone, that people can stay in public space and that more space is made available. Public space should not only be used to go from place A to place B but it should also be used as a place where people can meet others and get together, even though not everyone always like it” (public sector representative VI).

This statement clearly emphasises the social function of public space. The important social role of public space is also defined by Metha (2014), who like Thomas (1991), argues that public space should function as an arena for public life to develop and enrich a people’s lives. This function is also acknowledged by the municipality who state that the city needs “public space of good quality to stimulate people to meet other people, to play sports, to play and to make money” (Gemeente Amsterdam 2017, p.12).

26 However, it opinions differ regarding how this “public living room” should look like. The policy advisor states that public space should be perceived as “the basis of urban life”, where the design should be simple, and walking in Amsterdam West should feel the same as walking in the city centre (public sector representative VI). However, both public servants that operate on a more local level admit that public space should be of high quality at both the Westergasfabriek and at the South Axis. At the Westergasfabriek and the South Axis, people expect that public space should be of higher quality (public sector representative II & public sector representative V). The municipality’s description of the public realm as a public living room is logical, because it is a place for relaxing and socialising, but it is also a space where people do not go on their own if they are not invited.

7.2. THE PRIVATE PERSPECTIVE Now that the perceptions of public sector actors are established, this section focusses on the perceptions of the private sector. Interviewing the private sector representatives shows that the private sector defines public space in terms of access and uses rather than ownership and control. This fits with Carr et al. (1992), who defined public space in terms of access and uses. For example, although the companies the private sector representatives work for say little about the role of public space, some of the private sector representatives state that they believe that private parties are able to integrate public and private space in a better manner compared to public parties:

“We would like to manage the outside programming [of the public space of the Westergasfabriek] so that we are able to connect the inside with the outside. We believe it is much more logical and effective.” (private sector representative I).

“I believe it is positive that when a developer is forced to think about the public space around his building, he is also needs to think about the public design around the building.” (private sector representative VI).

These statements show that private sector representatives think about private sector involvement in the production of public space. In their view, public space that is privately owned could connect spaces to each other. For example, the privately owned public space at the South Axis helps people quickly get from the train station Amsterdam South Axis to the VU University of the VU Medical Centre (private sector representative IV). In this case, the private sector representative views the privately owned public space as the bonus space mentioned by Schmidt et al. (2011).

The architect of the 1000 Mahlerlaan building also argues that privately owned public spaces can connect two buildings (private sector representative VI). Especially in high density areas like the South Axis, the space between buildings is less valued, while these spaces are actually crucial, even though they only cover a small proportion of the total number of public spaces. The commercial function of

27 public space is also emphasised by one of the private sector representatives. He argues that public space in Amsterdam should be perceived as an extended outdoor space of the commercial activities that happen where “people will buy a cup of coffee, have a sandwich or enjoy something else the store has to offer” (private sector representative VI). Finally, all private sector representatives argued that they believed that the private sector should and will play a more important role in the production of public space in Amsterdam if the municipality allows it.

So, when looking at how public and private sector actors define public space in Amsterdam, the municipality defines public space in terms of ownership and control, while the private sector defines public space in terms of access and uses. The social role of public space is emphasised by the public sector actors, while the private sector sees public space as an connector between private locations. Both public and private sector actors do not agree on whether public space should be luxurious or uniform and simplistic.

28 8 THE PUBLIC-PRIVATE INTERACTION

Now that the divergent perceptions of public and private sector actors in the production of public space in Amsterdam have been identified, this chapter discusses how public and private sector actors interact in the production of public space. To reveal the production of space and to understand the relationship between public actors and private sector actors, Lefebvre (1991) argues that we should focus on the interconnections between the actors involved. In contrast to the situation in New York City discussed by Schmidt et al. (2011), the public-private interaction in the production of public space in Amsterdam has not been regulated in an incentive zoning policy. Therefore, the first part of this chapter focusses on the Amsterdam tradition for the design of public space (the Puccini method) to understand the ties between public and private sector actors at a micro level. The second part of this chapter focusses on how the public-private interaction is perceived by the public and private sector actors involved in the two selected cases.

8.1. PUCCINI HANDBOOK In 2003, the City of Amsterdam and its seven districts decided that the quality of public space in the city needed to be improved to “stop the cluttering that has been going on in certain districts as well as to recreate them in a consistent and uniform style that can be implemented and maintained more efficiently” (Dutch Daily Design 2018). This resulted in the award-winning Puccini handbook. This handbook standardises the production of public space in terms of used materials, detailing construction and interrelatedness and offering the possibility for specialisation in more than fifty extraordinary public spaces (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2013). According to de Magalhães (2010), however, the motive of the municipality to develop such a method was mostly financial, as the city is still facing the consequences of the budget cuts:

“For the municipality it is more beneficial to purchase one standardised tile instead of having twenty-six different type of tiles. In the end it is cheaper. All the municipality had to do was to invest once in such as method to arrange it all.” (public sector representative VI)

So, the Puccini handbook is also considered a tool for the municipality to produce public space more efficiently. However, the municipality still produces the well-designed spectacular spaces that according to Madanipour (2003) are important for marketing purposes. The Westergasfabriek and the South Axis are both labelled as extraordinary locations in the Puccini handbook (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2013). In these extraordinary locations, the municipality is allowed to use specified luxury materials and thereby deviate from the standardised tiles and the concrete bricks used in the vast majority of

29 public space in Amsterdam. The difference between the tiles used in normal public spaces and in the two selected cases is displayed in Figure 10.

Figure 10. The concrete bricks (L), the luxurious version at the privately owned public space (M) and the stelcon plates at the publicly owned public space (R)

Another difference is that at the South Axis, the private organisation Hello Zuidas operates as a sort of mediator between the public and private sector (private sector representative VII). This organisation represents dozens of companies located at the South Axis. These companies are connected to Hello South Axis and pay the organisation to coordinate with the municipality around dealing with topics like the maintenance of public space (private sector representative VII).

The municipality shares the content of the Puccini handbook with private sector actors when they plan to produce some publicly accessible space on their lot (public sector representative VI). Then, there are two options. The first option is that a private sector actor pays for the production of public space, but the municipality maintains it, because it is located in the public realm. The second option is that the private sector actor produces publicly accessible space on their lot. In this case, the private sector actor is not allowed to use the same materials as the public sector (public sector representative VI). The Puccini handbook also operates as a guideline for the private sector to show which materials the municipality is using so the private sector actor can use others (public sector representative VI). Although both public and private sector actors describe the Puccini handbook as a limitation, the policy advisor of the municipality states that this limitation is on purpose. Otherwise, the lines between public and private would not be clear enough. However, one of the private sector representatives state that due to this limitation, privately owned public spaces can never fully integrate with the rest of public space (private sector representative V).

8.2. PERCEPTIONS As part of the neoliberal municipal policy agenda, Taşan-Kok (2010) argues that the ties between individual actors on a micro level and on an institutional macro-level are important factors that influence urban policy. In the Netherlands, local authorities have always been responsible for managing urban public space and the policy that is related to it (Langstraat & van Melik, 2013). However, the national government is important for the urban policy as public sector representative VI states, although it more

30 indirectly affects public space. This statement shows that even through most of the “spatial planning policy and implementations are, in so far as possible, shaped at municipal level” (Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relation, 2013), the ties at the macro-level context are also important for the production of public space.

Swyngedouw (2005) states that using local knowledge is also helpful to incorporate new social actors into the urban arena of governance. When focussing on the organisation structure of the municipality of Amsterdam, two things stand out. First, the city has decentralised its structure to seven districts that all have a district council. Two public sector representatives who work as area managers for the District Council West Amsterdam and District Council South Amsterdam state:

“In my day-to-day job as an area manager I connect people with the municipality. I am the contact person for the municipality in Amsterdam-West” (public sector representative III).

“As an area manager I am the face of the municipality for the city district in a certain area. The first person to contact. I am the connecting link within the municipality” (public sector representative IV).

Both state they want to connect people, business and others with the municipality. This is also emphasised by most private sector representatives. However, the interaction between public and private sector actors is increasingly blurred.

“We work a lot with municipality… For our organisation, the bureaucratic aspect is terrible. We can’t always handle it that well but we have to deal with it… There are a few vicious types” (private sector representative I).

This shows that the private sector representative is more frustrated with the bureaucratic aspect and with some people of the City of Amsterdam instead of the overall organisation. Another private sector representative also states that the municipality is more transparent nowadays and that, as Swyngedouw (2005) mentioned, new social actors can participate in the production of public goods and services:

“Back in the days, the municipality had a list with developers to preferred: a shortlist” (private sector representative IV).

Interesting enough, the private sector representative does not mention the dismantling of the national welfare programme or other effects of the decentralisation as a contributor to this affect. He does mention the financial crisis as the major contributor (private sector representative IV). However, both at the Westergasfabriek and the South Axis, public representatives are dissatisfied that private sector representatives sometimes directly approach the alderman when they have to organise something. At the Westergasfabriek, public sector representative IV states that the Westergasfabriek BV has direct

31 connections with the alderman because they want to buy the public space of the Westergasfabriek. Therefore, the private sector representative state that his company needs that interaction with the alderman (private sector representative I). This problem, where private sector representatives directly approach the alderman, is also pointed out by the policy advisor of the municipality, who states that the private sector is increasingly in contact with the alderman when they want to do or change something in public space (private sector representative VI).

In conclusion, with the Puccini method, the municipality has created a tool that can create a more uniform, efficient public space in Amsterdam. The municipality also facilitate the production of luxurious public spaces that are needed in some select areas of the city. However, private sector actors cannot use the same materials. For this reason, the distinction between public and private space remains intact. Although the municipality is decentralising to better use local knowledge, it has become easier for the private sector to directly approach important people within the municipality.

32 9 THE PUBLICNESS OF URBAN SPACE

Now that the public-private interaction in the production of public space in Amsterdam has been established, this chapter discusses how the publicness of urban space is affected by this interaction. To define publicness, Langstraat and van Melik (2013) identified four dimensions of publicness and translated them into a model of public space. The four dimensions are ownership, management, accessibility and inclusiveness (OMAI). Together, they were used as a framework to analyse the publicness of urban space in the two selected cases.

9.1. OWNERSHIP The first dimension of the OMAI model that will be discussed is ownership. Of the four dimensions, ownership is the most straightforward to define, because it refers to the legal status of a place (Langstraat & van Melik, 2013). As mentioned in the previous chapters, this research uses one public space where the legal ownership rests with the local government and one space that is privately owned. The ownership dimension in Figure 11 shows that both cases differ the most in terms of ownership. Although this conclusion seems obvious, the underlying cause why one space is fully publicly owned and one space is fully privately owned is surprising and unusual in the Netherlands.

Figure 11. Ownership dimension of the OMAI model applied to the cases at the Westergasfabriek (L) and the South Axis (R)

In Amsterdam, there is a system in place that is called leasehold. The vast majority of properties in the city were built on land that is owned by the municipality (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018a). The ground lease system works as follows: when a person or organisation buys real estate in Amsterdam, they do not become the legal owner of the land on which the buildings stand on. Instead, the person or organisation pays the City of Amsterdam a fee to lease the right to use the grounds for a certain period. Through this leasehold construction, the municipality retains influence over the nature of the built environment (Nelisse & Scholten-Theessink, 2008; Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018a). In a way, the municipality can continue the former top-down role in urban development mentioned by Priemus (2002).

33 For example, take the public and private space at the Westergasfabriek. Although the for-profit organisation Westergasfabriek BV bought all seventeen buildings in the park, the legal ownership of the public space in the park and the land on which the buildings of the Westergasfabriek BV stands rests with the City of Amsterdam (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018b).

Another benefit of the leasehold construction is that future increases of land value would partially flow back to the municipality, instead of completely ending up in the hands of private individuals and organisations (Nelisse & Scholten-Theessink, 2008). However, it is not clear whether the annual leasehold of the Westergasfabriek BV has increased throughout the years. Initially, the City District West Amsterdam agreed to an annual leasehold for the symbolic amount of one guilder (public sector representative I). When civil servants of the City of Amsterdam were asked whether this amount had increased, they stated that they are not allowed to share this information.

In the privately owned public space at the Amsterdam South Axis, the municipality also did something extraordinary. Data of the Land Registry and Mapping Agency (called Kadaster) shows that the spatial and administrative boundaries of the privately owned public space differ (see Figure 12). Of the six interviewed public sector representatives, only one could answer why the spatial and administrative boundaries of the plot differ:

“When you develop an underground parking garage you do something with the relationship between public and private. The moment the parking garage is going to be constructed below a publicly accessible space, it is most likely that the municipality, more or less, gives away a part of public space… We [the City of Amsterdam] do not do this for the public roads where cars drive but it is becoming more common for the smaller pieces of land between buildings” (public sector representative V).

Figure 12. South Axis: spatial boundaries (L) and administrative boundaries (R) Figure 13. South Axis: leasehold

Kadaster (2018) Kadaster (2018) Gemeente Amsterdam (2018b)

So, the underground parking garage constructed on the plot is why the spatial and administrative boundaries of the plot differ and why the space in between is privately owned. However, the leasehold of both buildings is also unusual (Figure 13). The yellow colour in Figure 13 shows that the legal ownership of the land rests with the City of Amsterdam, because it was issued in leasehold. The red colour means that the land is not owned by the municipality. Thus, the privately owned public space, a

34 part of the 900 Mahlerlaan and the entire 1000 Mahlerlaan building, is developed without leasehold. The privately owned public space is owned by association of owners that consists of the people who bought an apartment in the 900 Mahlerlaan building, the investor of the social housing rentals and the owner of the 1000 Mahlerlaan building (private sector representative II). Chanel International is not considered an investor because they have their headquarters in the 1000 Mahlerlaan (private sector representative III). What is striking is that the housing rentals in the 900 Mahlerlaan are issued in leasehold, even though they are also constructed on top of a parking garage (Figure 13).

It seems contradictory that the municipality gives away a part of public space that easily while the city has a strong leasehold system in place that can control the nature of the built environment. Another possibility why the space is privately owned could relate to the entrepreneurial approach of the City of Amsterdam. The municipality wants to welcome big organisations like Chanel International to the Amsterdam South Axis (private sector representative III). As argued by de Magalhães (2010), local authorities need private sector actors to fulfil their neoliberal policy agendas. If similar constructions like this are allowed, the private sector will be able to produce more privately owned public space. This is one of the scenarios public sector representative VI feared.

9.2. MANAGEMENT The second dimension of the OMAI model that will be discussed is management. This dimension refers “to the way the place is cared for on a day-to-day basis, as well as to the practices of control such as the presence of CCTV and security guards” (Langstraat & van Melik 2013, p.435). The management dimension scores are shown in Figure 14, which shows that the private sector is involved in the management of the publicly owned public space at the Westergasfabriek (public sector representative II). A combination of public and private parties provides the maintenance and security of public space. The ultimate authority remains with the local government and the police. At the South Axis, the public sector is not involved in the management of the privately owned public space at all (private sector representative IV). The security and maintenance of the space are provided by private parties. Therefore, the ultimate authority is with the association of owners that are collectively responsible for how the place is managed.

35 Figure 14. Management dimension of the OMAI model applied to the cases at the Westergasfabriek (L) and the South Axis (R)

First, this section discusses how both cases are cared for on a day-to-day basis. It is particularly striking that the for-profit organisation Westergasfabriek BV states that they are not fully satisfied with how public space at the complex is maintained by the municipality (private sector representative I). Therefore, they decided to use services provided by external private parties. These parties clean the public space around the buildings and keep them free of vermin. However, this service is limited to the public space around the buildings. Due to the numerous events that are organised in the buildings and in the park, the Westergasfabriek BV also financially contributes to the maintenance of the public space at the Westergasfabriek (public sector representative III).

This entrepreneurial approach where public and private parties cooperate to provide public goods and services is an efficient measure to lower the costs of the administration of the local authority (Needham, 2006). Even if the Westergasfabriek only makes a small financial contribution, they help the private sector provide a public service more efficiently. However, it seems that the City District West Amsterdam is not the only public authority that has difficulties with the maintenance of public space. The problem is citywide. In 2017, the City of Amsterdam made an extra forty million euros available for the overdue maintenance of public spaces (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017). However, the city government estimates that they need another sixty million euros to solve the remaining overdue maintenance. This shows that even though the city government tries to prioritise the maintenance of public spaces in policy, their financial ability is too limited to deal with the management problem right away (public sector representative VI).

Most interviewed public and private sector representatives believed that the financial ability of the private sector made it easier for them to invest in the maintenance of a space. However, when designing the privately owned public space at the South Axis, the landscape architect and the developer focussed on the space needing as little maintenance as possible (private sector representatives IV and private sector representatives V). For example, initially not garbage bins were placed on site and the greenery does not need to be mowed and hardly needs any water. This approach is not appreciated by the architect of the 1000 Mahlerlaan building, who argued that the privately owned public space could have add

36 more value to the surrounding buildings on the plot (private sector representative VI). This is in accord with the argument of Punter (1990), who stated that the value of a building can increase when it is located near a public space of good quality.

In both cases, public and private sector actors have different motives to participate in the maintenance of public space. However, one public sector representative at the South Axis and one private sector at the Westergasfabriek state that defining who is responsible for the management of the space has become fuzzy (private sector representative I & public representative V). At the South Axis, there is a small sign that says it is privately owned, but these signs are placed on an object that separates public from private space and are implemented to inform municipal workers that they are not allowed to clean the privately owned public space. The statements below refer to citizens in the surroundings of the Westerpark and the South Axis that no longer know which sector is responsible.

“The complaints usually arrive at the District Council West Amsterdam. Residents [of the surrounding neighbourhoods] do not always know who to turn to” (private sector representative I).

“It is sometimes difficult for residents because they think: municipality / district council clean this place. Of course, people do not see that it has been created by someone else” (public sector representative V).

When looking at the control practices, in both cases it is not clear if a citizen is watched by a public or private organisation. At the Westergasfabriek, space is cluttered with CCTVs. Security cameras are located near the entrances, on the buildings and throughout the park. Security measures are in place to watch the crowd during events, but it is almost impossible to identify whether a person with a security jacket was hired by the public authority or a private for-profit organisation. This correlates with the argument of Coaffee (2008) who stated that it is hard to determine if a person is watched by a public or private organisation. At the South Axis, people do not immediately notice that they are in privately owned public space, so they do not immediately notice the cameras. In general, people do not seem to bother about the cameras.

9.3. ACCESSIBILITY The third dimension of the OMAI model that will be discussed is accessibility. Langstraat and van Melik (2013) state that the accessibility of a place refers to two things: the physical connectivity and the design of the space. In terms of accessibility, the privately owned public space scores higher than the publicly owned public space (Figure 15). At the Westergasfabriek, the space is accessible to all members of the public, but some parts can also be closed off for events. At the South Axis, the space is fully accessible to the public as a public thoroughfare.

37 Figure 15. Accessibility dimension of the OMAI model applied to the cases at the Westergasfabriek (L) and the South Axis (R)

When focussing on the publicly owned public space, a few things stand out. First is the privatisation of public space (Banerjee, 2001). In 2016, the municipal government voted to increase the number of events that are organised in public spaces. They increased the number of large-scale events (a maximum of one thousand visitors) from six to ten (public sector representative II). Before, during and after these events, lots of areas of the Westergasfabriek are completely closed off for the public. In case of a festival that was recently organised at the Westerpark, some areas of the park were closed down for more than a week.

Figure 16. The public space at the Westergasfabriek before an event (L) and during an event (R)

Figure 16 shows the difference of the accessibility of the space. The left photo was taken before an event and the right one was taken during an event. The big manifestation field in the northern part of the park of the site is closed during the event. Only one street is always open and enables people to move from the west to the east and vice versa. Although the whole park is not physically be closed off, it does not seem welcoming and gives the public the impression they have to spend money to spend time here, especially during events. Also, one of the bridges is closed each Saturday night for the ease of the people who live in the surrounding neighbourhoods (public sector representative I). Otherwise, a lot of taxis stop there and honk and people yell and cause a nuisance. Without an event, the conceived

38 space is still focussed on an event, because all the areas are kept as open spaces. That is also the reason why there are not many physical objects in the park because there are not useful during events (public sector representative II).

While Schmidt et al. (2011) identified measures in New York City implemented into the design of urban space that did not benefit the public, the privately owned public space is the opposite. The architect of the space stated that he made a lot of effort to implemented a more expensive bench that was more comfortable to sit on (private sector representative V). Even though the bench does have a backrest, it is still comfortable to sit on. The blocks that are located on the public-private border do not feel like a border, but they are designed to make the space more comfortable and keep it far from the busy Mahlerlaan (private sector representative VI). Keeping the space accessible was a requirement of the municipality (public sector representative V). Even though there are some terraces in public spaces, the space remains open. In terms of accessibility, the place is designed so that it cannot be closed off. This preserves the open feeling.

9.4. INCLUSIVENESS The fourth dimension of the OMAI model that will be discussed is inclusiveness. Inclusiveness refers to “the degree of a place meets the demands of different individuals and groups” (Langstraat & van Melik 2013, p.435). In terms of inclusiveness, the Westergasfabriek scores the highest, because it provides a meeting space both for the local community and for a wide variety of users (Figure 17). At the South Axis, the space has no specific rules regarding behaviour, but it does not provide a meeting space for a wide variety of users and uses.

Figure 17. Inclusiveness dimension of the OMAI model applied to the cases at the Westergasfabriek (L) and the South Axis (R)

Although both cases are fairy inclusive, the Westergasfabriek only has a social function for the people who work in the 900 and 1000 Mahlerlaan building, or perhaps only the people who work in the 1000 Mahlerlaan building. During lunch, people are on the streets, but because of the commercial activities, people feel like they have to spend money to be in the public space. At Friday after work, when people go for the Westerpark to relax and enjoy the sun, the whole privately owned public space remains empty.

39 In Westerpark, the city and the Westergasfabriek BV want to include the surrounding neighbours. However, in terms of benefit to the wider community, this strategy is only partially successful, because most of the events in the park are related to commercial activities. It is hard to see how the community benefits from them. Instead, the people are mainly annoyed by the noise. There is still an indirect benefit to the community, as the funds that are raised from these events flow partially back to the park (public sector representative II). In Westerpark, there are always spaces available for people to use public space enjoy the park.

40 10 CONCLUSION

This study examines how perceptions of public space influence the interaction between public and private sector actors and ultimately the publicness of urban space. The aim of this study was to determine whether and how the private sector is involved in the production of public space in Amsterdam.

First, this study established the divergent perceptions of public and private sector actors. The terminology used in the report of the City of Amsterdam (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017) and the information obtained from the interviews with the public sector representatives revealed that like Madanipour (1996), the public sector defined public space in terms of ownership and control. Most of the interviewed public sector representatives were not aware of the privatisation of public space in Amsterdam. However, they argued that they believe the production of public space in Amsterdam should be a public matter.

This is in contrast to the perceptions of private sector actors, who emphasised that they can connect different locations and public spaces when the municipality allows the private sector to participate in the production of public space. However, the private role in the production of public space was not mentioned in the policy document or by one of the public sector representatives. For the civil servants of the municipality, the production of public space remains the sole responsibility of the City of Amsterdam to enable the local authority to create a consistent and uniform style.

Second, once the divergent perceptions of public and private sector actors were described, the public- private interaction was established. Within the municipality, the City of Amsterdam uses the Puccini method, which standardises the vast majority of public spaces in terms of materials, construction and interrelatedness (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2013). The Puccini method also offers the possibility for specialisation. For the municipality, it functions as a communication tool between public and private sector actors, where public sector representatives can explain which materials the private sector is not allowed to use when they produce publicly accessible space (public sector representative VI).

This distinction between public and private space is crucial (public sector representative VI). This is in line with Vito Acconci (2001). In many other cities, the public-private interaction has become increasingly fuzzy (Langstraat & van Melik, 2013). However, the communication between public and private sector actors does not always go as expected by public sector representatives. They state that the private sector is able to directly contact important people within the municipality and thereby ignore the civil servants who are assigned to help to private sector actors (public sector representative IV & public sector representative VI).

41 However, the divergent perceptions of public and private sectors actors do not prevent the public and private sector from interacting constructively. As indicated before, there is no clear-cut relationship between one of the four dimensions of the OMAI model. Although both cases differ most in terms of ownership, the accessibility and inclusiveness of both cases do not differ much. In the publicly owned public space at the Westergasfabriek, the privatisation of public space is largely taking place because many events are organised in public space. Due to these events, the accessibility of the space is affected by private sector interests.

The privately owned public space is owned and managed by private sector actors because of the underground parking garage constructed on the plot (public sector representative V). This was a decision by the municipality and the leasehold system could not prevent it. At the privately owned public space, the space functions as a thoroughfare for most people, however, the inclusiveness of the space is not optimal, because it is focussed on the people who work in the surrounding area. Therefore, the privately owned public space does not have the characteristics normally expected of a privately owned and managed place. The square was small, but still functioned as a good example to show that the private sector is actually involved in the production of public space in Amsterdam.

For further research, it is important to focus on the situation in Amsterdam to empirically explore how many privately owned public space there are in Amsterdam. The recently released map of the leasehold system is a useful tool to map these spaces. Also, a broader understanding of the reasons why the public sector gives away part of public space that easily should be researched to determine whether places that also have an underground parking garage have similar distinctions between public and private. For now, this research established that the private sector is involved in the production of public space, but that the municipality, although not fully aware of it, can keep this privately owned public space under control. Another positive development of this research is that most public sector representatives and private sector representatives are more concerned with the private sector involvement in the production of public space in Amsterdam after the interviews. However, for the City of Amsterdam it remains important to control the divergent perceptions of public and private sector actors to control and regulate the privatisation of public space.

42 REFERENCES

Allen, J. (2006). Ambient power: Berlin’s Potsdamer Platz and the seductive logic of public space. Urban Studies. 43(2), 441-455.

Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Banerjee, T. (2001). The future of public space: beyond invented streets and reinvented places. Journal of the American Planning Association, 67(1), 9-24.

Burgers, J., Zuijderwijk, L., Binken, S. & Wilk, D. van der. (2012). Levendige en veilige openbare ruimte: de visie van professionals en ervaringen van gebruikers. The Hague: Nicis Institute/Platform 31.

Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L.G. & Stone, A.M. (1992). Public space. Cambridge University Press.

Coaffee, J. (2008). Risk, resilience, and environmentally sustainable cities. Energy Policy, 36(12), 4633-4638.

Cobouw (1996). Park en theather in Westergasfabriek. Retrieved on 11-04-2018 from https://www.cobouw.nl/search?page=7&q=westergasfabriek.

DiGaetano, A. & Strom, E. (2003). Comparative urban governance: an integrated approach. Urban Affairs Review, 38, 356-395.

Dutch Daily Design (2018). Paul Mijksenaar award voor Puccini-methode. Retrieved on 07-05-2018 from http://dutchdesigndaily.com/nl/nieuw/paul-mijksenaar-award-voor-puccini-methode/.

Gemeente Amsterdam (2012). Cultuurhistorische verkenning en advies Westergasfabriekterrein. Amsterdam: Gemeente Amsterdam.

Gemeente Amsterdam (2013). Handboek Puccinimethode: inrichting openbare ruimte onderdeel rood. Retrieved on 018-06 from http://ktl.nl/uploads/editor/handboek_puccini_rood_deel_i.pdf.

Gemeente Amsterdam (2017). Visie openbare ruimte 2025: de huiskamer van alle Amsterdammers. Amsterdam: Gemeente Amsterdam.

Gemeente Amsterdam (2018a). Ground lease (erfpacht). Retrieved on 08-06-2018 from https://www.amsterdam.nl/en/housing/ground-lease/.

Gemeente Amsterdam (2018b). Land ownership and leasehold. Retrieved on 08-06-2018 from https://maps.amsterdam.nl/brk/?LANG=en.

G&S Vastgoed (2015). 1000 Mahlerlaan. Retrieved on 04-02-2018 from https://www.gensvastgoed.nl/portfolio/1000-mahlerlaan/.

G&S Vastgoed (2016). 900 Mahlerlaan. Retrieved on 04-02-2018 from https://www.gensvastgoed.nl/portfolio/900-mahler/.

Harvey, D. (1989). From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation in urban governance in late capitalism. Geografiska Annaler, 71(1), 3-17.

Hermans, L.M. & Thissen, W.A. (2009). Actor analysis methods and their use for public policy analysts. European Journal of Operational Research, 196(2), 808-818.

Het Parool (2014). Chanel opent internationaal hoofdkantoor op de Zuidas. Retrieved on 04-02-2018 through https://www.parool.nl/amsterdam/chanel-opent-internationaal-hoofdkantoor-op-de-zuidas~a3731408/.

43 Het Parool (2015). Duncan Stutterheim koopt de Westergasfabriek. Retrieved on 27-03-2018 from https://www.parool.nl/amsterdam/duncan-stutterheim-koopt-de-westergasfabriek~a4561743/.

Heurkens, E. (2012). Private sector-led urban development projects: management, partnerships and affects in the Netherlands and the UK. Delft University of Technology.

Kadaster (2018). Bagviewer. Retrieved on 05-06-2018 from https://bagviewer.kadaster.nl/lvbag/bag- viewer/index.html#?searchQuery=amsterdam&resultOffset=0&objectId=3594&geometry.x=119739.529625&g eometry.y=483303.47970539&zoomlevel=6&detailsObjectId=3594.

Kandil, H. (2012). Why did the Egyptian middle-class march to Tahrir square? Mediterranean Politics, 17(2), 197-215.

Kayden, J.S. (2000). Privately owned public space: the New York City experience. New York City: John Wiley & Sons.

Klijn, E.H. & Teisman, G.R. (2003). Institutional and strategic barriers to public-private partnership: an analysis of Dutch cases. Public money and Management, 23(3), 137-146.

Kohn, M. (2004). Brave new neighborhoods: the privatisation of public space. New York: Routledge.

Langstraat, F. & Melik, R. van (2013). Challenging the “End of Public Space”: a comparative analysis of publicness in British and Dutch urban spaces. Journal of Urban Design, 18(3), 429-448.

Leary, M.E. (2013). A Lefebvrian analysis of the production of glorious, gruesome public space in Manchester. Progress in Planning, 85, 1-52.

Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Le Gales, P. (2001). Urban governance and policy networks: on the urban political boundedness of policy networks. A French case study. Public Administration, 79, 167-184.

Madanipour, A. (1996). Urban design and dilemmas of space. Environment and Planning D: Society and space, 14(3), 331-355.

Madanipour, A. (2003). Public and private space of the city. London: Routledge.

Madden, D.J. (2010). Revisiting the end of public space: assembling the public in an urban park. City & Community, 9(2), 187-207.

Magalhães, C. de (2010). Public space and the contracting-out of publicness: a framework for analysis. Journal of Urban Design, 15(4), 559-574.

Mehta, V. (2014). Evaluating public space. Journal of Urban Design, 19(1), 53-88.

Melik, R. van, Aalst, I. van & Weesep, J. van (2009). The private sector and public space in Dutch city centres, Cities, 26(4), 202-209.

Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relation (2013). Spatial Planning in the Netherlands. Retrieved on 12-07- 2018 from https://www.government.nl/topics/spatial-planning-and-infrastructure/spatial-planning-in-the- netherlands.

Needham, B. (2006). Planning, law and economics: the rules we make for using land. London: Routledge.

Nelisse, P.C.J.P. & Scholten-Theessink, M. (2008). Stedelijk erfpacht. Doetichem: Reed Business.

Németh, J. & Schmidt, S. (2011). The privatisation of public space: modelling and measuring publicness. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 38, 5-23.

44 Paddison, R. & Sharp, J. (2007). Questioning the end of public space: reclaiming control of local banal spaces. Scottish Geographical Journal, 123(2), 87-106.

Pickvance, C.G. (2001). Four varieties of comparative analysis. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 16(1), 7-28.

Priemus, H. (2002). Public-private partnerships for spatio-economic investments: a changing spatial planning approach in the Netherlands. Planning Practice & Research, 14(2), 197-230.

Punter, J.V. (1990). The privatisation of the public realm. Planning Practice and Research, 5(3), 9-16.

Santo, M. & Newman, S. (Ed.) (2011). Revel in New York Guidebook Vol II. New York City: Revel In.

Schmidt, S., Németh, J. & Botsford, E. (2011). The evolution of privately owned public spaces in New York City. Urban Design International, 16(4), 270-284.

Sorkin, M. (Ed.) (1992). Variations on a theme park: the new American city and the end of public space. New York: Hill and Wang.

Swyngedouw, E., Moulaert, F. & Rodriquez, A. (2002). Neoliberal urbanisation in Europe: large-scale urban development projects and the new urban policy. In Brenner, N. & Theodore, N. (Ed.), Spaces of neoliberalism: urban restructuring in North America and Western Europe, (p. 195-229). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Swyngedouw, E. (2005). Governance innovation and the citizen: the Janus face of governance-beyond-state. Urban Studies, 42, 1991-2006.

Taşan-Kok, T. (2010). Entrepreneurial governance: challenges of large-scale property-led urban regeneration projects. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 101(2), 126-149.

Theodore, N., Peck, J. & Brenner, N. (2011). Neoliberal urbanism: cities and the rule of markets. In G. Bridge & S. Watson (Ed.), The New Blackwell Companion to the City, (p. 15-25). West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.

The Guardian (2017a). Revealed: the insidious creep of pseudo-public space in London. Retrieved on November 23, 2018 from https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jul/24/revealed-pseudo-public-space-pops-london- investigation-map.

The Guardian (2017b). London mayor to draw up charter regulating pseudo-public space. Retrieved on November 23, 2018 from https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/nov/23/london-mayor-charter-pseudo- public-space-sadiq-khan.

Thomas, M. (1991). The demise of public space. In V. Nadin & J. Doak (Ed.), Town planning responses to city change (p. 209-224). Aldershot: Avebury.

Turok, I. (1992). Property-led urban regeneration: panacea or placebo? Environment and Planning A, 24(3), 361-379.

Voyce, M. (2006). Shopping malls in Australia: the end of public space and the rise of “consumerist citizenship”. Journal of Urban Design, 15(4), 269-286.

Westergasfabriek BV (2018). Westergasfabriek: organisation. Retrieved on 28-03-2018 from http://www.westergasfabriek.nl/en/about/westergasfabriek/#organization.

Yoon, H. & Srinivasan, S. (2015). Are they well situated? Spatial analysis of privately owned public space, Manhattan, New York City. Urban Affairs Review, 51(3)

45 APPENDIX

Appendix 1.1. The OMAI model of Langstraat & van Melik (2013) applied to the publicly owned public space at the Westergasfabriek and the privately owned public space at the South Axis

Ownership Management Accessibility Inclusiveness Westergasfabriek 4: Fully public 3. Public with some 3. Public with some private 4. Fully public private characteristics characteristics

Fully owned by the City Public-private Park is normally accessible The Westergasfabriek is of Amsterdam cooperation. Local but some parts can be used by a diverse group authority remains in closed off for events of people control South Axis 1: Fully private 1: Fully private 4. Fully public 3. Public with some private characteristics

Owned by an association Maintenance and Fully accessible to the No explicit rules on of owners security is in private public. Can’t be closed off. behaviour but it is not hands used by a diverse group of people

46

47