Coping with Challenges in Inner- City Waterfront Redevelopment Projects

Coping with challenges in inner- city waterfront redevelopment projects

Opportunities and limitations for transferring policy practices from the case of HafenCity in Hamburg to the case of Haven-Stad in Amsterdam.

“In these possibilities, we remember that urban development is not just for profit, or person aggrandizement, but for the benefit of humanity and the planet as well. It is on the urban waterfront that these visions of the city are finding form. These are the sites of post-industrial city space-making”.

(Shaw, 2001: 6)

COLOFON

Title: Coping with challenges in inner-city waterfront redevelopment projects – Opportunities and limitations for transferring policy practices from the case of HafenCity in Hamburg to the case of Haven-Stad in Amsterdam.

Author: Yte Elbrich Schukking Student number: 11767162 E: [email protected] T: 06 81 90 38 72

MASTERTHESIS URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING Universiteit van Amsterdam Graduate School of Social Sciences Nieuwe Achtergracht 166 1018 WV Amsterdam The Netherlands

Supervisor: Sara Özogul

Second reader: Tuna Tasan-Kok

Source picture front page: own work (2018)

ABSTRACT

The number of inner-city waterfront areas that are being redeveloped or where plans for regeneration are being made, is increasing. The shift of traditional industries and structural changes in the economic system of former harbour areas has led to dramatic changes in the functions of these areas. Waterfront regeneration projects are often seen as prestige projects, in which a lot of different stakeholders cooperate. Projects like this have frequently led to changes in the governance system of cities.

This research focusses on to what extend institutional conditions (formal and informal institutional frameworks), can be used to deal with challenges coming along with the planning process of inner-city waterfront redevelopment projects. The main case study of this research is the project of HafenCity in Hamburg. HafenCity Hamburg GmbH, a private law cooperation owned by the municipality of Hamburg is created to steer and guide the planning process of this new urban neighbourhood. Due to the fact that in this project the public sector has a strong role, the amount of faced challenges is quite limited. Moreover, the project experienced challenges which were not mentioned in the literature. To deal with these challenges, the public sector created a framework in which they utilized the knowledge of the private sector and other important individual actors. Since this research follows a constructive approach, it is argued that the current literature does not address the fact that waterfront redevelopment projects in different urban contexts can learn something from each other. Therefore, the planned project of Haven-Stad in Amsterdam has been chosen as a pilot study for this research. Success factors have been identified from the case of HafenCity in Hamburg. It is argued that some of these success factors, such as policies, institutional conditions and best-practices, are transferable from the case of HafenCity to the pilot study of Haven-Stad.

PREFACE

By writing this preface of my master thesis, an end has come to my years at university. After graduating from my bachelor at the University of Utrecht, I started in September 2017 with the master Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Amsterdam. I can say that I am still very happy that I made this choice and that I cannot imagine any other master’s degree being more interesting to me. The last months I have worked with pleasure (and of course, with a little bit of reluctance sometimes) on this final product of my academic career. This research has brought me to the beautiful city of Hamburg, gave me new (personal) insights and put me in contact with interesting respondents from the field.

I want to say thanks to my friends and boyfriend for always being around, providing me with enough coffee breaks and funny meme’s during a long study day and the good times we had together working on our master theses. It will be hard getting used to not spending every day with all of you in the library anymore. Moreover, I want to thank my family for showing their interest in my research and keeping me company for a few days on a trip to Hamburg. It made doing the fieldwork even more fun! Many thanks to all the respondents who participated in this research as well. Last but not least, I want to thank my supervisor Sara for her helpful, constructive (always fast!) feedback and the pleasant cooperation.

Good reading! Yte Elbrich Schukking June 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE ...... 1 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 4 1.1 Context and matter ...... 4 1.2 Case of interest ...... 5 1.3 Relevance of this research ...... 6 1.4 Focus of this research ...... 7 1.5 Outline ...... 7 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...... 8 2.1 Urban redevelopment of waterfront areas ...... 8 2.2 Institutional conditions ...... 10 2.2.1 From government to governance ...... 10 2.3 Planning processes of urban waterfront (re)development ...... 12 2.4 Challenges in urban waterfront planning processes ...... 14 2.5 Which factors can lead to success? ...... 17 2.6 Transferability of policies ...... 18 2.7 Summary of the theoretical framework ...... 20 3. METHODOLOGY ...... 21 3.1 Research design ...... 21 3.1.1 Why these two case studies? ...... 22 3.1.2 Sub questions and stages of research ...... 22 3.2 Operationalization ...... 23 3.3 Methods of data collection ...... 24 3.3.1 Policy review ...... 24 3.3.2 Interviews ...... 25 3.4 Methods of data analysis ...... 26 3.4.1 Field of influence analysis ...... 26 3.5 Conceptual framework ...... 27

4. HAFENCITY HAMBURG EXPLAINED ...... 28 4.1 HafenCity: a public-private partnership steered by the public ...... 28 4.2 Coping with challenges in HafenCity ...... 32 4.2.1 Challenges that did not occur in HafenCity ...... 32 4.2.2 Faced challenges known from literature ...... 34 4.2.3 Unexpected challenges ...... 36 4.3 Institutional conditions of HafenCity ...... 38 4.3.1 Different planning styles composed of different planning determinants ...... 40 4.4 Success factors from HafenCity ...... 43 5. PILOT STUDY: HAVEN-STAD AMSTERDAM ...... 46 5.1 Setting the context of Haven-Stad ...... 46 5.2 Foreseen challenges and stakeholders in case of Haven-Stad ...... 48 6. POLICY TRANSFER ...... 51 6.1 Opportunities and limitations to learn from HafenCity Hamburg ...... 51 6.2 Thinking in terms of conditions ...... 53 7. CONCLUSION ...... 55 BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 58 ATTACHMENTS ...... 63 Attachment 1: Indication of necessary conditions and critical success factors ...... 63 Attachment 2: Topic list ...... 64 Attachment 3: Description of respondents ...... 66 Attachment 4: Codes of data analyses ...... 67

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Context and matter Brownfields occur in every industrialized country or region. The main reason for the emergence of derelict land is the change of traditional industries towards a service-based economy, and therefore the structural changes in the economic framework of a country. This makes that the appearance of derelict land often goes along with the loss of jobs. Due to that, whole neighbourhoods can get into decline or even whole cities around those brownfields can get neglected (Grimski & Ferber, 2001). Europe is currently confronting the challenge of regulating these sites, since brownfield redevelopment has proved to be one of the major tools that can lead to urban development in a sustainable way. Public actors often see brownfields as a source of strategic policy delivery, and as a source of strategic profit making by private actors (Adams et al., 2010). This makes it essential to reach a better understanding of the different ways, contexts and policy focuses various cities have in addressing those brownfields.

One particular type of derelict areas in cities are the former inner-city harbour areas. During the past decades, these places have undergone the transformation from an economy based on production to a service-based economy; which led to an increasing demand for new facilities in post-industrial cities. Port cities all over the world follow these broad changes in the post-industrial regime and need to restructure their former harbour areas to meet the new challenges and needs that arise (Kostopoulou, 2013). Urban waterfront redevelopment projects, aiming at reconnecting the abandoned harbour areas with the urban fabric, became a phenomenon of urban renewal all around the world. Currently, waterfront redevelopment is a global trend, which has been carried out in metropoles, cities and towns on every continent. Since former harbour areas are often located close to the city centre and on the interface between the built environment and the water, these waterfronts are provided with highly exploitable urban spaces (Hall, 1998); (Gospodini, 2001).

The characteristics of waterfront redevelopment have led to the problem statement of this paper. It is argued that since the emerge of waterfront redevelopment in the 60’s, the planning process of these projects has changed during the following decades, due to broader discourses such as the rise of public-private partnerships and the emergence of collaborative planning. Waterfront regeneration projects are often seen as prestige projects on a large- scale, part of a broader growth strategy to reimage a city. Previous planning styles and new innovative ones are often combined by cities to meet their redevelopment aims for the projects. That is why these projects have frequently been mentioned as the successful transformation towards a new form of governance (Basset et al., 2002); (Galland & Hansen, 2012). These new forms of governance often include an increasing cooperation between public and private actors. In the opinion of the researcher, the relationship between public- and private actors and the institutional conditions in which they work together, have changed during the last years. It is possible that these changing relations have made it easier for stakeholders to deal with challenges coming along with large-scale redevelopment projects.

This thesis is trying to understand to what extend institutional conditions can cope with challenges in the planning process of inner-city waterfront redevelopment projects. This is done in a constructive instead of a critical way. Since in recent years, the focus in academic literature has mainly been on the negative aspects of waterfront redevelopment (Breen & Rigby, 1985; Cowell & Thomas, 2002; Loftman & Nevin, 1996; McCarthy, 2004). Whereas this thesis focusses on success factors of the projects, using a rather constructive approach. This means that the insights, critical remarks and advice on inner-city waterfront redevelopment projects given in this thesis, are tended to help and improve other similar projects. This constructive approach focusses on the interdependence of social and individual processes in the co-construction of knowledge (Sullivan Palincsar, 1998). Therefore, the constructive approach is argued to be very useful to address the concept of policy transferring. By using this approach, the possibilities for policy transferring and lesson learning in case of inner-city waterfront redevelopment projects, can be defined.

1.2 Case of interest In this thesis, the case of the newly developed area HafenCity in Hamburg will be researched. HafenCity is one of the most remarkable urban development schemes in a water situation worldwide. The redevelopment of Hamburg’s former harbour area will increase the surface of Hamburg’s city centre with 40 percent. Major urban regeneration projects like this call for strong intersection and coalescence between public and private actors (HafenCity, 2017). The public-private partnership, which leads the development of the project, goes along under the name HafenCity Hamburg GmbH. The development of HafenCity is done in cooperation with public and private actors, which makes it an interesting case when it comes to (successful) institutional conditions.

Hamburg HafenCity has been the topic of various studies so far. Menzl (2010) writes about the relation of public and private open spaces in the project. Together with Breckner, Menzl did a study on ‘neighborliness’ and the reality/potential of this in HafenCity. HafenCity seeks to realize both urbanity and neighborliness in a sort of co-existence. They conclude that the social life in HafenCity is characterized by a high degree of liveliness, willingness to get involved in the neighbourhood and very intensive forms of localization (Menzl & Breckner, 2011). Krüger (2009) discusses in his article ‘HafenCity Hamburg, Ein Modell für Moderne Stadtentwicklung?‘ the history of HafenCity and the potential of the project to become a model for other cities which are dealing with regeneration of former industrial areas. The article is mainly visionary since in 2009 the project was not as far advanced as it is nowadays.

Of course, there is critique on the project as well. For example, Der Spiegel (2010) wrote that HafenCity feels like a big ‘ghost town’. Thereby, the weekly magazine fears that the new neighbourhood will become a place of gentrification and rich people due to the high property prices (Der Spiegel, 2010). During the economic crisis, a lot of stakeholders were afraid that they were not able to continue with the project. Shop owners in the city centre of Hamburg are also afraid that their customers will choose HafenCity over the inner-city for their shopping, which will leave the streets in the city centre empty (Abendblatt, 2009).

Constructive research in the form of a pilot study The case of HafenCity Hamburg is not the only case studied in this research. Since this research follows a constructive approach, it is researched whether some successful policy

5 measures on dealing with challenges in the project of HafenCity, will be applicable to other similar cases. It is argued that some of these policy measurements and institutional elements are transferable to another context.

One of these comparable cases is the case of Haven-Stad in Amsterdam. The municipality of Amsterdam is planning to create a liveable, highly urbanized new neighbourhood called Haven-Stad in the north of the city centre (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017). This neighbourhood will be situated (partly) on the former harbour area of Amsterdam, creating a big opportunity for waterfront redevelopment. The fact that HafenCity Hamburg has quite some similarities (physical, geographical, political and considering the aims of both projects) with the planned Haven-Stad in Amsterdam makes it a good pilot study for this thesis. Since the project of Haven-Stad is still in its infancy, the project will be researched in an explorative way, using insights from HafenCity Hamburg’s case. In the concluding part of the thesis, the transferability of certain institutional conditions from the case of HafenCity to the case of Haven-Stad will be examined.

1.3 Relevance of this research Scientifically, quite some research about waterfront development and waterfront regeneration has been done. Sairinen & Kumpulainen (2006) assess the social impacts of waterfront regeneration in their research. The article uses three types of waterfront regeneration in Helsinki and shows four social dimensions in which regenerated waterfront areas can be used in cities. Basset et al. (2012) address the issues of urban governance through a case study on waterfront development in Bristol. Galland & Hansen (2012) research different roles of planning in waterfront redevelopment due to the case of Aalborg, Denmark. Different planning rationalities, forms of governance and competing interests were used in the redevelopment of this project and the concept of ‘hybrid planning’ is first addressed here. Gunay & Dokmeci (2012) focus more on the contribution of culture-led regeneration approaches when it comes to Istanbul’s waterfront redevelopment.

In the opinion of the researcher, there is a lack of constructive approaches in these researches. Besides this, the research that has been done so far is rather looking at single cases instead of creating a link between the different projects. There is a gap in the literature in how (successful) policies of one case can be transferred to a case in a different urban context. This research will try to fill this gap.

Moreover, this research has a strong societal relevance since the liveability and attractiveness of an area easily decreases when former industrial areas are left for what they are. Dilapidated former industry areas, such as former harbour areas, often cause the loss of jobs in the shipping sector. Moreover, neighbourhoods or even whole cities around those areas can get into decline. Due to this, it makes sense to elaborate on the (successful) development of former harbour areas and investigate the planning processes of these kind of projects. In the opinion of the researcher, there is a chance that challenges which are faced in this kind of projects are similar in different contexts. By considering whether policy transfer between different cases is possible, the constructive approach is addressed in this research.

1.4 Focus of this research In this research, the focus will lie on to what extent different institutional conditions can cope with challenges coming along with the planning process of inner-city waterfront redevelopment. The research will explore these concepts through the case study of HafenCity in Hamburg. Successful policy measures, institutional conditions and best practices will be gathered during this process. Concluding, it will be discussed to what extend these conditions can be transferred to the pilot study of Haven-Stad in Amsterdam. The aim of the research is to be critical, but constructive. This has led to the following research question:

“Under which institutional conditions can challenges in the planning process of inner-city waterfront redevelopment be addressed, and to what extend can these conditions be transferred into another context?”

In this thesis, the main case of HafenCity in Hamburg will be studied in-depth. Then, the pilot study of Haven-Stad in Amsterdam will be studied explorative. When it turns out that stakeholders in Amsterdam foresee challenges or difficulties, which stakeholders in Hamburg might have overcome, these outcomes can provide some help or be input for policy recommendations.

A set of sub questions will complement and support the process of answering the main research question. These questions will provide conclusions that will trickle down to a main outcome. First, the inner-city waterfront redevelopment project of Hamburg will be defined. Furthermore, the different (unforeseen) challenges and success factors that can be distilled from the planning process of this project will try to be detected. How these challenges have been dealt with and which stakeholders took part in the planning process of the project are interesting aspects that are analyzed as well. Concluding, the possibility of policy transfer from the case of HafenCity to the case of Haven-Stad will be examined.

1.5 Outline In this research it will be argued how certain types of institutional conditions can deal with challenges coming along with inner-city waterfront redevelopment. Furthermore, it is researched whether policy transfer between different urban waterfront redevelopment projects is possible. To address this argument, various research steps have been made. The steps have been structured as followed. In chapter 2, the theoretical frameworks of this research will be discussed. Following up on this, the methodology used in this thesis, the criteria for the case selection, plus information about the respondents and the interviews that have been conducted, will be explained in chapter 3. In chapter 4, the results concerning the case of HafenCity will be analyzed. The main findings and results in relation to the sub questions are given in this chapter. In chapter 5, a broad explanation on the pilot case Haven- Stad is given. Chapter 6 discusses the possibility of policy transferring between HafenCity and Haven-Stad. Moreover, the opportunities and limitations on the frameworks used in this thesis are given in this chapter. Chapter 7 entails the conclusion of this research. It also discusses the limitations of this research and presents ideas for further research and policy implications.

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK The number of waterfront redevelopment projects all around the world is increasing. Since the economic function of these former industrial areas is changing, plans for new urban development are being made. In this chapter, the various concepts that come along with inner-city waterfront redevelopment projects are being discussed. It is argued that the current literature addresses various aspects which are connected to this kind of projects, but it fails in addressing how different projects can learn from each other. A constructive approach in creating a link between different waterfront redevelopment projects is missing. This research tries to fill this gap. To put this in a theoretical context, a few concepts should be explained. First an introduction on waterfront (re) development is given. Following up on this the institutional conditions and planning processes which make this kind of projects possible are being discussed. In paragraph 2.4, the framework of different challenges coming along with large-scale redevelopment projects, are listed. After, the framework on the variables for success in urban development projects are given in paragraph 2.5. The chapter concludes with the possibilities and limitations for policy transfer between different urban contexts and provides a framework on how to measure this in paragraph 2.6.

2.1 Urban redevelopment of waterfront areas The emergence of waterfront development Former harbour areas or waterfront areas are one type of derelict areas in post-industrial cities. Since the decline of these former harbour areas, urban waterfront redevelopment has become a well-known phenomenon in many Western countries. Once these places were occupied by manufacturing and trade industries plus the entire infrastructure that belonged to it. After these forms of harbour-related production declined, the harbour areas became abandoned. The ongoing industrialization and containerization of port activities and the fact that a lot of cities have entered a ‘post-industrial phase’ lead to more of these un-used industrial areas. The cities accommodating these places were confronted by the need to reinvent themselves (Galland & Hansen, 2012). As said, the phenomenon of urban waterfront development and regeneration has spread all over the world. It started in the 1960s and 1970s in Northern American cities as Baltimore, San Francisco and Boston, which showed that waterfront areas close to the city centre could become liveable public places. Other cities around the world started to regenerate and develop their waterfronts as well. First by using the approach of the Northern American cities, later by using their own insights (Smith & Soledad Marcia Ferrari, 2012).

As early as the 1960s, waterfront redevelopment as a planning tool compromised different schemes, plans and processes. Shaw (2001) divided the transformation of waterfront areas into four different generations, which will be explained shortly. The first generation of waterfront revitalization happened in North American cities around the 60s and 70s. During the 1980s, the second generation of redevelopment projects was mainly carried out by organizations that were formed to plan, manage and implement these projects. Some of the projects from this generation (e.g. London and Barcelona) consisted out of huge urban renewal projects lead by market-driven and plan-led planning processes and capacities

(Galland & Hansen, 2012; Shaw, 2001). During these years the so-called ‘evolution’ of public- private partnerships started as well. The new planning paradigm of that time allowed for plans to be developed over time. These plans did not have to be as comprehensive as the master plans of the past (Gordon, 1996). Urban waterfront redevelopment projects were among the most striking examples of physical planning and urban renewal around that time (Gordon, 1997).

The third generation of waterfront redevelopment projects took the measures developed by the first two generations for granted and were set up in a similar way, during the 80s. Waterfronts of for example Vancouver, Sydney and Liverpool can be seen as examples for this generation. The fourth and last generation of waterfront redevelopment projects started after the 1990s (Shaw, 2001). The characteristics of this generation are not yet as clear as those of the former generations. However, it seems to be a recurring phenomenon that policies, strategies and practices are combined with new and old, innovative planning styles (Galland & Hansen, 2012). These waterfront regeneration projects are often seen as prestige projects on a large-scale, part of a broader growth strategy to reimage a city. In addition, these projects have frequently been mentioned as the successful transformation towards a new form of governance (Basset et al., 2002).

Recent urban waterfront redevelopment In the context of today’s society, we consider the waterfront as an urban amenity. These waterfronts were created in the past, when the economy of a city was based on industrial production. The social and economic structures of those times do not longer exist, which leaves these large spaces (in older cities often adjacent to the city centre) abandoned (Marshall, 2011). As cities move towards an economy based on services, a major aspect of their success will be in the quality of their city spaces. Waterfront sites provide big opportunities for this. Redevelopment can take place on large, visible places which makes it the perfect place for designers and planners to express their contemporary visions of the city (Marshall, 2011). In general, when redeveloping a waterfront area, the aim is to ‘re-connect’ the waterfront to the city both physically and functionally. Most of the time this requires that the waterfront obtains a new unitary function. Moreover, existing buildings can be restructured or be rest- orated and contemporary urban space needs to be created (Smith & Soledad Marcia Ferrari, 2012).

Gordon (1996; 1997) states that recent waterfront planning projects mostly take place on a project basis in cooperation with different sorts of quasi-governmental or public-private agencies. Among the various waterfront regeneration projects in the world, a common theme is the project-led quality that many of them tend to adopt. This means that there is a focus on the redevelopment of particular sections of any specific waterfront after a land-use function has been established (Galland & Hansen, 2012). This project-led waterfront redevelopment mainly takes place in countries that have a planning system which is rather receptive to market forces. As Galland and Hansen (2012) state, local institutional arrangements, planning rationalities, project leadership, existing market conditions and types of urban areas heavily influence waterfront redevelopment. All together these components characterize specific planning styles in waterfront redevelopment practice.

Overall, waterfront regeneration- and development projects are often examples of public- private partnerships and of compromises between different stakeholders (Smith & Soledad Garcia Ferrari, 2012). The large-scale projects provide the perfect opportunity for designers and planners to reimage the image of their city. At the same time, these projects have proven to be a good way of transformation towards a new form of governance. The next paragraph will discuss this rather new ways of inter-organizational governance in planning projects.

2.2 Institutional conditions For this thesis, it is relevant to understand the institutional context of urban waterfront redevelopment projects. To address this context, the concept of institutional conditions is used. Institutional conditions can be split up into formal institutions and informal institutions. The concept of formal institutions is defined by Buitelaar et al. (2014:249) as:

“Government rules that are enforced by the legal system, such as laws, constitutions, ordinances and local land-use plans”

Informal institutions are for example: less explicit rules of conventions, codes of behavior and traditions and values of a certain context. These forms of institutions influence each other, they are actively changed and created through action (Heurkens, 2016). Moreover, there is also interchange between institutions and actors; they influence each other mutually. Therefore, the process of urban waterfront redevelopment is also the process of the interactions between actors and institutions (Buitelaar et al., 2014). In this thesis, institutional conditions compass formal and informal institutions – more specifically, the way in which different actors work together in a planning process and thereby try to overcome certain challenges in this process.

Over the past decades institutional conditions in urban planning have changed. These new forms of institutional conditions are related to new forms of governance structures in urban planning. The next subparagraph will elaborate on this.

2.2.1 From government to governance Since the decreasing role of the welfare state in the 1980s, new governance structures became more and more popular. The public sector transferred responsibilities and functions to the private sector, and by doing so, opened up for private initiatives. This lead to a new form of governance that substituted conflicting and managerial modes of policymaking and implementation. This form of governance is known as collaborative governance (Ansell & Gash, 2007). A lot of research has been done to compose a workable definition of the concept governance. Stoker (1998) argues that among the various interpretations of the term, there is an agreement that governance refers to the development of governing styles were the boundaries between and within public and private sectors have become blurred. Le Galles (1998) gives another useful description of the concept governance:

“Governance is a process of coordination political decision-making implicating different actors, social groups and institutions in a particular institutional context to attain appropriate goals that have been discussed and collectively defined in fragmented, uncertain environments” (Le Galles (1998) in Tasan-Kok, 2010:21).

This collaborative approach emerged after the continuing decentralization of planning and management in practice over the past decades (Lane & McDonald, 2005). One could also argue that collaboration between various stakeholders is getting more common since the growth of knowledge and institutional capacity in the private sector has increased (Ansell & Gash, 2007). It has led to an understanding of governance as a process were multiple stakeholders (the term ‘stakeholder’ is used in this research to refer to the participation of every actor who has a stake in the development of a certain project) try to engage in consensus-oriented decision-making. Although there are cases in which specific actors have the authority to make the ultimate decision, the drive to reach consensus is a mark of a collaborative process already (Ansell & Gash, 2007). The increasing shift from top-down governmental planning to more bottom-up collaborative processes in urban planning can be defined as collaborative planning

Public-private partnerships as a form of collaborative planning Collaborative governance or planning and the concept of public-private partnerships (PPPs) can sometimes specify the same phenomenon. In the case of a PPP, an agreement between public and private actors is made to deliver specific services or perform certain tasks. Bovaird defines a PPP project as follows:

“PPPs are working arrangements based on a mutual commitment (over and above that implied in any contract) between a public sector organization with any other organization outside the public sector” (Bovaird, 2004:200)

As said before, large-scale projects are mostly examples of PPPs. First, some rationales for governments to form a partnership with a private party should be given. From an instrumental perspective, creating a partnership with a private actor can give the public stakeholder access to technical expertise and established networks of private actors. It is also a way in which ‘businesslike’ practice and thinking is imported into the public sector (Brinkerhoff & Brinkerhoff, 2011). Besides that, sharing the financial risks of a project with a private partner is also attractive to the public sector.

PPPs require collaboration to function. A lot of literature has underlined the increasing significance of collaboration between governmental and non-governmental actors in the making of urban public policies. As Newman states this:

“The idea of a shift from markets and hierarchies towards networks and partnerships as modes of coordination is a dominant narrative” (Newman, 2005:85)

These governance networks or PPPs have the potential to extend the public sphere, empower communities and lead to inclusive policy making. PPPs have long been seen as the organizational solution to pressing societal problems (Rhodes, 1997). However, the critics of this perspective see network governance as a crucial part of the neoliberal predominance in today’s society (Blanco, 2015). In their opinion, network governance is not developing new ways of urban power, but only increasing the consolidation of urban power in the hands of a few political and business elites. The question is if these network governances are as

11 democratic as they seem. Governance theorists seem to agree on the fact that governance networks represent a threat to the traditional institutions of liberal democracy, but they do not see them as a threat to democracy itself. Governance networks suggest to suffer from the lack of open competition, legitimacy problems, and the absence of transparency, publicity and accountability (Sørensen & Torfing, 2005). On the other hand, governance network theorists also mention the possibility of governance networks creating new ways of democracy (Sørensen & Torfing, 2005). Some critiques have focused on this changing role of the state and see the changing role of state actors as hollowing out or decline of the of the state. As Stoker states in 1998:

“Governance is the acceptable phase of spending cuts” (Stoker, 1998:18)

Rhodes (2016) studies this changing role of the state and tries to answer the question whether the state is rolling back to create a minimalist state or whether it is rolling out to broaden its influence by incorporating and outsourcing others into public governance. Rhodes mentions that institutional differentiation and pluralization is common, which creates multiple challenges for the capacity of core actors to steer. It can lead to control deficits that undermine the central’s authority in politics (Rhodes, 2000).

Collaborative planning in large-scale urban development projects Today, cities across the world face enormous demands while public resources are often under pressure. As said, many cities deal with underutilized areas as for example former harbour districts, that need to be repurposed for a radically changed economy (Noring & Katz, 2018). Governments challenge to finance this kind of efforts. This is often done by creating new, innovative public-private cooperations through which the commercial yield of publicly owned land and buildings is increased. A concept that is entangled with this topic is consensus building. Consensus building can include a lot of activities, but in this research, it will be referred to as done by Innes & Booher (1999). They describe it as an array of practices in which stakeholders come together for a long-term, face-to-face dialogue to address a policy issue or a common concern (Innes & Booher, 1999). This consensus building approach tries to assure that all stakeholders are heard and respected and that discussions are based on the interests of stakeholders and not simply on arguments about fixed positions (Fisher & Ury, 1981).

Tasan-Kok (2010) addresses that in various researches, large-scale projects done in the form of a PPP are often connected to the formation of new modes of governance. Furthermore, it is said that the projects might create new instruments and processes of planning. This means that new institutional conditions are formed. In paragraph 2.3, more will be explained on how the cooperation between various stakeholders can be transferred into this (rather new) ways of planning processes concerning waterfront (re)development.

2.3 Planning processes of urban waterfront (re)development Different processes on different levels In the first two paragraphs of this theoretical framework, urban waterfront (re)development and the concept of institutional conditions, collaborative planning and PPPs have been discussed. These concepts will now come together in this paragraph.

An urban waterfront development project is the result of a process; one which involves all levels of government, significant amounts of capital and various organizations and individuals (stakeholders), all with their own agendas (Shaw, 2001). To quote Shaw (2001):

“In the consideration of waterfront projects, one must understand the peculiarities of the context and their relationship to international frameworks. Only in this way can understandings from one situation be applicable as lessons to another” (Shaw, 2001:7)

When one considers the various experiences of waterfront redevelopment projects and plans of different cities, a rich diversity in planning processes can be seen. There is a range of factors (e.g. market conditions, institutional arrangements) that determine the emergence of specific planning styles. To get a first understanding of the transformation of waterfront redevelopment, Brindley et al (1996) bring forward an analytical framework to divide planning styles and their contextual determinants (Galland & Hansen, 2012; Brindley et al., 1996).

Planning styles of large-scale projects Table 1 shows the different planning styles and a number of analytical variables that come along with them. The framework is based on the UK planning style, which means that it can be seen as a loose understanding of the analysis of waterfront redevelopment projects in de subsequent chapters of this research.

Table 1: Planning styles and their contextual determinants.

Source: Adapted from Brindley et al (1996) by Galland & Hansen (2012).

Brindley et al (1996) state that public-investment, planning and regulative planning line up with a plan-led logic in the context of urban change. In both planning styles, private actors have a minor influence. Both styles of planning normally seek to benefit the public interest (Galland & Hansen, 2012). In case of public-investment planning the public sector gives funds and chooses redevelopment plans that are benefitting local lower income groups. The private sector plays a relatively small role in this style of planning (Galland & Hansen, 2012). The politics of regulative planning have a technical-political nature which is characterized by expertise of for example planning professionals. Rational forms of decision-making and public participation are used to reach consensus (Brindley et al., 1996).

Trend planning and leverage planning illustrate a more market-driven logic in waterfront redevelopment planning. Trend planning reacts on the sensed weaknesses of regulative planning. It therefore adds market criteria into development control services (Brindley et al., 1996). Powerful state actors are characteristic for this type of planning as well (Galland & Hansen, 2012). Leverage planning is put into practice when public sector funding is used to stimulate the market in order to attract private-sector investments. The public sector has a strong leadership in this planning style and makes urban development possible. The public sector promotes the rise of public-private partnerships. The biggest difference between trend planning and leverage planning is that in the latter urban development is already given, while in the former it must be stimulated (Galland & Hansen, 2012).

The way in which different stakeholders cooperate in the planning process of a waterfront redevelopment project can result in a certain planning style. In this research, the aim is to figure out how particular institutional conditions can cope with challenges that come along with waterfront redevelopment. Planning styles can be seen as a part of these institutional conditions. Since these planning processes can be very context specific, the framework that is given here can be seen as a loose understanding. The next paragraph will go into the challenges that come along urban waterfront redevelopment projects.

2.4 Challenges in urban waterfront planning processes Challenges in waterfront planning In the previous paragraphs, institutional conditions plus the cooperation between various stakeholders have been discussed. It should be clear by now that large-scale urban regeneration projects, a category to which we can classify urban waterfront development projects, are highly complex as they involve multiple actors with different expectations (Tasan-Kok, 2010). In the following paragraph, the challenges that are faced by stakeholders within the framework of large-scale waterfront (re)development projects will be addressed.

Marshall (2011) states in his book ‘Waterfronts in Post-Industrial Cities’ that by nature, many former industrial waterfronts in post-industrial cities are problematic. Most of the time these sites are separated from the physical, economic and social activity of the city centre. In the past, these sites of industry served their function extremely well, but today they leave us with underutilized parcels (Marshall, 2011). Not surprisingly, when developing such a large-scale project there are numerous challenges to cope with. These challenges can be classified into various groups and will be explained in this paragraph.

. Conflicting, competing and shifting aims of stakeholders As mentioned earlier, large-scale projects like urban waterfront redevelopment can be seen as a process of coordinating decision-making. Le Gales (2001) describes these networks of various state and non-state stakeholders trying to collaborate and reach their common goals, as policy networks. A common characteristic of these policy networks is the conflicting and competing aims of a variety of stakeholders. Compromising and harmonizing collective interests takes time and energy and therefore costs money. Moreover, the public and private actors might have different agendas since the public sector strives for the public good instead of wealth accumulation (Tasan-Kok, 2010).

“Balancing public and private interests in governance systems appears to pose a major challenge, and the outcome seems problematic” (Tasan-Kok, 2010:130)

Due to this major challenge of comparing public and private interests, large-scale projects are heavily criticized in the literature. These projects often lead to the sponsoring of high profit sectors and only a few benefits for the local society (Tasan-Kok, 2010). Moreover, once these common goals can be set, they can still shift over time. Actors respond to changing market conditions and externalities, which may change the actors’ targets and priorities. This makes the whole process even more complicated (Tasan-Kok, 2010).

. Weaknesses in political or business leadership Basset et al (2002) mention in their article about the waterfront regeneration in Bristol a list of challenges that had to be dealt with in that particular planning process. One such challenge was the lack of leadership on either the political or the business side of the project. Even though a partnership looks strong on paper, it can turn out that the structure of governance is weaker and less coordinated when put under pressure (Basset et al., 2012). Besides this, power imbalances between stakeholders are a commonly noted problem in collaborative governance and public-private partnerships (Anshell & Gash, 2007). When there are stakeholders that do not have the capacity, resources, organization or status to engage in the decision-making process, it may occur that these actors are prone to be manipulated by stronger actors (Anshell & Gash, 2007). Finally, this imbalance produces distrust or weak commitment (Gray, 1989).

. The strength of opposition groups The NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) concept is mainly used to explain public opposition to new developments that are emerging near to homes and communities. It is characterizing the social response to unwanted facilities, in planning sometimes called; locally unwanted land uses (LULUs) (Schively, 2007). Planners are often faced with the challenges of responding to public opposition. The manner in which is dealt with these opposition groups or responses, influences the viability of the project and development decision-making (Schively, 2007).

. Sensitivity to fluctuations on the financial market Since the shift from a managerial mode of governance to a more entrepreneurial mode of governance in a lot of Western cities, the influence of the global financial sector on our societies has become crucial (Tasan-Kok, 2010). More global financial activities have been

15 brought into cities, together with a growing amount of portfolio investments and an ongoing increase in property led urban development. An increasing amount of international capital and a rising number of actors are participating in the property market, which makes consensus making more complex. On a spatial level, this leads to large-scale projects that are funded, developed and managed by international companies or partnerships (Tasan-Kok, 2010). This makes that urban development is more responsive to fluctuations of financial markets (Fainstein, 1994).

. Public sector lack of knowledge about private sector dynamics Often in PPP’s the public sector stays a passive partner, only participating through landownership. One of the reasons for this can be the lack of knowledge of market expectations. The public sector has a limited knowledge about private sector operations (Tasan-Kok, 2010). As Adams & Tiesdell (2010) argue: in most Western countries much of the built environment is created by the private sector. This leads to the fact that spatial planners should be able to understand and influence private property markets and development processes. When the public sector would be more aware of the private sector dynamics, this would give the public sector possibilities to maneuver more easily and adequately.

. Port-city and city-port relationships Marshall (2001) describes that the relationship between the port, the city, the state and the public is always complex. Most of the time these waterfront areas have to deal with a lack of infrastructure, competition and an increasing mistrust and criticism of the public. On the other hand, European port cities have forged a strong bond between the port and the city, over time (Marshall, 2011). Since ports have been interwoven physically, politically and economically with city centres for centuries, this relationship has had a big influence on the spatial organization of European port cities (much more so than in American cities). Due to the changing nature of the connection between the port and the city and changes in the role of port authorities, the relationship between city and port can be challenging after waterfront redevelopment.

. Planning system challenges Tasan-Kok (2010) divides challenges concerning urban planning into four specific groups. In this research, these will be gathered under one heading. Challenges in the planning system can have various causes. A lack of innovative instruments is one of these; tailor-made planning instruments are needed for the implementation of large-scale projects. These instruments should accommodate explicit conditions and complexities and moreover help to make the project management a success (Tasan-Kok, 2010). Another aspect that should be kept in mind is the fact that large-scale projects have a big impact on the physical development of a wider area. Effects of a development project can be felt throughout the city. This is especially challenging for the public sector since they are also involved with the social innovation and society’s appreciation of the outcomes (Tasan-Kok, 2010).

In conclusion, there are many different challenges that can come along with large-scale development projects. Even though quite some factors have been summarized here, there are numerous of other elements which can have an influence on a process or a project. Therefore, this broad framework can be seen as an useful list of challenges which is open to

16 findings from respondents. In the next paragraph, success factors concerning urban development will be shortly explained.

2.5 Which factors can lead to success? In the former paragraph, certain challenges coming along with large-scale urban development projects have been addressed. However, since this research will take a critical but constructive approach, this paragraph will also elaborate on success factors in urban development. In this thesis, it is argued that the institutional conditions of HafenCity in Hamburg have been successful in dealing with certain (unforeseen) challenges in waterfront redevelopment, according to different stakeholders of the project.

Many studies have tried to identify success factors for urban development. This is hard, since it should be kept in mind that various actors can judge the success of a development in very different ways (Franzen et al., 2011). Nevertheless, it is possible to come up with a loose framework to determine success factors. The components of this framework are directed towards the successful development in terms of the process of an urban area. The three levels of the framework for success factors will be shortly explained. The classification into levels is significant, since some success factors can be driven by powerful stakeholders, while others cannot. The difference between the levels lies in the ability of major players to influence the factors in question (Franzen et al., 2011).

The first level of context factors is unable to be influenced by actors. This includes for example the economic and political climate, the demographics and the cultural background of an urban area. The second level of success factors depends on the necessary conditions. These conditions can be driven or modified by stakeholders. These factors are necessary, but not enough for success. The third and last level is that of the critical success factors. These factors have a major influence on the outcome of a project but are relatively difficult for actors to influence. Most of these critical success factors address the process of a project, such as; trust and openness between parties, leadership during the process, the image of the redeveloped site, the reduction of complexity and proactive policy makers (Franzen et al., 2011). In attachment 1, a list of these necessary conditions and critical success factors can be found. It is important to mention that this list is by no means exhaustive.

Figure 1: Three levels of success factors

Source: Franzen et al (2011).

Of course, the three levels of success factors that are distinguished here, can interact with each other. Besides this, the boundary between the levels necessary conditions and critical success factors is not always clear. Moreover, the presence of a given success factor does not guarantee the successful development of a project. It can only increase the possibility of a successful development (Franzen et al., 2011).

This framework of success factors will be used to categorize what kind of processes, measurements or policy making can be successful in different contexts and therefore might be interesting to, in this case, shift from the project of HafenCity Hamburg to the project of Haven-Stad in Amsterdam. In the last paragraph of this theoretical framework, the possibilities for policy transfer will be discussed.

2.6 Transferability of policies The use(fulness) of policy transfer In the previous paragraphs various parts of the planning process in urban waterfront redevelopment have been mentioned. The challenges and successes that come along with this process have been reviewed too. In this second-to-last paragraph, the concept of policy transfer (or the equivalent concept of lesson learning) will be explained. This framework is used in this research to measure, to what extend lessons that have been learnt in the case study of this research, can be transferred to another urban context. Policy transfer and lesson learning are common topics within political studies and public policy analysis, nowadays. Policy transfer is widely understood by the concept of Dolowitz (2000):

“A process by which knowledge of policies, administrative arrangements, institutions and ideas in one political system (past or present) is used in the development of similar features in another” (Dolowitz, 2000:3).

Policy transfer has been broadly used as a concept to classify and explain various processes, occurring both within and between different political contexts. In the context of spatial planning the focus lies on the implication of best practices in different urban contexts (Stead, 2012). The underlying belief of this is that by identifying, promoting and spreading good practice, this will lead to improvements and helps to create transnational learning of policies and practice. In 2006, the European Union came up with the Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment (CEC, 2006), a document that probably has the most to say about best practices concerning spatial planning and development (Stead, 2012). This strategy states that many solutions already exist in certain cities and can be transferred and sometimes improved to be used in other contexts. The document argues that access of local authorities to existing solutions should be improved, and by that, allow them to develop solutions for their own situation (CEC, 2006). On the global level there is attention for best practice too. For example, the OECD and World Bank published reports and papers about best practices (OECD, 2011; World Bank, 2000). This range of European and global policies shows that the development and dissemination of best practice is considered to be important. It can make policy transfer and learning possible (Stead, 2012).

The opinions about the usefulness of policy transferring among researchers are oppositional. According to Bulkeley (2006), the use of best practices meaning to provide knowledge by which similar projects and processes can be undertaken, can lead to policy change. Policy

18 transfer was subsequently shown to take place within horizontal and vertical actor networks. Moreover, it is extending across governance scales below the state, both within countries but also transnational (Betsill & Bulkley, 2004). Research has shown that sub-national institutions, such as regional and local governments, can be identified as important transfer agents, benefiting from linked processes as for example globalization and devolution (Betsill & Bulkley, 2004). Moreover, the influence of transnational corporations as the OECD and global financial institutions, was shown to be powerful in times of greater globalization (Benson & Jordan, 2011). Besides this, the two actors of political consultants and non-governmental institutions seem to be engaged in promoting policy transfer across national borders too (Dolowitz & Marsh, 2000).

Factors that determine transferability On the other hand, there are also limitations to the transferability of policy into another context. Literature shows that different policy concepts take root in different European countries and demonstrate the unlikeliness of best practices leading to the same outcomes in different European member states (Stead, 2012). Best practices often have to be made explicit by taking out the knowledge about a process or instrument to make it applicable for another case. This is not as easy as it seems, since expressing this tactic knowledge into formal language is often clumsy and imprecisely articulated (Stead, 2012). This leads to the fact that best practices are often shortened and sanitized, and since they lack in detail, it is hard to implement the practices somewhere else. As Stead (2012) states:

“Clearly, the less detailed an example of best practice is (and the more sanitized the account of its design and implementation), the less likely it will be that the example can be replicated somewhere else” (Stead, 2012:108).

In terms of transferability of best practice, the OECD differentiates between various factors of best practice and to what extend each of these can be transferred (see table 2) (OECD, 2011). In the beginning, studies focused on the ‘hard’ transfer of policy instruments such as institutions and programs between governments. Nowadays, it turns out that the importance of ‘softer’ transfer of policy instruments as, for example ideologies and concepts, gain more importance as well (Benson & Jordan, 2011). Stone (2010) states that the ‘soft’ and the ‘hard’ forms of transfer exist side-by-side and can be a supplement to one another.

The OECD highlights the need to examine who is involved in the transfer process. A differentiation is made between top down transfer processes done by promoters (for example national agencies) and bottom-up processes initiated by recipients. It is said that this last example works the best (Stead, 2012).

Table 2: Factors of local development practices and their transferability

Source: OECD (2011).

Benson and Jordan (2011) state that combination of policy transfer and multi-level governance has revealed new modes of inter-organizational (vertical and horizontal) transfer activities. Even beyond traditional peer-to-peer networks of national governments. To conclude, policy transfer is still a useful concept that transfers easily across sub-disciplines and analytical contexts. In this thesis, the framework of policy transferring will be used to look into whether policy transferring is possible between HafenCity in Hamburg and Haven-Stad in Amsterdam.

2.7 Summary of the theoretical framework In this theoretical framework, many different concepts have been discussed. It should be clear by now that waterfront redevelopment has a long history in which new policies, strategies and practices have been combined with previous planning styles, which has led to new innovative planning processes and instruments. During these projects, different public and private stakeholders often work together and various challenges can be faced. To measure whether policy implications or institutional conditions are successful in addressing these challenges, some success factors can be distinguished. This is difficult, since success can be described in different ways by different stakeholders.

In this theoretical framework, three elements have been introduced which will be used as frameworks for the further research. In chronological order, these are the challenges of large- scale redevelopment projects listed in paragraph 2.4. Furthermore, figure 1 (Three levels of success factors) by Franzen et al. (2011) will be used to distinguish the context factors, necessary conditions and critical success factors from the case of HafenCity in Hamburg. These success factors will then be used in combination with table 2 (Factors of local development practices and their transferability) from the OECD (2011), to measure whether policy transferring between the case of HafenCity and the case of Haven-Stad is possible. As written in paragraph 2.6, it can be useful to transfer knowledge from one case to another and learn from each other. In the next chapter, the methodology on how this research is set up will be explained.

3. METHODOLOGY This chapter elaborates on the research methods used in this thesis. It further discusses the research strategy of this thesis and clarifies the reasons for the selection of a case study approach. Second, it specifies the data collection- and data analysis methods of this research. The contexts of the cases that have been studied are explained in chapter 4 and 5.

3.1 Research design The strategy of this study is a broad qualitative approach. The main aim of the research is to gain insight in how institutional conditions can cope with challenges coming along with the process of inner-city waterfront redevelopment. The aim of the research is translated into the following research question:

The research question will be answered by focusing on the project HafenCity in Hamburg. Yin (2009) distinguished five types of different case studies. In the opinion of the researcher, the case study of Hamburg HafenCity would fit the exemplifying case. It exemplifies a broader category of which it is a member, and to that extent can provide data that can be used to answer the research question. A case study entails the detailed and intensive analysis of a single case. Observation and (unstructured) interviews are very helpful when it comes to generating information on a detailed case (Bryman, 2012). Therefore, qualitative research methods like semi-structured interviews, observations and literature/policy reviews will be used to collect data for this research. Since the data collection methods will be qualitative, the research will take an inductive approach: the focus will lie on the connection between theory and research (Bryman, 2012).

Addressing a constructive approach by using a pilot study Besides the focus on the case of HafenCity in Hamburg, the project of Haven-Stad in Amsterdam is chosen as a pilot study. A pilot study or pilot experiment can be described as a small scale preliminary study. Often, a pilot study is used as a small study that will help identify design issues before the main research is done (Arain & Campbell, 2010). Of course, this is not exactly the case in this research, but the set-up of a pilot study fits to the small size of the explorative research which is done on the case of Haven-Stad Amsterdam.

As said, this research tries to use a constructive approach through which similar cases in different urban contexts might learn something from each other. Since the project of Haven- Stad is just in its infancy, the explorative method of using a pilot study is chosen to see whether policy implications or institutional conditions from HafenCity, are transferable. The connection between the two cases is made in the concluding part of this research. In the next paragraph a brief explanation on why these two cases have been chosen for this research will be given.

3.1.1 Why these two case studies? Globalization is a concept that dominates our current times. It shapes economic paths and determines living quality. Port-cities are at the frontline of globalization; around 90% of the international trade volume is transported by ship, loaded and unloaded in one of the world’s port cities. These cities are interlinked with their ports, and the presence of a port brings special challenges to these cities. These challenges can relate to different topics such as the environment, land use or urban traffic. Even though the relevance of these topics seems high, research has paid little attention to this linkage between ports and urban development (OECD, 2014). The city of Hamburg, where one of the biggest ports of Europe is connected with a metropolis, seems a good case to study this relevant topic. In the opinion of the researcher, the chance that Europe’s biggest inner-city waterfront redevelopment project copes with challenges which might occur in other inner-city waterfront redevelopment projects is present. Moreover, the concept of HafenCity has been regarded as a model for major international urban development projects, and functions as a blueprint for the European city of the 21st century by the organization of HafenCity itself (HafenCity.de, 2017). It is interesting to put this concept into a critical but constructive context.

As stated in the first chapter of this thesis, the linkage between different waterfront redevelopment researches is often missing. Therefore, in this research it is chosen to do a pilot study, to explore whether policy transfer between two projects might be possible. Amsterdam Haven-Stad is the elected case for this linkage since this project is still in its infancy. The characteristics of this project are very similar to the characteristics of the project HafenCity, which makes them comparable. This will be made more explicit in chapter 4 and 5 of this research.

3.1.2 Sub questions and stages of research A set of sub questions will complement and support the process of answering the main research question. These questions will provide conclusions that will trickle down to a main outcome.

. How can the inner-city waterfront redevelopment project of Hamburg be defined? . What kind of (unforeseen) challenges and success factors can be distinguished from the planning process of HafenCity Hamburg? . Which actors are involved and what kind of planning process do these actors follow in the project HafenCity Hamburg? . Is there a possibility for transferring policy measures from the case of HafenCity to the case of Haven-Stad?

The empirical part of this research and the elaboration upon this can be divided into different stages (see table 3). These four stages follow up the literature review of the theoretical framework, in which sub question 1 has been answered. In stage 2, the context of the case HafenCity will be outlined by reading policy documents, considering which stakeholders are involved in the project and by using information retrieved from semi-structured interviews. These semi-structured interviews together with observations on the site and desk research are used to answer sub question 2 and 3. In stage 3, more desk research is done and

22 information out of the semi-structured interviews is used to draw conclusions upon the possibility of policy transferring. With this information sub question 4 will be answered. Finally, the data is analyzed in stage 4 to complete the research by answering the research question.

Table 3: Stages of research Stage Goal Methodology (Sub) question 0 Literature review Desk research 1 1 Distinguish Policy review, semi- 2 stakeholders and structured planning process interviews, field of influence analysis 2 Find out (unforeseen) Semi-structured 3 challenges and interviews, success factors observations, desk- research 3 Look into possibilities Semi-structured 4 for policy transferring interviews, desk- research 4 Draw conclusions Analyze data Research question

3.2 Operationalization To be able to find answers to the sub- and main research question of this research, the concepts that are used in this research have been operationalized.

The operationalization will be done by using five main concepts. First the concept inner-city waterfront redevelopment has been operationalized. Literature research and policy reviews have been done to come up with a good perception of this concept, which will be used throughout the research. Another important concept of this research is the definition of the institutional conditions. The specific types of institutional conditions will be measured by using the stakeholders’ analysis, policy reviews and by data gathered via the interviews. The researcher will describe the way in which these institutional conditions have been formed, without using a strict theoretical framework for this. The concept of planning process is connected to this, since it sets the context under which institutional conditions are formed, and the other way around. Various types of planning processes have been listed in the theoretical framework, this will be used as an understanding for the researcher to embed her findings.

The operationalization of the analytical framework is done by using three frameworks. First, the challenges of inner-city waterfront redevelopment will be distracted from the policy review and interviews. The challenges mentioned in the theoretical framework (see table 4) will be used as a guideline, also to structure the interviews. It is important to mention that the interviewer was open towards hearing unexpected challenges. Due to the semi-structured method of the interviews, there were opportunities for the respondents to come up with their own findings.

Table 4: Challenges coming along with large-scale projects Conflicting, shifting and competing aims of stakeholders Weaknesses in political or business leadership The strength of opposition groups Sensitivity to fluctuations on the financial market Public sectors lack of knowledge about private sector dynamics Port-city and city-port relationships Planning system challenges Based on : Tasan-Kok (2010); Basset et al. (2012) ; Anshell & Gash (2007) ; Fainstein (1994) ; Marshall (2011).

Moreover, the different success factors for urban development are used to measure what kind of institutional conditions can deal with challenges in inner-city waterfront redevelopment. The framework of Franzen et al (2011) (figure 1) will be used for this. A description on the necessary conditions and critical success factors of this framework can be found in attachment 1. Lastly, the concept of policy transferring will be used in the final sub question. This concept has been defined in the theoretical framework and will be applied to the cases of HafenCity Hamburg and Haven-Stad Amsterdam. Table 2 ‘Factors of local development practices and their transferability’ by the OECD (2011) is used to classify the transferability of the necessary conditions and critical success factors from HafenCity to the case of Haven-Stad.

3.3 Methods of data collection Various methods have been used for this research to collect data. First, various academic articles and policy papers have been read to get a good understanding of the topic and the two cases. During this process, different stakeholders have been identified and approached to arrange an interview. The interviews are an important source of information for this research. After the literature review and the interviews, a field of influence analysis has been done. This kind of analyses are getting increasingly important, concerning the growing interaction between various stakeholders in today’s society. Policy documents have been read to get a good understanding of both case studies. In this paragraph these methods will be briefly explained.

3.3.1 Policy review Various policy documents have been read to gain knowledge and understanding about the two cases of this research. Since one part of this research focusses on the transferability of policy into another context, it is important to have a framework that can classify policy implications into different levels. Special attention is put to the similarities and the differences in the discourse of the policy documents of the two projects. The two models given in the theoretical framework; figure 1 (Three levels of success factors) and table 2 (Factors of local development practice and their transferability) will be used to divide these policy measures into a usable context. Respondents have been asked as well, whether they think some policy measures might be applicable from one case to the other. Table 5 shows a summary of the reviewed policy documents. These documents can be found online.

Table 5: Reviewed policy documents HafenCity Hamburg Haven-Stad Amsterdam HafenCity Hamburg – der Masterplan (2000) Transformatie strategie Haven-Stad (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2013) HafenCity Hamburg – der Masterplan (2006) Startnotitie Ontwikkelingstrategie Haven- Stad (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016) Three contrasting approaches to urban Haven-Stad, Concept Ontwikkelingstrategie redevelopment and waterfront (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017) transformations in Hamburg (Schubert, n.d) HafenCity Hamburg - Themes Quarters Projects (2017) HafenCity Hamburg – Facts and figures, important information about HafenCity (2018)

3.3.2 Interviews For this research, semi-structured interviews have been conducted. This type of interviews fits this research, since it leaves space for the respondents to come up with their own topics (Bryman, 2008). Gathering data in a way like this is flexible and leads to an iterative process. Upfront, a topic list has been made to guarantee that every interview covers the same topics (attachment 2). Table 6 mentions the respondents and their case of interest.

Table 6: Respondents Respondent and case of interest Duration of interview Respondent 1, Haven-Stad Amsterdam. 40 minutes

Respondent 2, Haven-Stad Amsterdam. 25 minutes

Respondent 3, HafenCity Hamburg. 55 minutes

Respondent 4, Waterfront projects in general. 55 minutes

Respondent 5, HafenCity Hamburg. 50 minutes

Respondent 6, Haven-Stad Amsterdam. 30 minutes

Respondent 7, Haven-Stad Amsterdam. 45 minutes

Respondent 8, HafenCity Hamburg and Haven-Stad Amsterdam. 60 minutes

Respondent 9, HafenCity Hamburg. Via e-mail

It should be mentioned that quotes which are used in the analysis of this research have, in some cases, been translated from Dutch to English or from German to English. The quotes can be found in the original language in the transcriptions of the interviews. Moreover, a broad description on the function of the respondents can be found in attachment 3.

3.4 Methods of data analysis After the data was collected, the gathered information has been analyzed. First, the recorded interviews were transcribed. Furthermore, these transcriptions have been coded with the program NVivo. Concepts can easily be distinguished out of the interviews with this tool. The answers on the sub questions have partly been formed by using the outcomes of the interviews and complemented with data from policy documents and literature research. The codes of data analysis can be found in attachment 4.

3.4.1 Field of influence analysis In order to get a good understanding of the stakeholders involved with the case of HafenCity, a field of influence analysis is done. This analysis is based on information out of policy documents and literature research but also on the semi-structured interviews with different respondents. This analysis is done by using the ‘power versus interest grid’ (see figure 2).

The framework visualizes what kind of power and interest certain actors have (Bryson, 2004). It maps out the stakeholders involved and classifies them into their power and interest in the project. This kind of analyses become more important than ever since the increasingly interconnected nature of the world. When it comes to public projects or problems, many different actors are involved or affected and have some responsibility to act (Bryson, 2004). Mapping out the power and interest of various actors in a project also contributes to the effective leadership and governance in policy domains (Radin, 2002). For this reason, it is important to have a good understanding of the stakeholders involved in a project, and of the networks they are part of.

Figure 2: Power versus interest grid.

Source: Eden and Ackermann (1998)

The grid arrays stake holders on a two-by-two matrix. The dimensions are the stakeholders interest (in a political sense) and the stakeholders’ power to intervene in the projects future (Bryson, 2004). This leads to four different categories in the grid. First of them are the players; these stakeholders have both a high interest and are high in power. Second are the subjects; these stakeholders have a high interest in the project but have little power. Third are the context setters; these actors have a lot of power but show little interest in the project. Last are the stakeholders which can be seen as the crowd; they have little interest and little power to influence the project (Bryson, 2004).

3.5 Conceptual framework In this last paragraph, the concepts of this research have been visualized into a conceptual framework. This framework shows the different concepts that influence inner-city waterfront redevelopment projects. In this research, the project HafenCity in Hamburg is chosen as the main case study. One of the sub dimensions of this research is looking into whether it might be possible to transfer some successful institutional conditions from the case of HafenCity in Hamburg to the context of Haven-Stad in Amsterdam.

Figure 3: Conceptual framework of the research

INNER-CITY WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT

Challenges in large- Planning processes Institutional scale redevelopment conditions projects

Success factors for

dealing with challenges

POLICY TRANSFER

Source: own work (2018)

4. HAFENCITY HAMBURG EXPLAINED Following up on chapter 3, this chapter will elaborate on the main case of this research: HafenCity. First, an explanation of the waterfront redevelopment project in Hamburg is given. In the second paragraph, certain challenges that have been faced during the planning process of HafenCity will be explained. The framework of large-scale redevelopment challenges, which is given in the theoretical framework, is used to analyze the case of HafenCity. Following up on the stakeholders’ analysis, the planning process and planning system of HafenCity Hamburg are discussed in the third paragraph. In the last paragraph, the focus will lie on identifying HafenCity’s success factors. The framework of success factors by Franzen et al (2011) is used in this chapter to determine the context variables, necessary conditions and critical success factors in the project of HafenCity.

4.1 HafenCity: a public-private partnership steered by the public The main case study of this research is the project HafenCity in Hamburg, Germany. Hamburg is the city with Europe’s second largest port, situated on the estuary of the river Elbe, about 100 kilometers upstream from the North Sea. The city of Hamburg has about 1.8 million inhabitants and is part of the Hamburg Metropolitan Region. The three German federal states of Schleswig-Holstein, Lower Saxony and Hamburg work together voluntarily. Hamburg is as the only metropolis in the core of this region, which makes that Hamburg plays an important role on the regional, national and global level (Schubert, n.d).

Since the economy of the metropolitan region of Hamburg is growing, some challenges need to be solved. One of these challenges is the lack of housing in the region of Hamburg. In 2004, it was predicted that the city would gain over 80.000 new inhabitants by 2020. Another challenge on the regional level is the expansion of the port of Hamburg. When the older, less efficient port facilities began to decline, the port area became a potential redevelopment site. This was why after almost ten years of preparation, in February 2000, Hamburg’s Senate gave its approval for the new inner-city district of HafenCity (see figure 4). The area is being developed in the former harbour area. A Masterplan has been created, which is seen as a blueprint for the development of HafenCity, even though it is still flexible enough to adapt to future changes which might affect the development process (HafenCity.de, 2017).

Figure 4: Location and impression of HafenCity Hamburg

Source: Google Maps (2018), Hamburg HafenCity Hamburg GmbH (2016)

In the Masterplan of HafenCity, five principal objectives of the project are given. These objectives will be shortly explained here. . Mix of land-uses: a mixed urban structure will be created in HafenCity. This will strengthen the residential role of the city centre and create opportunities for in retail, education, culture, entertainment, tourism and so on. . The structure of urban development: HafenCity is designed to have a city centre character, but still keep the typical appearance of a port. The relationship between land and water needs to stay visible by creating a maritime atmosphere in an urban environment. . Town planning regarding public waterfront spaces: public places will be given special attention in the project of HafenCity. The numerous embankments will be used to create meeting places with a distinctive character. . Integration into the city: The present city of Hamburg and the new HafenCity will be connected as closely as possible with one and another. A connection between the city parts must be made to create a cohesive central district. . Sustainability and ecology: HafenCity will be created with the long-term future firmly in focus. Climate-changing influences will be reduced to the minimum (Masterplan, 2006).

HafenCity as a large-scale project Projects to revitalize former harbour areas started in North America in the 1960s. Over time, more and more cities around the world transformed their underutilized harbour areas (in Europe often close to the city centre) into urban areas. Current waterfront redevelopment projects are often seen as prestige projects on a large-scale, used to reimage the image of a city. Moreover, new planning policies and systems are created to deal with these projects.

The case of HafenCity fits to the specifications of a fourth-generation inner-city waterfront redevelopment project. Respondent 3 (personal communication, April 26, 2018) states; some people think Hamburg is already ‘late’ with the redevelopment of the old harbour district.

“When the plan for HafenCity Hamburg was announced everybody was like ‘wow’! The images in the newspaper about what could be created here: everybody thought it was a good idea. Compared to for example London or Rotterdam, Hamburg is quite a late comer. So the people of Hamburg also wanted a project like this” (Respondent 3, personal communication, April 26, 2018).

When talking about large-scale projects HafenCity really fits its description. Hamburg is one of the most ambitious urban regeneration projects in the world. By the time HafenCity is finished (around 2025), it will probably double the population of Hamburg’s city centre. In the Masterplan (2006) of the project, its developers see HafenCity is as the blueprint for the new European city on the waterfront. To quote from the policy document ‘Themes Quarters Projects’ (HafenCity, 2017):

“In developing a new urban area on the Elbe, Hamburg is setting new standards in Europe and beyond as an ambitious integrated urban development, answering both local needs and global requirements”

The project HafenCity is a major real estate development project, with a lot of different actors participating. HafenCity Hamburg GmbH is set up to oversee all the activities and function as city manager of the development. Hamburg GmbH is 100 percent owned by the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg (the municipality of Hamburg). This separate agency manages relations between the public and private sector and acquires and contacts real estate developers and large users. Setting up an independent body like this is a way to facilitate the finances of the project and play the role of a mediator when conflicts arise between different stakeholders (HafenCity.de, 2017; OECD, 2014). More about the stakeholders and the planning process of HafenCity will be explained in paragraph 3 of this chapter.

According to HafenCity Hamburg GmbH, the area’s very central location and the high expectations of quality that is reflected in for example its fine-grained mix of uses, creation of social encounters between various people and many smaller and larger innovations, is what makes Hamburg an exception from other major international urban waterside redevelopment projects. The city of Hamburg also sees the project of HafenCity as a way to reimage the image of the city. Aim of the project is to underscore Hamburg’s identity as a maritime port city in a highly urban context, as a place of innovation and with superb infrastructural connections (HafenCity, 2017). To reach this goal, a broad consensus on the objectives and the measures of the plan is needed. This has been realized by exchanging ideas between different parties in an early stage of the planning process. Furthermore, a town planning concept and thematic plans for consideration on for example traffic, transport and public spaces have been made. In addition to that, a description of the planned phase-by-phase development of the area has been developed (Masterplan, 2006).

Critique on the project The land where HafenCity is being developed formerly belonged to the Port of Hamburg, which is 100 percent owned by the municipality of Hamburg. In the 90’s the city began with re-purchasing the long-term leases between the city and port operators. This was done with the idea of increasing the amount of land available for further urban expansion. Interesting to mention is that this was done secretly. Port operators presumed that the land was bought to redevelop the port itself (Noring & Katz, 2018; Masterplan, 2006; HafenCity, 2017). The second reason for the city to start the project of HafenCity was to gain money for a newly build container terminal far away from the city centre. With the money earned from selling the plots to developers, the new Altenwerder container terminal could be financed. The plots were sold against the highest bid, and since there were no social housing regulations, investors created luxury apartments and penthouses in the area. This led to a neighbourhood that was only inhabited by people from the higher-income classes.

YE: “If you don’t put any regulations there, it might get really expensive” R4: “Yes, it is one of the most expensive areas of the city” R3: “In the beginning that was the strategy, but more and more people started to complain. Newspapers published articles and pictures of garages here with only Porches parked in it, so yes” (Fragment from the interview with Respondent 3 and Respondent 4, April 26, 2018).

In the revised Masterplan (2006), new regulations around social housing were set up, and nowadays a more diverse range of housing options is offered. Time will tell whether the area becomes a neighbourhood for everyone or stays a place only for the rich.

Another critique which adds to this, is the ‘artificial feeling’ some respondents think HafenCity has. Since it takes time for social dynamics to be created, the area is not that lively yet. Another reason for the artificial feeling given by respondents, is the architecture of the area. In HafenCity, HafenCity Hamburg GmbH sells plots to different architects. One plot will be developed by one architect and in this way, create a very diverse build-environment. There are respondents who like this diverse spectrum of architectural buildings but there are also people who think it creates an ‘architectural zoo’, which enhances the cold or artificial feeling of the area.

Context factors The three levels of success factors by Franzen et al (2011) have been explained in the theoretical framework of this research. In this paragraph various context factors of the project HafenCity have been addressed. As said; context factors are unable to be influenced by actors. This is for example the economic- and political climate, but also the cultural background of a specific urban area. To set the context of HafenCity, the most important factors will be shortly high lightened here.

Unlike many other German cities, Hamburg is not part of a Bundesland; it is a so-called city- state which makes that it has the same administrative categorization and power as a Bundesland. The inhabitants of Hamburg choose the parties which take place in the Hamburgische Bürgerschaft, the parliament. The senate consists out of senators who all represent a ministry. The president of the senate is also the mayor of Hamburg. The political composition and decisiveness of the municipal council can have a powerful effect on the success of an urban development project (Franzen et al., 2011). It is relevant to highlight here, that the case of HafenCity is quite special. This research has shown that the strong public sector of Hamburg can be seen as one of the most important conditions of this project. It should be kept in mind that when it comes to policy transfer, this might cause differences in cases where the public authorities have less influence.

The economy of Hamburg is strong, among other due to the presence of the harbour. The city of Hamburg fulfils and important role in its region, and besides that, on the national and global level as well. Since the city attracts more and more people, the demand for housing in the city is increasing. To fulfill this need, the plan for HafenCity was created. While HafenCity is built on the former harbour area of Hamburg, the location of the newly built area is very close to the city centre.

Demographically seen the population of Hamburg will rise in the coming decades. People and businesses from both the regional- as national and international level are attracted to come to the city and settle down there. Extra housing is needed to meet this growing population.

4.2 Coping with challenges in HafenCity From the literature various challenges, which turned out to come along with large-scale development projects, have been distinguished. In this research these challenges have been put forward to the respondents involved with the project of HafenCity in Hamburg. It appears that since this project is mainly steered by the public sector, the amount of faced challenges is quite limited. On the other hand, the project experienced challenges which were not mentioned in the literature. These challenges will be explained in this paragraph too.

4.2.1 Challenges that did not occur in HafenCity It is often seen in large-scale urban development projects, that the various stakeholders who act together to reach certain goals might have shifting, conflicting or competing goals during their cooperation. Considering the project of HafenCity this is not the case. Since the project is mainly steered and given form by the private law cooperation of HafenCity Hamburg GmbH, which is 100 percent owned by the city-state of Hamburg, this body has a full say in the direction of the development. The other stakeholders are also mainly public bodies; such as the city of Hamburg and the Port Authority. Furthermore, the residence network, architectural firms, private developers and the city grid of Hamburg-Mitte play a role in the project.

One of the reasons why HafenCity does not have to deal with conflicting aims of stakeholders, is the fact that Hamburg has the status of a city-state in Germany. Therefore, regional and national policies do not really intervene with the (urban) policies of Hamburg itself. Tasan-Kok (2010) mentions that large-scale projects are often criticized in literature since they seem to sponsor high-profit sectors and only have a few benefits for the local society. In the beginning this was the case in HafenCity too. As mentioned before: the plots on the Eastern site of the area were dominated by luxury housing and buildings. Since the revised version of the Masterplan this seems to change. Nowadays, the focus lies on creating a neighbourhood accessible for everyone. Furthermore, it is said that conflicting aims between public-and private actors are also caused by their different agendas. The public sector strives for the public good and the private sector focusses on wealth accumulation (Tasan-Kok, 2010). In this case, this difference might be a little blurry since the public sector also has the drive to earn money with this project. Therefore, it cannot be said that the public sector is only striving for the public good in this case. Development of the Altenwerder terminal can only be possible when enough money is made. The role of the public actors is not unilateral here.

As said in the literature: even though a public-private partnership might look strong on paper, it can turn out that a governance structure is weaker when put under pressure. In Hamburg, the respondents all agree on the fact that this has not happened in the project of HafenCity yet. Since in this partnership the controlling and steering tasks are mainly in the hands of HafenCity Hamburg GmbH, the private actors do not really play a role in the decision-making processes. The fact that HafenCity Hamburg GmbH operates as a private law cooperation means that their decisions do not depend on changes in the municipalities’ political parties or elections. Besides that, the CEO of HafenCity Hamburg GmbH Prof. Jürgen Bruns-Berentelg is considered to be a good ‘leader’ of the project. As Respondent 3 states (personal communication, April 26, 2018):

“He comes from real estate business, he is a geographer and an urban planner by education but also puts interest in research. He is a professor at HafenCity University as well, he is very professional. He really knows how to handle the project”

It should be kept in mind that the public authorities have the ultimate say in the project of HafenCity. Private stakeholders do not have a leading or steering role in the project. Weakness in political or business leadership or therefore not really seen on the highest project-level but does occur on the segmented level of the projects. This happened for example with the development of one of HafenCity’s pearls: the Elbphilharmonie. When the development of this eye-catching building started in 2007, it was scheduled to be finished by 2010 with the estimated costs of €241 million. In the end, the mega-project was finished by 2016 at the costs of almost €800 million. This was one of the projects lead by the municipality of Hamburg itself, developed with public money. It led to a lot of turmoil among the residents of Hamburg.

Another challenge, which is often seen in large-scale redevelopment projects, is the representation of opposition groups. In large-scale projects like the redevelopment of Hamburg’s former harbour area, the NIMBY-effect could for example occur. This type of opposition is mainly used to express public opposition towards developments near to homes and communities. In the case of HafenCity, this challenge has not been faced. The main reason for this is the fact that there were no people living in the harbour area before the plans of HafenCity were revealed. This is likely to be the major reason that there was not much opposition against the plans. Furthermore, respondents from both Hamburg and Amsterdam mention that inhabitants of both cities also recognize the need for more housing and urban space in the city. This might also increase their acceptance towards large-scale urban redevelopment projects like this.

“They acknowledge the [housing] situation in the city and realize that this is the only area inside the Ring where we can scale up. They take it for granted that this area will urbanize in the future”. (Respondent 1, April 12, 2018).

As Tasan-Kok (2010) mentions: in PPPs the public party often plays a passive role, only participating through landowner-ship. Due to this, it is said that the public sector also has a lack of knowledge about private sector dynamics. This is definitely not the case with the project of HafenCity Hamburg. Since the publicly owned but privately managed cooperation HafenCity Hamburg GmbH has been set up, this body can participate easily on the private market. There is a clear division between the financing done by HafenCity Hamburg GmbH and the financing tasks done via the city budget. The city finances the public universities, the public schools, the public museums, the subway, the Elbphilharmonie concert hall and the changes to the roads outside the HafenCity area. On the other hand, the deal was made that in return for the former harbour land a new port terminal would be created outside the city centre. HafenCity Hamburg GmbH finances this through the dispose of plots. Besides this, HafenCity Hamburg GmbH finances infrastructure such as energy, sewers, roads and bridges. Public amenities like recreational areas are financed by the cooperation too. Additionally, HafenCity Hamburg GmbH often co-operates with private external companies. This might increase their ability to operate in the private sector too.

Concluding, it can be seen that the public authorities guide, steer and lead the project of HafenCity. Even though the project is set up as a PPP, the private actors have little influence. This is interesting to mention since literature often shows us the dominance of private actors in this kind of partnerships (Hodge & Greve, 2005); (Blanco, 2015). Rhodes (2016) discusses how the role of the state is changing due to the emerge of PPP’s. In this case it can be said that the city-state of Hamburg has broaden its influence by incorporating and outsourcing private actors into public governance. It can be concluded that the boundaries between public- and private goals of this project are blurry.

4.2.2 Faced challenges known from literature As addressed by Tasan-Kok (2010); since the increasing role of the global financial market on our societies, there is an expansion of property led developments in urban planning. This leads to projects which are funded, developed and managed by international cooperations or partnerships. These kinds of projects have turned out to be more receptive to fluctuations on the financial market. This was seen in HafenCity as well, especially during the global financial crises, which started around 2008. During this period, the Masterplan for the development has been revised which led to smaller buildings and mid-rise towers instead of high-rise towers on various plots. Moreover, some subprojects such as the Überseequartier suffered from the financial crisis. This block in the Western part of HafenCity has its own metro stop. However, since the investor of the retailed-focused development around this metro stop went bankrupt, the whole area had to be re-planned and re-negotiated. This lead to a delay of almost six years. Nowadays, this important area in the middle of HafenCity is still a construction site – not a great addition to the surrounding area (see figure 5).

Figure 5: The Überseequartier in the middle of HafenCity.

Left: Exit from the metro stop ‘Uberseequartier’. Right: the construction site in the middle of the neighbourhood. Source: own work (2018)

Another challenge that still has the attention in the project of HafenCity, is related to the former port function of the area. European port cities have often forged a strong bond between the port and the city over time (Marshall, 2011). The changing relationship between the port and city after a waterfront redevelopment project, can be challenging for cities to deal with. It is said that this is on one hand because of the lack of transportation in this kind of areas, the lack of competition and the public criticism around these kinds of projects. As said

34 before, the public was not very critical towards the project of HafenCity Hamburg. Moreover, the problem of a lack of transportation had already been taken care of before the area started to become liveable. A metro line (U-Bahn) was already implemented in the area to provide a high-quality public transportation network. Besides this, there are bus lines that connect HafenCity to the rest of Hamburg. One thing which is interesting to mention, is the changeover between the newly build HafenCity and the UNESCO world heritage area Speicherstadt which lies directly next to it (see figure 6). The big street Am Sandtorkai which runs between those two parts of the city, ‘divides’ the old inner-city centre of Hamburg from the newly build HafenCity. In one way this might retain inhabitants, tourists or other visitors from crossing the street and walking into HafenCity.

“On the one hand it is an attractive area [Speicherstadt] with its warehouse museum and attractions like the Dungeon… but on the other hand it is also a barrier between the city centre and HafenCity” (Respondent 3, personal communication, April 26, 2018).

On the other hand, the fact that there are good public transport connections (the various U- Bahn stops in HafenCity for example) can also attract people to look a little bit further than Hamburg’s old city centre and cross into HafenCity. Besides this, the Elbphilharmonie, which is owned by the city itself, provides a viewing-point which is free to visit for everyone This has proved to be a good way to attract tourists and Hamburgers to the area and introduce them to HafenCity.

Figure 6: The division between UNESCO world heritage Speicherstadt and HafenCity

Left: the ‘barrier’ Am Sandtorkai. Right: Speicherstadt from the water. Source: own work (2018).

Lastly, it is seen that when it comes to big projects like a waterfront redevelopment project, cities often face deficits in their planning system. In case of HafenCity this can be divided into social planning system challenges and more technical planning system challenges. The first social challenge mentioned by respondents is how to include public participation into the planning system. Because there were no inhabitants in the area when the project started, this was not really thought of in the beginning. Now that the number of residents in the area is

35 growing, the municipality of Hamburg decided to establish a resident advisory board through which the residents can give their opinion about the development. The second planning system challenges can be placed under the lack of innovative instruments. As Tasan-Kok (2010) states: tailor-made instruments are needed for the implementation of large-scale projects. In this case, the focus mainly lies on how to deal with the high noise- and waste levels in the area. These are caused by construction developments, which are going on next to residential areas, but also by the port activities. HafenCity Hamburg GmbH came up with a complex regulation of different legal instruments through which noise can be measured a little different in HafenCity than in other areas.

4.2.3 Unexpected challenges During the interviews, it turned out that challenges have been faced during the project which were not mentioned in the literature. These challenges might be specific for urban waterfront redevelopment in inner-city areas and can require further research.

One difficulty mentioned by all the respondents, is the challenge of giving priority to certain functions or goals in/of a project. While the project develops a totally new, highly urban neighbourhood in a former industrial area, the start of the project is a clean slate. Various interested parties express their ideas and foreseen functions for the area. It is very difficult for the initiator of the project (in this case the municipality), to find the compromise between all these interests. As Respondent 5 (personal communication, April 27, 2018) from HafenCity Hamburg GmbH states it:

“There is the port authority who wants port activities here, there is a creative industry who wants creative functions and art space here, then there is a biking community who wants us to implement more progressive biking systems here… it is a question of priority I would say”

Respondent 8 underlines this too. While Hamburg is a prosperous city where many people want to settle down, a lot of parties are interested in participating in the project. It can be seen as a challenge to deal with this and only work with actors who have the same, ultimate vision for the area as HafenCity Hamburg GmbH itself.

“It is kind of a luxury problem that you get attention from investors, developers and other parties who want something from you. The key to success lies in keeping the actors with different ideas far away from you so that you are not being distracted from your own ultimate goal for the area” (Respondent 8, May 17, 2018).

Of course, the fact that so many players are interested in participating in the project can also be one of the reasons why the number of conflicts in this project is limited. Since enough parties want to cooperate in the project of HafenCity, HafenCity Hamburg GmbH has the ability to pre-select the developers they want to work with. Developers can compete in tenders, which are organized to make sure that all the developments follow the required standards set by HafenCity Hamburg GmbH. More on this process will be explained in chapter 4.3.

Another challenge faced during the first implementation phase of HafenCity was creating affordable housing in the westernmost part of the district. The city of Hamburg wanted taxpayers to stay in Hamburg. This lead to the fact that there was no social housing ratio for the developments in the first phase of the project. It was agreed that the land in HafenCity would be sold for a high price and with this money, social housing would be built somewhere else (not in HafenCity). However, the perspective changed, people started to want a mix between social housing and other forms of housing to create a good functioning neighbourhood. In the revised Masterplan of 2006, this has been put into regulation. Nowadays there is a 30/40 percent social housing ratio in the development plans for the Eastern part of HafenCity. This refers to the idea of a strong public sector that has the ability to change the development plans via a top-down planning mechanism.

As mentioned before there were some conflicts on the parcel level, such as the development of the Überseequartier and the construction of the Elbphilharmonie. This kind of financial problems must be dealt with, also since one of the goals of the project HafenCity is to generate money for, among other things, the Altenwerder terminal. Respondents mention that it is important to deal with this on a cyclical level. Knowledge about when to put certain projects on the market seems crucial in some cases. More research needs to be done on this specific topic.

Lastly, even though HafenCity formulated the goal of ‘keeping a maritime atmosphere’ in their newly build urban areas, it turns out that this can be quite challenging. The opinions about HafenCity differ. Some respondents think the maritime feeling is still alive in the area while others call it an attractive area with water and promenades where the maritime character is gone (see figure 7). Trying to keep this ‘maritime atmosphere’ is also seen as a marketing strategy by some respondents.

“They use it to sell the project. You have the cranes, the maritime museum and Speicherstadt but it is all musealized” (Respondent 4, April 26, 2018).

Figure 7: Keeping the maritime atmosphere alive in HafenCity

Various objects in public spaces remind visitors of HafenCity’s former harbour function. Source: own work (2018).

4.3 Institutional conditions of HafenCity In this chapter, the stakeholders and the process of HafenCity will be addressed. As mentioned earlier, the public sector plays a big role in the development of HafenCity. Especially, concerning public communication, selection of stakeholders and the way in which the organization of HafenCity Hamburg GmbH is regulated. Despite the prominent role of the public sector by creating the framework for the development of the project, the knowledge of the private sector and important individual actors has also been utilized. This paragraph will elaborate on this specific planning process and the stakeholders that are involved in it. The paragraph concludes with the field of influence analysis (figure 8).

The set-up of HafenCity Hamburg GmbH The project of HafenCity is set up as a public-private partnership. In 2004, the publicly owned, but privately managed cooperation of HafenCity Hamburg GmbH was created. The supervisory board of HafenCity Hamburg GmbH consists out of 5 senators from the city government of Hamburg and is chaired by the mayor. Their task is to look after the interests of the city of Hamburg. The executive board consists out of the CEO and a managing director. Furthermore, there is an advisory board consisting out of 9 members, among which are at least 6 expert members on various topics. Interesting to mention is the representation of the residents through the ‘resident network’ of HafenCity in this advisory board. This residents network is for example represented in the jury meetings for new buildings that will be developed.

“We have an institutional way of resident participation” (Respondent 5, April 27, 2018).

This advisory board does not have any decision-making powers but provides a certain level of stability. An aspect that increases the stability of the project has to do with the organization of HafenCity Hamburg GmbH. Since the cooperation is formed on a private law basis owned by the city, it can operate more independently from the political cycles. Of course, the cooperation is influenced by the political spectrum, but since they operate independent from the city budget, they can plan on the long-term.

Another special condition in the situation of HafenCity is that the cooperation HafenCity Hamburg GmbH can act like a district on its own, even though it is still part of the district Hamburg-Mitte. Since October 2006, the HafenCity-area has the status of a priority status area. This means that all zoning plans are discussed by the Commission for Urban Development, which is set up for this purpose, and represents all political parties in Hamburg’s City Parliament. Building permissions are granted by the Urban Development and Housing Ministry (HafenCity, 2017). Other districts that are being developed often have one ‘layer’ between the developers and the higher authorities. In HafenCity the authorities on the highest level already make the decisions.

“Decisions can be made faster here. We can just go to all the other authorities in Hamburg and say: well, the mayor decided. That is a very important condition to develop the area here” (Respondent 5, April 27, 2018).

The role of private actors The role of the private actors in the development of HafenCity is mainly limited to executive tasks. HafenCity Hamburg GmbH sells plots for development to the developers, but (since the revised version of the Masterplan) not always for the highest bid. Since one of the aims of the project is to set international standards for conceptual and architectural quality, it is tried to attract developers and users who are willing to cooperate to reach this goal (HafenCity, 2017). It is not the highest bid that succeeds, it is crucial that the plan of the developer fits to the concept that HafenCity Hamburg GmbH has set for the particular area/plot. When the developer is chosen, in agreement with HafenCity Hamburg GmbH, it has to proceed in organizing an architectural competition and prepare for building approval. Throughout this process, HafenCity Hamburg GmbH, other authorities and the buyer stay in a constant dialogue. When the architectural competition has been done and the building permit is granted, the developer is asked to finance the project. The fact that financing the purchase is done after this whole process gives the developer enough time to secure finance, check the quality of the planned project and perhaps acquire additional users. On the other hand, the city remains involved during the developing process and therefore can safeguard her interests as well.

“We do not sell immediately. We give an exclusive option to the project developer and then the two years after we do an architectural competition together. Afterwards, we also do the process of the building permit together. As soon as everything is set, we sell. So during that time, we [as a city] have a very strong say in the planning process” (Respondent 5, April 27, 2018).

This leads to the fact that the public actors have a lot of power when it comes to private actor tasks. Even though HafenCity is marked as a public-private partnership, public authorities mainly fulfill the guiding- and steering role in the project. Private actors only play a role when it comes to the development of the plots, but even than their process is controlled and influenced by public actors. In this case, the municipality uses the knowledge from the private sector but still maintain control.

Tasan-Kok and Vranken (2011) describe the shift to more collaborative forms of governance (and in that way the emergence of public-private partnerships) as a process in which diverse actors take responsibilities that formerly belonged to the public sector. This is not the case in the project of HafenCity. The responsibilities of the project still lie with the municipality. Stoker (1998) argued that through governance the boundaries between public- and private sectors became blurred. On one hand, this is the case in HafenCity while the public authorities really enter the private market now in the form of the HafenCity Hamburg GmbH private law cooperation. This is the perfect example of a public authority intervening on the private market. On the other hand, the private actors do not really get the chance to express their opinion or take part in the planning process of the project. Of course, there is a drive to reach consensus between the actors, also since HafenCity Hamburg GmbH is depending on the private developers to build up the new area. Anshell and Gash (2007) describe this consensus- oriented decision-making as one of the key aspects of collaborative planning.

4.3.1 Different planning styles composed of different planning determinants By now the various public- and private stakeholders of the project HafenCity Hamburg have briefly been explained and the governance structure of the project has been set. Of course, these stakeholders work together through a certain planning process. In this paragraph, this process will try to be linked to one of the planning styles explained by Brindley et al. (1996) in table 1.

To come back to the former paragraph, it can be concluded that private actors have a minor influence in the project of HafenCity Hamburg. The private actors can work together with the public actors during the development and planning process of HafenCity, but decisions are made by public authorities. Unfortunately, due to unresponsiveness of private sector actors to the interview requests, their perspective cannot be fully represented in this research. Therefore, more research about the position of private actors in this project is needed.

Since private actors seem to have a minor influence in the planning system of HafenCity, public-investment planning and regulative planning seem to fit best to this project. Brindley et al (1998) state that these planning styles both try to benefit the public interest. This is the case in HafenCity. As Noring and Katz (2018) state: the redevelopment of HafenCity is intended to achieve multiple social and environmental goals. As CEO of HafenCity Hamburg GmbH Prof. Jürgen Bruns-Berentelg says:

“We are not considering the processes of HafenCity development as a finance mechanism primarily. We consider it as a socio-technical system creating ‘a common public good inside the private good’ as far as private investment is concerned” (Prof. Jürgen Bruns-Berentelg in Noring & Katz (2018)).

In this case the ´common goods´ are for example innovation, social diversity and high sustainability standards. One difference between public-investment planning and regulative planning is that in the former the public sector gives funds and chooses development plans that are benefitting the lower income groups. Until the revision of the Masterplan of HafenCity in 2006, this was definitely not the case in Hamburg. As said, in the beginning of the project there were no social housing regulations established and the neighbourhood became the most expensive area of Hamburg. Nowadays this is changing, but the public sector still has the intention to earn money with its development. Regulative planning has a more technical- political nature, which is characterized by expertise from various professionals. This can be seen in HafenCity too. Since the aim is to develop a high quality urban neighbourhood a lot of effort has been put in developing and researching the best conditions for public space, green spaces, housing, water protection etcetera. The fact that either German or international (famous) architects develop the plots in HafenCity also shows the presence of professionals in this context.

“You have all the star-architects here, there are several buildings by Chipperfield, UNStudio, Arup… they all designed several buildings” (Respondent 4, April 27, 2018).

The presence of public participation is a feature of the regulative planning style as well. As said in the beginning of this paragraph, public-participation plays a role in the planning system

40 of HafenCity. Furthermore, a rational way of decision-making is an indication of a regulative planning system. This means that decisions are made based on facts, analyses and systematic processes that lead to an ultimate decision. In the opinion of the researcher, this is marked in the project of HafenCity by the revision of the Masterplan (2000, 2006). Interesting to mention is that public-investment planning is mostly led by quasi-governmental agencies (Quango). A Quango can be described as an organization that is established by a government to consider a subject of public importance, but is independent from the government (Cambridge Dictionary, 2012). This might be applicable to the case of HafenCity, since the private law cooperation of HafenCity Hamburg GmbH can act in great independence from the municipality itself. It should be noted that the public-investment planning style normally takes place in places with depressed market conditions. This is not the case in HafenCity. Therefore, it is interesting to have a look at the other end of the planning spectrum. A market-driven logic in waterfront redevelopment is for example illustrated in trend planning, where market- criteria are introduced into development control decisions. In this way, development takes place in accordance to market demands. Powerful state actors can intervene with this by modifying plans. This planning style is marked by Allmendiger (2009) as neoliberal planning in practice.

Altogether, the case of HafenCity in Hamburg combines different planning styles composed of different planning determinants. It is clear that state actors play an influential role in this planning style. It should be kept in mind, that these planning styles are subjected to shifting political and socioeconomic patterns. Even though HafenCity Hamburg GmbH can act quite independent from the municipality, it can still be influenced by changing planning rationalities. Therefore, planning processes and styles can differ over time due to shifting institutional arrangements and project leadership.

Field of influence analysis As announced, in this research a field of influence analysis has been done. To elaborate on the stakeholders and the planning process of HafenCity, a visualization has been made in figure 8. It can be seen in this power versus interest grid, that the public actors have the highest interest and the highest power in the project of HafenCity. The Masterplan was created in cooperation between various public- and private actors and is the guideline for the development of the project. Private and institutional developers and investors develop individual sites but are supervised by public actors in this. Therefore, they have less power than the public actors. Moreover, the interest of these parties lies mainly on the financial site of the projects development. HafenCity Universität and the residence of HafenCity seem more committed to the overall ‘successful’ development of the neighbourhood. Their main interest lies in making HafenCity a liveable area. Since they have no direct decision-making power, they are placed low on this scale.

Figure 8: Power versus interest grid of the stakeholders cooperating in the project HafenCity

High HafenCity Hamburg GmbH

Ministry of Urban Development and The city of Hamburg HafenCity Universität Environment

Interest Residents HafenCity

Developers Port of Hamburg

Low mburg

Low High42 Power Source: own work (2018) 4.4 Success factors from HafenCity Now that the various (unforeseen) challenges in the project of HafenCity and the stakeholders plus the process of the project have been explained, it is interesting to distinguish some success factors out of this. The framework of Franzen et al (2011) is used to put these factors into the right context. In chapter 6, these factors can be used to distinguish whether policy transfer from the case of HafenCity to the case of Haven-Stad is useful, or not.

Necessary conditions When it comes to the level of necessary conditions and critical success factors, the boundary between these two is not always clear. Necessary conditions can be driven and modified by stakeholders. This is in case of HafenCity for example the organization of the governance network. The fact that HafenCity Hamburg GmbH is supervised by a supervisory board and advised by the advisory board provides a certain level of stability. Besides that, it seems that in this project institutionalized resident participation works. Moreover, the special condition of HafenCity as a priority status area gives the cooperation decision-making power, which is an important provision for the development of the area. The fact that HafenCity Hamburg GmbH is a public authority that steers and controls the development makes that the private actors who participate in the project are supervised by the public sector.

A necessary condition, which has also proved to be important in opinion of the researcher, was the timely acquisition of land. It is of great importance for the success of an urban area development project that the land can be used and redeveloped. In case of HafenCity, the land was repurchased by the city in the 90s already, even before the plans for the new development were announced. Many studies underline the importance of land ownership in the feasibility of an urban development project (Van Rooy et al., 2006).

Another important necessary condition in the case of HafenCity, is the strong communication of the projects´ goals. The Masterplan (2010) provides an overarching vision to all the stakeholders in the project but still leaves flexibility to cope with unforeseen circumstances. Respondent 8 (personal communication, May 17, 2018) calls it a ‘learning process’. In this kind of long-term large-scale urban development projects, it is important to anticipate on external influences such as action groups and the first inhabitants. The Masterplan gave the opportunity to do that, learn, and incorporate new insights and opinions from other actors. The clear communication of the project is also reflected in the absence of opposition groups.

“Communication is very important for us to generate a good reputation and attract buyers. But also, to enhance the social acceptance and the vibrancy of the city life” (Respondent 5, April 27, 2018).

HafenCity Hamburg GmbH spends a relatively big part of their earnings on public relations and communication. There are three information centres where visitors can get all the information about the development of HafenCity. Furthermore, guided tours are provided to people who are interested to get to know everything that is going on in the area. All around Hamburg posters and flyers of newly opened districts of HafenCity can be found, and everybody is invited to come and visit (see figure 9). It seems like this is working to keep residents and other people informed about the project and therefore, enhances a greater acceptance to for example sound pollution or other effects of construction work. It is also

43 mentioned by respondents that a lot of meet-up’s, seminars and other gatherings have been organized before and during the project to keep people connected to the development. This might be an idea for other waterfront redevelopment projects as well.

Figure 9: Public communication in HafenCity

Left above: information stand at metro stop HafenCity Universität. Left under: Flyers. Right: Poster in centre of Hamburg. Source: own work (2018)

Critical success factors A few critical success factors that intervene with the necessary conditions are for example the open and well-organized cooperation between public and private actors in the project. When a developer is chosen to establish a project on a certain plot HafenCity Hamburg GmbH, other authorities and the buyer stay in a constant dialogue. Respondents mention that developers and public authorities meet weekly or bi-weekly to discuss the progress of the development. This agrees with the concept of consensus building referred to as done by Innes & Booher (1999). This consensus building approach tries to assure that all stakeholders are heard and respected. The fact that regular meetings between stakeholders are organized can emphasize with a collaborative planning approach.

Another critical success factor is the presence of individual actors with expertise in this project, as for example the CEO of HafenCity Hamburg GmbH. Respondents mention, that by people with enough knowledge and understanding of the playing field fulfill leadership

44 functions in the cooperation of HafenCity Hamburg GmbH. Franzen et al (2011) describe this as actors who have considerable authority in the public and private domain and who are skilled in bringing up solutions to problems. The fact that there were no problems in political or business leadership in the project of HafenCity is mainly due to the presence of strong individual actors like their CEO.

The last critical success factors which goes along with the strong communication goals of the project of HafenCity is the image change of the area. Since the outstanding public communication goals of HafenCity Hamburg GmbH, a new image of the harbour area of Hamburg is created. Due to among other things the marketing, branding, presence of information centres and organization of so-called Eröffnungsfests (opening parties), people know that the area has a new identity. Changing the image of an area can be important to attract new residents, companies and tourist to the area.

In this paragraph, the success factors of HafenCity have been high lightened. These will be used in chapter 6 to see whether it is possible to transfer some of these success factors into the planning process of Haven-Stad in Amsterdam. An introduction to this case is given in chapter 5.

5. PILOT STUDY: HAVEN-STAD AMSTERDAM

This research was done with the intention to investigate the case of HafenCity Hamburg in a critical but constructive way, and by doing so, come up with some policy recommendations for the planned project of Haven-Stad in Amsterdam. As already mentioned in the theoretical framework, policy transferring can be quite complicated. In spatial planning, the main focus lies on transferring best practices to different urban contexts (Stead, 2012). Of course, policy transferring has some limitations due to different cultural, political and economic contexts in European countries as well. Even though policy transferring has its constraints, other waterfront redevelopment projects around the world still inspired the project of HafenCity Hamburg. It was asked to respondents whether they got ideas or insights from other projects around the world and the answer was unanimously: yes.

“Yes, our CEO is very much into that. He is very well connected and interested in other waterfront redevelopment projects. We are in close exchange with Toronto, Singapore and Liverpool for example” (Respondent 5, April 27, 2018).

“Mainly similar waterfront projects from other European port cities (e.g. Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Malmö, London, Copenhagen) are used as an inspiration for HafenCity. Not all the projects are taken over one-on-one, we look more into specific themes which are comparable” (Respondent 9, May 11, 2018).

To see whether policy transferring is possible, the respondents from Hamburg have been asked if they could recommend some, in their opinion successful, policy measures to the project of Haven-Stad Amsterdam. Trough policy research, this list is complemented by the researcher. By applying the ‘Three levels of success factors’ from Franzen et al. (2011) (figure 1) and the ‘Factors of local development transferability by the OECD’ (2011) (table 2) to this policy measures, their transferability to the project of Haven-Stad is examined. It is argued that, since in both Hamburg and Amsterdam the municipality has a lot of power, policy transferring between these two cases is possible. It should be kept in mind that when it comes to different urban contexts where public actors have less influence, policy transfer might be much more difficult.

5.1 Setting the context of Haven-Stad The first steps towards the project Haven-Stad in Amsterdam have been set with the presentation of a transformation plan for Amsterdam’s harbour region in June 2017 (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017). The city of Amsterdam is, just as the city of Hamburg, growing. The city is an attractive place to live where many international firms want to settle down and where a growing number of people try to find a place to live. Space for development of new housing is lacking, and that is why the municipality of Amsterdam agreed upon the plan to transform the inner-city harbour area into a high-density urban living area.

Figure 11: Location and current impression of the planned Haven-Stad Amsterdam

Source: Gemeente Amsterdam (2017), Het Parool (2017).

Currently, this area consists out of docks belonging to the harbour of Amsterdam, surrounded by an industrial area where a variety of industries is established. From 2025 on, this area will be slowly transformed into a diverse urban neighbourhood with around 20.000 dwellings and over 40.000 jobs (see figure 11) (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2013). The area is split up in 12 sections, which will be developed in stages. Every section will have its own character, this could be dominated by green areas, by water or with an industrial feeling. This new neighbourhood will be attractive to different kind of people, easy to reach by either public transport or bike and above all sustainable.

The planned project of Haven-Stad Amsterdam has a few focus points. The following topics will be important in the ongoing development of the project: . Mobility: as stated, in the project of Haven-Stad the focus will lie on public transport and biking as main modes of transportation. Space for cars will be limited. . Sustainability: Haven-Stad wants to be sustainable on a variety of topics such as CO2- reduction, recycling, emission-free transportation and in waterproof design. . Living and working: The rate between working/amenities and living is 20%-80%. Lower parts of buildings will be used to create space for work and amenities, while the upper floors will be used for homes and apartments (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018).

Respondent 1 (personal communication, April 12, 2018) mentions that currently four different stakeholders are working together on the plan of Haven-Stad Amsterdam. The municipality of Amsterdam has a leading and steering role in this process, while Waternet, Vervoerregio Amsterdam and Havenbedrijf Amsterdam mainly focus on their own, specific topics within the plan. Later on in the process, more private investors will try to be attracted to the project, mainly to develop the plots.

The project-team of Haven-Stad Amsterdam seems receptive to ideas and inspiration from other waterfront redevelopment projects around the world. So far, various cases in other cities have been researched, but inspiration is also gotten from large-scale development projects in the city itself, such as IJ-burg.

Context factors To compare the context factors of Hamburg and Amsterdam, figure 1 of Franzen et al (2011) will be used. As said, both Amsterdam and Hamburg are cities with an important national, regional and international function. The attraction of both places is big: people and business like to settle down there. Both cities have a housing problem and try to stabilize this with the development of a new, attractive urban neighbourhood in a former harbour area close to the city centre. Both projects want to combine various functions in their new neighbourhoods such as living, working and leisure. Moreover, sustainability is an important focus point in both cases.

On the democratic level there are some differences between Haven-Stad and HafenCity. As explained in chapter 4, the city of Hamburg can act like a state on its own. In Amsterdam this is different. The province of North-Holland and the national government of the Netherlands also have a say in the development of Haven-Stad. As Respondent 2 (personal communication, April 19. 2018) mentions, these actors were first not asked about their opinion on the project. Simply said, there was not enough time to have a word with them and listen to their say. Nevertheless, once the plan was announced by the municipality of Amsterdam, these actors also wanted to get involved.

“We did a really good process with all the public services of the municipality itself, but we did not go to the National Government, not to the Province and also not to the Region. And of course, we should have done that, but there was no time for it” (Respondent 2, April 19, 2018).

Since there is no regional ´layer´ in the case of Hamburg, one could say that Hamburg has fewer actors to deal with then Amsterdam does. While many of the context factors of Hamburg and Amsterdam are quite similar, this might be the biggest difference. Still, it should be kept in mind that the municipality of Amsterdam has a strong say in the planning system as well.

Economically seen, both cities have a strong position. With the presence of the harbour, Schiphol airport and attractive settlement factors Amsterdam attracts a lot of businesses, companies and tourists. As discussed in chapter 4, this also applies to the city of Hamburg. The strong economic position of the city is also one of the reasons that Amsterdam is changing on the demographic level, too. The number of people that want to live in the city will increase in the coming decades. Extra housing is needed to accommodate all these people.

5.2 Foreseen challenges and stakeholders in case of Haven-Stad In chapter 4, various challenges coming along with the project of HafenCity have been discussed. It is interesting to see whether respondents in Amsterdam already an idea of what kind of difficulties they might face in the project of Haven-Stad, and if these are comparable to the ones in Hamburg. Since the project Haven-Stad is just in its infancy, many issues and outcomes are unsure. In this research, the respondents have been asked what kind of challenges they foresee and if these are similar with challenges faced in HafenCity.

The first challenge is how to prioritize the goals and aims of the project. This has been experienced as a difficulty in Hamburg. During the interviews with respondents who are involved with the project Haven-Stad in Amsterdam, it turned out that they foresee this challenge as well. There are a lot of topics such as sustainability, new modes of transport or innovative energy systems, which trigger the attention of policy makers. Often, choices must be made to set the priorities for a project. Once these choices have been made, the other options that are available are most of the times easily forgotten. A few respondents mention that it is important to not end up in a so-called ‘tunnel vision’, but keep the plan open for new input. When it comes to the newly planned waterways in Haven-Stad for example, the current transformation plan does not allow for recreational or distributional waterways in the area. This is a guiding decision for the rest of the plan, since it will not be easy to change this later on.

“And if you decide right now: ‘we are not going to sail in this area’, you have to design the area like that and you will never be able to change it afterwards. And then I am like: maybe you are already shutting down doors right now, concerning water management, that are insufficiently addressed so far” (Respondent 6, May 3, 2018).

It can be difficult for stakeholders to accept this kind of decisions. Still, in both projects the municipality has the ultimate say in how the area is going to be developed. In that case, it is important that the stakeholders express their ideas and findings beforehand, which makes that the municipality can take justified decisions.

Another challenge which was not mentioned in the case of HafenCity, but which will probably occur in Haven-Stad, is the transformation from harbour area towards a high quality urban area. The harbour of Amsterdam is currently still in operation, which makes that a lot of businesses have their companies and factories located in this area. These have to be relocated to other places in Amsterdam or even outside of Amsterdam to make way for the developments of Haven-Stad. Of course, this goes not without a fight. Also, since some of these companies are important for Amsterdam’s economy. Some of the areas that are planned to be the future Haven-Stad are still in the hands of private parties. As Respondent 1 (personal communication, April 12, 2018) states it:

“Per subproject there are various challenges to be faced. But in general, the biggest challenge is that particular parts of the area are still in use by other parties than what we think is desirable for the future”

In Hamburg, this challenge had already been taken care of before the development of HafenCity was announced. While in the 90s the city had already begun with repurchasing the land and leases of the port operators. This was done secretly, so prices for these plots where not subject to demand and supply. In the case of Amsterdam, this might be difference since the plans for the upcoming development of Haven-Stad have already been disclosed. Parties other than the city of Amsterdam want to score with intervening on this land market, as well. Time will tell whether this will affect the development of Haven-Stad and the economic consequences of it.

Even though the development of Haven-Stad has just started, it can already be said that several actors are involved with this project. So far, the municipality has the guiding and leading role in the project. Waternet, vervoerregio Amsterdam and Havenbedrijf Amsterdam are the three other (semi)-public authorities that are taking part in the creation of the ‘development vision’. These stakeholders have given their opinion about the transformation strategy of the area, all on their specific topic. Since there is not a clear plan yet, these plans are not quite fixed yet. The plans can be seen as an ambition for the area. As mentioned before, there are more (public) stakeholders who want to participate in the project. The province of North Holland, the Dutch National Government, metropole region Amsterdam and various private developers want to cooperate in the plan for this new neighbourhood. This makes that some respondents think it might be challenging to steer all these stakeholders into the same direction. They also think that the step-by-step development of Haven-Stad might cause some trouble, since in some cases (with transportation- and water networks for example) it is much easier to implement it all at once, instead of in phases. Respondent 7 (personal communication, May 9, 2018) states it as follows:

“A risk can be that when you do not keep your ultimate goal in mind, talking about transportation networks for example, that you do not think about the project as a whole. You might find out too late that different decisions should have been made”

Lastly, the challenge mentioned by the respondents of Hamburg about keeping the maritime atmosphere alive in HafenCity is seen as a challenge by the respondents of Amsterdam as well. The city mentions this as an important aspect in the policy documents and will try to steer this in the future plans. It is not clear yet how this will be done; more research on this topic might be needed.

In the next chapter, the limitations and opportunities considering policy transfer between the case of HafenCity in Hamburg and the case of Haven-Stad Amsterdam will be discussed. To put this into a comparable context table 2 by the OECD (2011) is used. In chapter 6, the two frameworks (figure 1 and table 2) used to measure the possibility for policy transfer, will also be criticized.

6. POLICY TRANSFER

6.1 Opportunities and limitations to learn from HafenCity Hamburg As mentioned, one of the aims of this research is to consider whether it might be possible to transfer policy measures from one urban context into another (similar) urban context. In chapter 4, the main necessary conditions and critical success factors from the case of HafenCity have been explained. These will shortly be high lightened here. Following up on this, the factors of local development transferability by the OECD (2011) (table 2), are used to give recommendations for the possibility of policy transfer. It is argued that policy transferring is possible, even though the focus will lie on ‘soft’ policy measures and that more specific research is needed.

One of the main necessary conditions, which made it possible for the city of Hamburg to deal with certain challenges, is the presence of the flexible Masterplan that provides an overarching vision to all the stakeholders of the project. The goals of the project are clearly mentioned in this document and it is the perfect way to keep the ultimate goal of the neighbourhood clear to all actors involved. It might be really useful for the planned project of Haven-Stad to come up with such a Masterplan as well. This strategy is totally in line with the document by CEC (2006) which states that many solutions already exist in certain cities and argues that local authorities should use these existing solutions to developments in their own situation. Considering table 2, one can see that the provision of a Masterplan can fit into the section ‘components for exchange – methods/techniques’. The transfer of this kind of methods or techniques is proven to have a high transferability. It is recommended to the city of Amsterdam to set up a guiding, flexible, plan to assure that all stakeholders involved work together with the same vision towards a desired end product.

Moreover, as written in chapter 4, HafenCity Hamburg GmbH spends quite a lot of money on public communication. This is done via various information centres, public meetings, folders, guided tours and other ways in which the public is connected to the project of HafenCity. This might be an idea for the city of Amsterdam as well. It can be a good way to keep people informed about what is going on in the area. In addition to that, it also seems to greater their acceptance towards some effects coming along with construction works, and their image of the site will change. Organizing various seminars, meetings or brainstorm sessions can also be a good way to get to know the opinion of different stakeholders and other actors. This type of ‘success factor’ can be rallied under the level of necessary conditions, but also intervenes with the level of critical success factors. The success of this kind of meetings lies in the openness between the parties that are involved, and in to what extent opinions and visions from actors are taken into account. When using table 2, it is seen that this type of policy transfer (seeing public communication as an important aspect) can also be gathered under the component for exchange ‘methods/techniques/know-how and operating rules’. It is necessary that the city of Amsterdam has a look into this methodology. It can keep the public informed and involved with the project of Haven-Stad. Of course, the way in which this is implemented can differ.

Another necessary condition which influenced the development of HafenCity, is the set-up of the project. The fact that the private law, but publicly owned cooperation HafenCity Hamburg GmbH has been created, made that the public authorities could easily interact on the private market. Moreover, the priority status that the area has is an important provision for the development of the neighbourhood. It might be interesting for the city of Amsterdam to have a look into the organization of this set-up and get some inspiration from it. It must be said that the transferability of this kind of ‘mode of organization’ components is proven to be low by the OECD (2011). Nonetheless, it is important to mention that Amsterdam’s’ planning system also gives a lot of power to the municipality which makes the cases comparable. As argued by the CEC (2006), local authorities should learn from each other and then develop solutions to their own situation. Keeping this in mind, it can be recommended to the city of Amsterdam to get some inspiration from HafenCity and then apply this to their own case.

The necessary condition of timely acquisition of land might be something to discuss in the case of Haven-Stad. As mentioned, the plan for the development of the new area has already been launched, but not all the land where this area will be built upon belongs to the municipality yet. In the opinion of Respondent 8 this will make the development more expensive and difficult.

“By already making their plan for the area explicit, they made everything expensive in advance. The implementation of the plan is simply made 10 times more expensive now, only by how they dealt with the land acquisition” (Respondent 8, personal communication, May 17, 2018).

It must be said that this topic of land acquisition has not been discussed with any respondents from Amsterdam, so opinions on this theme can differ.

A few critical success factors which were mentioned to be present in the case of HafenCity are among others; the trust and openness between participating parties, and the attendance of strong leadership. It is said, that these critical success factors have a major influence on the outcome of a project, but they are relatively difficult for actors to influence (Franzen et al., 2011). Still, it might be interesting to see how this critical success factors can be used. The CEO of HafenCity Hamburg GmbH has proven to be a strong leader with a lot of knowledge on both the theoretical, and the practical part of urban planning. It can be recommended to the city of Amsterdam to also search for cooperation with academic institutions. This can be universities, research institutions or think-tanks. It might be useful to incorporate scientific knowledge into the plans for a large-scale project like Haven-Stad. On the other hand, it can be helpful to search for cooperation with actors from the private side. As said, knowledge about ‘business like thinking’ and technical expertise is often brought into the public sector by private actors (Brinkerhoff & Brinkerhoff, 2011).

Furthermore, it is advisable to the city of Amsterdam to search for a way in which different parties can work together in a trustful and open context. This refers to the concept of consensus building. Consensus building between different actors is used in spatial planning to assure that all stakeholders are heard and respected, and that discussions can be held based on interest of stakeholders, not only on their fixed positions (Innes & Booher, 1999). Creating an open and reliable atmosphere can be done by organizing face-to-face dialogues between

52 different stakeholders. Additionally, in HafenCity this was continued during the process with bi-weekly meetings between HafenCity Hamburg GmbH and the private developers of the project. This makes that public- and private actors are both aware of what the other party is doing and on top of that, they can check if the goals of the project are not put to risk.

Concluding, considering whether it might be possible to transfer some of the policy measures from the case of HafenCity to the case of Haven-Stad, it must be said that broad lines can be followed, but more detailed research is necessary. Since the context factors of the projects in Hamburg and Amsterdam are quite similar, policy transfer could be possible. Especially when looking into ‘soft’ transfers such as ideologies and concepts policy transfer can be useful in this case. The OECD highlights that bottom-up processes of policy transfer often work the best. Besides this, research has shown that sub-national institutions, such as regional and local governments, have been identified as important transfer agents. This means that the municipality of Amsterdam can definitely take a leading role in identifying, promoting and spreading good practice which will lead to better ways of urban development.

6.2 Thinking in terms of conditions This research has combined figure 1: ‘Three levels of success factors’ (Franzen et al., 2011) and table 2: ‘Factors of local development practices and their transferability’ (OECD, 2011) to see whether policy transfer between two cases in a similar urban context is possible, or not. Therefore, use of these theoretical frameworks can be seen as a constructive element of this thesis. It can be seen as a way in which it is tried to gather knowledge which will try to help and improve other projects. In this last paragraph, the pros and cons of the theoretical frameworks used to measure the ability of policy transfer between the two cases of this research, will be discussed.

Overall, when it comes to measuring the necessary conditions and critical success factors of a case, the figure of Franzen et al (2011) proves to give a rough indication of these. As Franzen et al (2011) mention too; the list of given success factors is not exhaustive. Moreover, it should be kept in mind that the presence of given success factors here does not guarantee the success full development of a project, but only increases the likelihood of a success. In addition to that, it is important to remember that the boundary between necessary conditions and critical success factors is not always clear. These factors can easily interact with each other and therefore it is not always clear to see which aspect really made the difference in creating a success full urban development. On the other hand, the figure of Franzen et al (2011) has proven to be very useful in distinguishing the context factors of both cases. By using the framework, it became clear that the contexts of HafenCity and Haven-Stad are very similar. The fact that the two cases accord on the majority of the context factors makes them more suitable for policy transfer. For the determination of the context factors, the framework of Franzen et al (2011) can be seen as very helpful.

The table of the OECD (2011) provides a clear and demarcated overview of different components for policy exchange and the transferability of these options. Policy implications can be easily classified into one of the categories of this table. In combination with the figure of Franzen et al (2011), the two frameworks can be an addition to each other. Of course, the limitations of transferability of policy measures still apply when using these frameworks too. As Stead (2012) argues; best practices often have to be made explicit by taking out the

53 knowledge about a process or instrument to make to make it applicable to another case. When using the framework of Franzen et al (2011) in combination with the table by the OECD (2011) this information about the process and certain instruments is not getting lost. Thus, it can be argued that by using the combination of these two frameworks, the examples of best practice stay more detailed and are therefore also more likely to be transferred. On the other hand, both frameworks can be seen as a loose categorization for the theory and data of this research. Since the boundaries between different categories/components of the frameworks are not always clear, the ramification of factors or policy measures is not always obvious either.

In conclusion, the two frameworks used in this thesis to measure whether policy transfer between different urban contexts is possible, are complementary to one another. Even though boundaries between the factors and components in both frameworks are not always clear, a rough indication can certainly be made and proves to be usable.

7. CONCLUSION

The research question that was attempted to answer in this study was: ‘Under which institutional conditions can challenges in the planning process of inner-city waterfront redevelopment be addressed, and to what extend can these conditions be transferred into another context?’. In this chapter this question will be answered. In this thesis, the project of HafenCity in Hamburg has been taken as the main case study. Literature research shows that large-scale development projects, such as inner-city waterfront redevelopment projects, often have to deal with various challenges. Therefore, in this thesis three frameworks have been used to find out to what extend intuitional conditions can cope with the challenges coming along with inner-city urban waterfront redevelopment.

By doing literature research, a list of faced-challenges in large-scale urban redevelopment projects was formed. This framework has been used to ask respondents whether they experienced these challenges too, or not. An opportunity for own input of challenges was also given. It turned out that the challenges faced in the case of HafenCity, mainly had to do with prioritizing goals and aims, providing affordable housing and safeguarding the maritime atmosphere of the area. The amount of other challenges faced during the process of the newly build HafenCity in Hamburg, is limited. This study showed that this was mainly because of the important role of the public sector in this project. Public authorities have proved to be very influential. The publicly owned, but privately managed cooperation of HafenCity Hamburg GmbH has a leading and steering role in the project. The cooperation is supervised by a supervisory board and advised by an advisory board. This set-up provides the project with a certain kind of stability. Private developers are continuously guided and supervised by public actors. The role of private actors in the development of HafenCity, is therefore mainly limited to executive tasks. Since the municipality of Hamburg has given the area of HafenCity a priority status, decisions can be made fast and easily. Therefore, this research demonstrates that the presence of a strong state, which knows how to act in an entrepreneurial- way and context, can be of high added value to the planning process of an urban redevelopment project. Thereby, it can also limit the amount of challenges faced during the project.

Furthermore, the context factors, necessary conditions and critical success factors from the case of HafenCity have been identified by using figure 1 from Franzen et al (2011). This was done to distinguish, in the last part of this thesis, whether policy transferring between the case of HafenCity and the pilot case Haven-Stad would be possible. One of the necessary conditions that made HafenCity success full, is the presence of a flexible Masterplan. This plan provides an overarching vision to all of the stakeholders, but still leaves flexibility to cope with certain unexpected occurrences. Moreover, the set-up of the project (in combination with the presence of HafenCity Hamburg GmbH) can be seen as an important success factor. Furthermore, HafenCity Hamburg GmbH spends a relatively big part of its earnings on public communication. This seems to greater peoples’ acceptance towards construction noises, for example, but it is a good way of keeping people and actors involved with the project as well. In addition to that, the outstanding public communication has changed the image of Hamburg’s harbour area. This is important to attract people, new businesses and cooperation’s to the neighbourhood.

A few critical success factors that are marked as relevant by respondents, are the regular bi- weekly meetings between public- and private actors. These meetings are described as being open and well-organized. Organizing meet ups like this can be seen as one of the key aspects of a collaborative planning approach. It indicates that, in the project of HafenCity, different stakeholders work together and try to reach consensus. Concluding, strong, individual actors, with a lot of knowledge of the playing field, can play an important role in projects like HafenCity. All in all, these context factors, necessary conditions and critical success factors can be seen as an indication of the institutional conditions that have to be formed to deal with challenges coming along with inner-city waterfront redevelopment projects.

In the last part of this thesis, the constructive approach has been applied. This constructive approach it is tended to help and improve the knowledge on how other inner-city waterfront redevelopment projects can deal with challenges during the planning process. It is investigated, whether policy transfer between the main case study HafenCity and the pilot case of Haven-Stad, is possible. To measure the transferability of the success factors obtained by using the framework of Franzen et al (2011), table 2 by the OECD (2011) has been used. It can be said that Amsterdam can take some of Hamburg’s institutional conditions as an inspiration for its own. So-called ‘soft’ policy measures seem to be the most suitable for policy transfer. Focus on extended public communication, the presence of strong individual actors and consensus building between various actors can be taken as a policy advice by the city of Amsterdam. Furthermore, it is recommended to the municipality of Amsterdam to take some of the elements concerning the set-up of HafenCity Hamburg GmbH into account. It should be noted here that the municipalities of Hamburg and Amsterdam both have a strong say in the planning system. The presence of a strong public sector has proven to be really important in the success of HafenCity. Therefore, policy transferring between these two context seems possible. This can be different when it comes to other inner-city waterfront redevelopment projects were public authorities are less influential.

Concluding, it can be said that due to the strong role of public authorities the amount of faced challenges in HafenCity is limited. Even though, measuring success factors in case of an urban redevelopment project is always difficult, it can be said that policy transferring between the case of HafenCity and the case of Haven-Stad is possible. Therefore, this experimental method of using a pilot study has proven to be a useful form of constructive research.

Limitations of the research Of course, this research has its limitations. As discussed in paragraph 6.2, the frameworks used to measure whether policy transfer between the two cases of this research is possible, can be interpreted differently by researchers. The boundaries of the categories and levels are not always clear, which might lead to different outcomes. It is advisable to further research this. Moreover, in this research there was no possibility to talk to all the actors involved in the projects of both HafenCity and Haven-Stad. Since not all the stakeholders are heard, opinions on some of the topics might be one-sided. When conducting further research this might be a point of attention. Lastly, it should be kept in mind that in both cases researched for this thesis, the municipality has a strong role when it comes to urban planning. This might influence the challenges and institutional conditions coming along with large scale

56 redevelopment projects. It might be interesting to conduct similar research on cases where the public authorities play a less influential role.

Recommendations for further research Further research based on this thesis, can focus on the increasing role of public authorities in large-scale redevelopment projects. In the opinion of the researcher, a lot of literature on urban development focusses on the role of the private sector. This research has shown that the public sector can play an important role in large-scale projects, too. Especially in relation with the challenges coming along with these kinds of projects. It requires more research to see whether the amount of challenges faced in large-scale redevelopment projects can be limited when the public authorities play an important role. Moreover, the unexpected challenges mentioned in this thesis can be a starting point for more extensive research on this topic.

Lastly, it is recommended to do more research on the possibilities for policy transferring between different contexts. When developing more constructive ways in which similar projects can learn something from each other, urban planning in general can be improved. When more constructive knowledge on how to deal with challenges in urban planning is formed, planning processes can become less complicated and vulnerable to unforeseen circumstances.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abendblatt (2009) ‘HafenCity – es ist nicht alles Sonneschein’ https://www.abendblatt.de/hamburg/article107535110/HafenCity-Es-ist-nicht-alles- Sonnenschein.html Consulted at: 01.28.2018

Adams, D. & Tiesdell, S. (2010) Planners as Market Actors: Rethinking State–Market Relations in Land and Property, Planning Theory & Practice, 11 (2), pp. 187-207.

Allmendinger, P. (2009) Planning Theory (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).

Ansell, C. & Gash, A. (2007) Collaborative Governance in Theory and in Practice, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, pp. 543-571.

Arain, M. & Campbell, M, J. (2010) What is a pilot or feasibility study? A review of current practice and editorial policy, BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10 (67), pp. 1-7.

Basset, K., Griffiths, R. & Smith, I. (2002) Testing Governance: Partnerships, Planning and Conflict in Waterfront Regeneration, Urban Studies, 39 (10), pp. 1757-1775.

Benson, D. & Jordan, A. (2011) What Have We Learned from Policy Transfer Research? Dolowitz and Marsh Revisited, Political Studies Review, 9, pp. 366-378.

Betsill, M. & Bulkeley, H. (2004) Transnational Networks and Global Environmental Governance, International Studies Quarterly, 48 (2), pp. 471–93.

Blanco, I. (2015) Between Democratic Network Governance and Neoliberalism: A Regime- Theoretical Analysis of Collaboration in Barcelona, Cities, 44, pp. 123-130.

Bovaird, T. (2004) Public-Private Partnerships: from Contested Concepts to Prevalent Practice, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 70 (2), pp. 199-215.

Breen, A. & Rigby, D. (1985) CAUTION: Working Waterfront, The Waterfront Press, Washington, DC.

Brindley, T., Rydin, Y. & Stoker, G. (1996) Remaking Planning, The Politics of Urban Change Routledge, London.

Brinkerhoff, W. D. & Brinkerhoff, J, M. (2011) Public-Private Partnerships: Perspectives on Purposes Publicness, and Good Governance, Public Administration and Development, 31, pp. 2-14.

Bryman, A. (2012) Social Research Methods. 4th edn. Oxford University Press, New York. Bryson, J. (2004) What to do When Stakeholders Matter? Public Management Review, 6 (1), pp. 21-53.

Buitelaar, E., Galle, M. & Sorel, N. (2014) The Public Planning of Private Planning: An analysis of controlled spontaneity in Netherlands, In: Andersson, D.A. and S. Moroni (Eds.), Cities and Private Planning: Property Rights, Entrepreneurship and Transaction Costs, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Bulkeley, H. (2006) Urban Sustainability: Learning from Best Practice?, Environment and Planning A, 38 (6), pp. 1029–44.

Commission of the European Communities – CEC (2006) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment.

Cowell, R. & Thomas, H. (2002) Managing Nature and Narratives of Dispossession: Reclaiming Territory in Cardiff Bay, Urban Studies, 39 (7), pp. 1241-1260.

Der Spiegel (2010) ‘The Challenges of Making HafenCity Feel Neighborly’ http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/hamburg-s-new-quarter-the-challenge-of- making-hafencity-feel-neighborly-a-714008.html. 08.26.2010 Consulted at: 01.28.2018

Dolowitz, D. P. (2000) ‘Introduction’, Governance, 13 (1), pp. 1–4.

Fainstein, S. (1994), The City Builders: Property, Politics and Planning in London and New York. Blackwell, Oxford.

Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

Franzen, A., Hobma, F., Jonge, H. de & Wigmans, G. (2011) Management of Urban Development Processes in the Netherlands, Governance, Design, Feasibility. Techne Press, Amsterdam.

Gallant, D. & Hansen, C., J. (2012) The Roles of Planning in Waterfront Redevelopment: From Plan-led and Market-driven Styles to Hybrid Planning?, Planning Practice and Research, 27 (2), pp. 203-225.

Gemeente Amsterdam (2017) Haven-Stad. Url: https://www.amsterdam.nl/bestuur-organisatie/volg-beleid/haven-stad/ Consulted at: 01.19.2018

Gemeente Amsterdam (2018) Belangrijke thema’s van Haven-Stad. Url: https://www.amsterdam.nl/projecten/haven-stad/haven-stad-thema'/ Consulted at: 17.04.2018

Gemeente Amsterdam (2013) Transformatie strategie Haven-Stad, Sterke Stad – Slimme Haven. Projectgroep Haven-Stad.

Gordon, D. L. A. (1996) Planning, Design and Managing Change in Urban Waterfront Redevelopment, The Town Planning Review, 67 (3), pp. 261-290.

Gordon, D. L. A. (1997) Managing the Changing Political Environment in Urban Waterfront Redevelopment, Urban Studies, 34 (1), pp. 61-83.

Gospodini, A. (2001) Urban Waterfront Redevelopment in Greek Cities: A Framework for Redesigning Space, Cities, 18(5), pp. 285-295.

Gray, B. (1989) Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multi-party Problems. CA: Jossey- Bass, San Francisco.

Grimski, D. & Ferber, U. (2011) Urban brownfields in Europe, Land Contamination and Reclamation, 9 (1), pp. 143-148.

Gunay, Z. & Dokmeci, V. (2012) Culture-led regeneration of Istanbul Waterfront: Golden Horn Cultural Valley Project, Cities, 29 (4), p. 213-222.

Habermas, J. (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalisation of Society. Polity Press, Cambridge.

HafenCity Hamburg (2017) HafenCity Hamburg GmbH Url: http://www.hafencity.com/ Consulted at: 01.18.2018

Hall, P. (1998) Cities and Civilization: Culture, Innovation, and Urban. Order. Weidenfeld and Nicholson, London.

Heurkens, E. (2016) Institutional Conditions for Sustainable Private sector-led Urban Development Projects - A conceptual model. In Conference Proceedings SBE16 Hamburg: International Conference on Sustainable Built Environment: Strategies, Stakeholders, Success factors, pp. 726-735. Hamburg: ZEBAU.

Innes, J. E & Booher, E, D. (1999) Consensus Building and Complex Adaptive Systems, Journal of the American Planning Association, 65 (4), pp. 412-423.

Kostopoulou, S. (2013) On the Revitalized Waterfront: Creative Milieu for Creative Tourism, Sustainability, 5 (11), p. 4578-4593.

Krüger, T. (2009) HafenCity Hamburg – Ein Modell für Moderne Stadtentwicklung? Raumplanung, 146, pp. 193-198.

Lane, M, B. & McDonald, G. (2005) Community-based Environmental Planning: Operational Dilemmas, Planning Principles and Possible Remedies, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 48 (5), pp. 709-731.

Le Gales, P. (2001), Urban Governance and Policy Networks: On the Urban Political Boundedness of Policy Networks. A French Case Study. Public Administration, 79, pp. 167– 184.

Loftman, P. & Nevin, B. (1996) Going for growth: Prestige Projects in three British Cities, Urban Studies, 33, pp. 991-1019.

McCarthy, J. (2004) Tourism-related Waterfront Development in Historic Cities: Malta’s Cottonera Project, International Planning Studies, 9 (1), pp. 43-64.

Menzl, M. (2010) Das Verhältnis von Öffentlichkeit und Privatheit in der HafenCity: ein komplexer Balanceakt. In: HafenCity Hamburg. Springer, Vienna.

Menzl, M. & Breckner, I. (2011) Neighbourliness in the City Centre: Reality and Potential in the Case of Hamburg HafenCity. In: New Urbanism: Life, Work and Space in the New Downtown. Routledge, London.

Newman, J. (2005). Participative Governance and the Remaking of the Public Sphere. In: Remaking governance: Policy, politics and the public sphere. The Policy Press, Bristol.

Noring, L. & Katz, B. (2018) The European Model for Regenerating Cities, Innovation for Financing Urban Regeneration and Infrastructure.

OECD (2001) Best Practices in Local Development, OECD Publishing, Paris.

OECD (2014) The Competitiveness of Global Port Cities, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Pierre, J. (1999) Models of Urban Governance, The Institutional Dimension of Urban Politics, Urban Affairs Review, 34 (3), pp. 372-396

Radin, B. (2002) The Accountable Juggler, Congressional Quarterly Press, Washington D.C.

Rhodes, R.A.W. (2000) Governance and Public administration, Department of Politics, University of Newcastle

Rhodes, R.A.W. (2016) The Theory and Practice of Governance: the next steps (draft)

Sairinen, R. & Kumpulainen, S. (2006) Assessing Social Impacts in Urban Waterfront Regeneration, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26, pp. 120-135.

Schively, C. (2007) Understanding the LULU and NIMBY phenomena: Reassessing our Knowledge Base and Informing Future Research, Journal of Planning Literature, 21 (3), pp. 255-266.

Shaw, B. (2001) History at the water’s edge, in: R. Marshall (Ed.) Waterfronts in Post-Industrial Cities. Spon Press, London.

Smith, H. & Soledad Garcia Ferrari, M. (2012) Sustainable Waterfront Regeneration around the North Sea in a Global Context, in: Waterfront Regeneration, Experiences in City Building. Route Ledge, London.

Sørensen, E. & Torfing, J. (2005) The Democratic Anchorage of Governance Networks, Scandinavian Political Studies, 28 (3), pp. 195-218.

Stead, D. (2012) Best Practices and Policy Transfer in Spatial Planning, Planning Practice and Research, 27 (1), pp. 103-116

Stone, D. (2010) Private Philanthropy or Policy Transfer? The Transnational Norms of the Open Society Institute, Policy & Politics, 38 (2), pp. 269–87.

Stoker, G. (1998) Governance as theory: Five propositions, International Social Science Journal 50, pp. 17–28.

Sullivan Palincsar, A. (1998) Social Constructive Perspectives on Teaching and Learning, Annual Review of Psychology, 49 (1), pp. 345-375.

Tasan-Kok, T. (2010) Entrepreneurial governance: Challenges of large-scale property-led urban regeneration projects, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie (TESG), 101 (2), pp. 126-149.

Tasan-Kok, T. & Vranken, J. (2011) Handbook for Multilevel Urban Governance in Europe, Analysing Participatory Instrument for an Integrated Urban Development, European Urban Knowledge Network, the Netherlands.

Van Rooy, P., Van Luin, A. & Dil, E. (2006) Nederland Boven Water. Habiforum, Gouda.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 4th edn. Sage, Los Angeles.

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1: Indication of necessary conditions and critical success factors

Necessary conditions – Possible to be driven or modified by stakeholders.

- Timely acquisition of land - Economic feasibility - Independent sub-projects - Early inclusion of private players in the process - Creation of well-defined go/no-go moments - Early involvement of residents’ groups - Make a distinction between the role of the public and the private actors - Setting up of a municipal project bureau with a robust mandate and sufficient responsibilities - Unambiguous marketing

There are many necessary conditions besides those described above. This list is by no means exhaustive.

Critical success factors - relatively difficult for actors to influence

- Trust and openness between the parties - Leadership, in particular the presence of a kind of entrepreneur. An actor with considerable authority in the public and private domain, who is skilled in bringing about solutions to problems. - Image of the redevelopment site - Reduction of complexity - Proactive policy makers - Designers who adopt a ‘modern’ approach to their task

There are many critical success factors besides those described above. This list is by no means exhaustive.

Source: Franzen et al (2011).

Attachment 2: Topic list

Start of the interview (not recorded) - Introduction; introduce myself, what is this research about. - Aim of the interview: Finding out what role the actor played in the project of Hamburg HafenCity/Amsterdam Haven-Stad. What challenges did they face? How did they overcome them? - Practical issues: Interview consist out of open questions. Will take around 50 minutes/ an hour - Privacy - Recording: Ask if it is okay to record the interview - Let’s start with the interview, are there any questions beforehand?

The project - Can you explain the project of Hamburg HafenCity/Amsterdam Haven-Stad - Who were the initiators for this project? - What is the role of organization XXX in this project? - How did you get involved in the project? - How are the tasks/roles divided in this project?

Actors - Which other stakeholders contribute to the project? - What is the role of the public actors in the project? - What is the role of the private actors in the project? - Do all actors collaborate on the same ‘level’?

The process - To what extend was the organization XXX involved in this decision-making process? - Why (not)? - Which other actors had a great influence on the decision-making process? - How did the decision-making process for the project take place? - Is the actor happy with how the decision-making process went?

Challenges - It will be asked if the respondent has experienced some of the challenges mentioned in the theoretical framework Conflicting, shifting and competing aims of stakeholders Weaknesses in political or business leadership The strength of opposition groups Sensitivity to fluctuations on the financial market Public sectors lack of knowledge about private sector dynamics Port-city and city-port relationships Planning system challenges - Did the respondent experience any other challenges during the planning process? - Which of this challenges was unforeseen?

- How has been dealt with these challenges?

Policy - What policy measures taken can be seen as a success? - Why? - Would the respondent recommend this to other projects as well?

Recommendations - Have other projects been studied before starting with the current project? - Have you used policies/ideas from other projects as an inspiration? - Can you give a good advice to stakeholders which still have to deal with a project like this?

Attachment 3: Description of respondents

Respondent and function Duration of interview Respondent 1: Assistant at the project of Haven-Stad in Amsterdam 40 minutes Respondent 2: Working at the project of Haven-Stad in Amsterdam. 25 minutes

Respondent 3: Expert on housing and neighborhood development. 55 minutes

Respondent 4: PhD researcher at waterfront projects. 55 minutes

Respondent 5: Working at HafenCity Hamburg GmbH 50 minutes

Respondent 6: Working as plan advisor at Waternet in Amsterdam. 30 minutes

Respondent 7: Project leader at Vervoerregio Amsterdam. 45 minutes

Respondent 8: Expert on Urban Development projects. 60 minutes

Respondent 9: Working at the Authority for City Development and Via e-mail Housing in Hamburg.

Attachment 4: Codes of data analyses

The project - Explanation - Role of respondent XX - Involvement of respondent XX - Other

Actors - Role of respondent XX - Other actors - Public actors - Private actors

The process - Decision-making process - Opinion about decision-making process

Challenges - Challenges known from literature - New challenges - Dealing with challenges - Others

Policy - Policy recommendations - Inspiration from other context - Advice

Quotes - Quotes