Sports Stadia– Catalyst for Urban Regeneration of the Local Community?

A theoretical study on the role of sports stadia in the urban regeneration of the local community including a comparative case study of stadia in England (New Wembley, Emirates Stadium, New Anfield, New White Hart Lane) and the Netherlands (New Kuip)

Dennis Blom Universiteit van Amsterdam Masterthesis Urban and Regional Planning Supervisor: Menno van der Veen The Hague, June 2014 Title: Sports Stadia – Catalyst for Urban Regeneration of the Local Community? University of Amsterdam Faculty of Social Sciences Master Urban and Regional Planning Supervisor: Menno van Veen 20th of June, 2014

Dennis Blom

Noordland 38 2548 WB, The Hague [email protected] 0623226226 UvA no: 10547096

Pagina | 2

Preface

The present master’s thesis is the end of my one-year Master Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Amsterdam. I have had the opportunity to build this research around strong personal interest which derive from my personal real-life experiences as a football fan and football player. All my life I have been fascinated about new sports stadia. Every time a new stadium is built, I want to know everything about it. For me it was very special to include the new Kuip case in this research, because as a youth player of Feyenoord I played several times a pre-match in the Kuip. I decided to examine the new Kuip, because it is today a hot topic in the Netherlands. Unfortunately, the plans were during my research still at an early stage so I could not examine the new stadium plans in detail. Though, it was interesting to see the difference between the English urban regeneration stadia and the new Kuip case at this early stage. I hope I contributed to the international debate and on the sly I hope to contribute to the final new Kuip plans from an urban planning viewpoint.

For me, writing this thesis has been a rewarding and thought-provoking experience. During this research I found out that many beautiful stadia that offers many economic benefits to the club owners or football clubs, are often not good in terms of urban regeneration. In the context of economic crisis it seems for me desirable stadia should be designed for clubs and public spill-overs. In this way stadia also have value for disadvantaged local communities. Consequently, because of this research I currently look at stadia very different than I was used to. At first the inside of the new stadia and the outside with respect to flagship architecture was very interesting for me, now I’m more into the role of stadia within local communities.

I would also like to use this preface to thank a number of people. First of all my parents, friends and fellow students for their interest and stimulating words while writing this thesis. I could not have done it without them. I also have to thank my thesis supervisor Menno van der Veen. The pleasant cooperation, suggestions and feedback have sent me in the right direction.

Finally, I hope this study inspires and helps other people to carry out similar research on the impact of sports stadia on urban regeneration of disadvantaged areas. In addition, I hope policy makers become more aware of the importance of sports-related regeneration and the creation of an integrated area-based strategy with the building of new or renovation of existing stadia. In this way the expensive stadia will also produce positive spill-overs and public benefits, instead of focusing on the benefits for the respective clubs.

Dennis Blom

The Hague, June 2014

Pagina | 3

Abstract

Anywhere around Europe, from England to Spain, stadia are built or upgraded for mainly economic reasons. Often the stadia projects are focused on the interests of the sports teams, and not on the value of stadia for the local community. The use of constructing or upgrading sports stadia as a tool for regenerating cities has become very popular in Europe, and especially in England, recent years. In England clubs and stadia are very much attached to the local community. Therefore the clubs in general do not relocate to out-of-town locations, which is for instance very common in Germany. This is also the reason the German stadia are do not have value for the local community in terms of urban regeneration, and the English “urban regeneration stadia” do. The English sports stadia are often the centre of a development of an area and thus seen as catalyst for urban regeneration of a neighbourhood. However, there is some disagreement about the benefits of stadia. Are stadia really a catalyst for urban regeneration of a local community? Numerous authors have criticized the value of the economic promises. The benefits of sports stadia are also questioned because the benefits for the local community have been poorly researched. Although there are many views on the positive and negative effects of sports stadia, theoretical insight on what conditions stadia must meet in order to actually have a function for a local community is missing. This research has therefore a theoretical perspective, which means that based on existing literature, expert interviews, own research and a policy analysis of several case studies a number of conditions are formulated which (future) stadia must meet to have value for local community. Aim is to investigate how stadia can act as a catalyst for urban regeneration in disadvantaged working-class quarters. This eventually leads to recommendations, conditions which stadia must meet, that is very relevant to today’s practice of building or upgrading stadia within disadvantaged working-class quarters like the case of the new Kuip in Rotterdam. This research provides evidence to suggest that sports stadia can have a positive impact on a disadvantaged working-class quarter, but that stadia must meet certain conditions in order to actually act as a catalyst and have value for a local community.

Pagina | 4

Table of contents

1. Sports Stadia and Urban Regeneration – Introduction……...... 7 1.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………….………………….…………………7 1.2 Problem statement, aim and research question(s)……………………..………………………………………...... 8 1.3 Innovation and relevance……………………….………………………………………………………………………………..9 1.3.1 Social context……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………9 1.3.2 Scientific context………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…10 1.4 Thesis outline……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………….10 1.4.1 Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..10 1.4.2 Theory…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 1.4.3 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………11 2. Sports Stadia and Urban Regeneration - Research Design ……………………………………………12 2.1 Operationalization………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….12 2.2 Research design and methods………………………………………………………………………………………………..13 2.2.1 Phase 1: Theoretical design. Methods: Literature study, expert-interviews and own research…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..13 2.2.2 Phase 2: Comparative case study design. Method: Policy analysis…………………………….…….15 2.2.2.1 Case studies…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….15 2.2.2.2 Case selection………………………………………………………………………………………………………….15 2.2.3 Phase 3: Concluding design. Method: Creation of conditions……………….…………………………16 2.3 Data analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..16 2.4 Reliability and validity ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………16 2.5 Limitations……………………....………………………………………………………………………………………………….…17 3. Sports Stadia and Urban Regeneration - Theoretical Framework…………………….…………..18 3.1 Sport stadia development………………………………………………………………………………………………………18 3.1.1 Sports stadia through history: transition from downtown normal stadia to stadia having a function for the local community……………………………………………..…….………..……………………18 3.1.2 Present-day stadia……………….………….……………………………………………………………………………..27 3.1.3 Stadia culture and context dependent……………..…………………….……………………………………….28 3.2 Sports-related urban regeneration…………………………………………………………………………………...... 31 3.2.1 Four elements of urban regeneration……………………………………………………………………………..31 3.2.1.1 Economic…………………………….…………………………………………………………………………………..32 3.2.1.2 Environmental…………………………………………………………………………………………………………32 3.2.1.3 Physical……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………33 3.2.1.4 Social……….………………………………………………………………………………………………………………33 3.2.2 Three models of sports-related urban regeneration……………………………………………………….33 3.2.2.1 Model 1: Sports-led Regeneration – “iconic flagship projects”………………………………..34 3.2.2.2 Model 2: Sports-Regeneration – ”integrated area-based strategy”………………………...34 3.2.2.3 Model 3: Sport and Regeneration – “independent interventions”……………………..……34 3.3 Sports stadia as catalyst for urban regeneration…………………….………………………………………………35 3.3.1 Economic: Spin-off of stadia in semi-urban working-class quarters ………………………………..35 3.3.2 Environmental: Upgrading environment to improve resident’s quality of life …………………36 3.3.3 Physical: Improved accessibility and architectural iconic design………………………………………36 3.3.4 Social: New image of the neighbourhood, increase in public health and involvement of local residents…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………37 3.4 Sports stadia as barrier for urban regeneration………………………………………………………………………38 3.4.1 Economic: Great uncertainty about the economic promises and the contribution to the local community ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………38 3.4.2 Environmental: Nuisance and (visual) pollution for residents without experiencing benefits

Pagina | 5

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……39 3.4.3 Physical: Influence of large companies and organizations ………………………………………….…..40 3.4.4 Social: Wrong kind of visitors, social exclusion and opposition of local residents ……………41 3.5 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..41 4. Sports Stadia and Urban Regeneration - Tensions………………………………………………………..43 4.1 Tension 1: Design and location of stadia…………………………………………..…………………………………….43 4.2 Tension 2: Flagship architecture……………………………………………….…………………………………………….44 4.3 Tension 3: Rising property prices.. negative or positive?...... 45 4.4 Tension 4: Negative or positive impact on social environment?.………………………..…………………..46 4.5 Tension 5: New large companies vs local entrepreneurs…………...... ……………….47 4.6 Tension 6: Growth at the expense of existing entertainment districts?...... 47 4.7 Tension 7: Resident’s quality of life…………………………………………………………..……………………………48 4.8 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………48 5. Sports Stadia and Urban Regeneration – Cases……………………………………………………………50 5.1 English regeneration stadia………………………….…………………………………………………………………..…….50 5.1.1 New Wembley…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………50 5.1.2 Emirates Stadium…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….51 5.1.3 New Anfield…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….52 5.1.4 New White Hart Lane………………………………………………………………………………………………………53 5.2 New Kuip………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..54 5.2.1 Ambition for a new stadium……………………………………………………………………………………………54 5.2.2 Renovation: multifunctional state-of-the-art Kuip…………………………………………………………..55 5.2.3 Mixed use Kuip?...... 57 5.3 Comparison…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….58 5.4 Conclusion – advice for the new Kuip……………………………………………………………………………………..59 6. Sports Stadia and Urban Regeneration – Conclusion...... ……………………….………………61 6.1 Answer to sub-questions…………………………………………………………………………………………………….….61 6.2 Answer to research question………………………………………………………………….………………………………65 6.3 Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….65 6.4 Reflection……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….66 Bibliography - Literature…………………..…………………………………………………………………….………67 Bibliography - Figures………………………………………………………………………………………………………73

Pagina | 6

1. Sports Stadia and Urban Regeneration – Introduction

his first chapter provides an introduction to the study. Firstly, in section 1.1 an introduction to the subject will be presented, before moving on to the research question(s) of the research in T section 1.2. After this the social and scientific relevance will be discussed (section 1.3) and the thesis outline in section 1.4 concludes this introductory chapter.

1.1 Sports stadia and urban regeneration

Nowadays a lot of clubs, cities and countries across Europe choose to build new sports stadia or upgrade existing stadia. In France many stadia are built and renewed for the European Championship 2016. Also in the rest of Europe are numerous examples of recently proposed new stadia. This includes for instance football clubs AS Roma, Tottenham Hotspur and Atletico Madrid, which are major clubs across Europe who are currently engaged in constructing new stadia in order to help bridge the gap between them and the top teams in those countries financially. Those stadia are built primarily for clubs with an inside-oriented view to generate revenue for the respective clubs. On the other hand, many stadia around the world are primarily built serving a national need for a major flagship event with sometimes no legacy of use after the event. This happened in many stadia built for the World Cup or the Olympic Games. The Netherlands has already faced a period of constructing new sports stadia. The Netherlands was several years ago even an example to the rest of Europe with the construction of multifunctional stadia like the Amsterdam ArenA and Gelredome.

Back in the days, sports stadia were designed to accommodate as much spectators as possible with no value for the local community. Nevertheless, the last two decades many cities across Europe are increasingly using sports-related mega-projects like the development of stadia as the key player in economic and urban development strategies of cities (Searle, 2002). Stadia and related major events can act as an important catalyst for urban regeneration and consequently result in direct benefits for the local community: they have the potential to boost economic growth, improve infrastructure and create new job opportunities (Chema, 1996; Jones, 2001; Chanayil, 2002; Thornley, 2002; Chapin, 2004; Kavetsos and Szymanski, 2010). It is not always about economic objectives, Thornley (2002) notes for instance the positive contribution of football club Manchester United to the changed image of the city of Manchester. The focus on the local community means the emergence of urban regeneration stadia, which are primarily present in England. A few years ago the Netherlands was at the forefront of stadium development, in contrast today England is an example to rest of Europe. The construction of the new Kuip in Rotterdam is a hot topic as we speak, how does this Dutch example relate to urban regeneration and have value for the local community?

The positive effects of stadia and the associated major events on cities justify according to Ahlfeldt and Maennig (2010) the enormous costs of building stadia, but in many small-exploratory case studies and general literature (Baade and Dye, 1990; Baim, 1994; Baade, 1996a and 1996b; Coates and Humphreys, 2000; Siegfried and Zimbalist, 2000; Chapin, 2004; Robinson et al., 2011) no (economic) benefits to the local community are found. Development of stadia can be important for the image and economy of the city as a whole or just for the club. In this way sports stadia only serve city´s or the club’s interests and are an obstacle for urban regeneration of the local community. Nevertheless, stadia also have a local impact because it often results in parking problems and congestion for the local community. The effects of stadium projects are thus controversial. Although many present-day stadia aim to have a big impact on urban regeneration, Gratton et al. (2005) state many of the benefits to the local community have been poorly researched. While planned new stadia in Europe aim to have a major impact on the regeneration of an area, this impact is questioned in literature. The literature, however, has not yet been able to formulate conditions stadia must meet

Pagina | 7 to actually have a function for urban regeneration in a local community besides city’s purposes. Therefore this research is aimed to get more insight in the role of stadia with urban regeneration of neighbourhoods, because nowadays the enormous costs of stadium construction also needs to result in public benefits. There is a need for a theoretical substantiation from an urban planning perspective, to help and justify the construction or renovation of future stadia which aim to deal with urban regeneration of a local community. How can sports stadia act as a catalyst for urban regeneration that enriches and cater for local community’s needs?

1.2 Problem statement, aim and research question(s)

Scientific literature has shown that in many cases a big project like the construction or makeover of sports stadia is the key player and catalyst of the development of an entire area. Much research was devoted to the role of stadium developments and the upgrading of disadvantaged neighbourhoods. This contributed to the insight that sports stadia can have positive and negative effects for urban regeneration of a neighbourhood. Consequently, the impact of sports stadia on urban regeneration of a local community is questioned. The construction of stadia have much impact at the local community level. However, minor understanding exists in the role of stadia as catalyst for urban regeneration for a local community, to cater for local communities’ needs besides city’s and sports team’s needs. Although the English urban regeneration stadia aim to have a big impact on the local community, literature lacks evidence that sports stadia can have a function for the upgrading of a local community. Moreover, Thornley (2002) argues most of the literature about the impact of sports stadia is from the North American context and primarily focuses on the regional level. This research explores the impact of stadia on the local community level in Europe and therefore addresses the identified shortfall in literature and contributes to the evidence base of sports stadia and urban regeneration. Because of the disagreement about the impact of stadia, the aim of this study is to identify several tensions stadia have to deal with regarding the urban regeneration of the local community. By doing this, the general goal of this study is to investigate how sports stadia can act as a catalyst for urban regeneration for a local community and what conditions stadia should meet to act actually as a catalyst and cater for local community’s needs. It uses existing literature, the expert opinion of people working or living in the field of stadium development, own research about the stadia of the clubs of the highest division of the eight best countries based on the UEFA country ranking 2013/2014 and a policy analysis of several English stadia compared to the new Kuip in Rotterdam. Hereby this study will constantly refer to different stadia in Europe, based on small-scale exploratory case studies such as Jones (2001), Newman and Tual (2002), Ahlfeldt and Maennig (2010) and Smink (2010). Based on all gathered information advice will be produced for the role of (future) stadia in disadvantaged working-class quarters in Europe, which is especially useful for the new Kuip case. The following research question and sub-questions are central to this study:

Research question:

How can sports stadia act as a catalyst for urban regeneration and have value for the local community in working-class-quarters?

Sub-questions:

 What is the relationship between sports-related development, like the construction of stadia, and urban regeneration?

Pagina | 8

 What are the positive effects of (new) sports stadia to act as a catalyst for urban regeneration and have value for the local community in working-class-quarters?  What are the negative effects of (new) sports stadia to act as a barrier for urban regeneration and have no value for the local community in working-class-quarters?  What are the tensions for urban regeneration (new) sports stadia must have to take into account?  What conditions must (new) sports stadia meet to make urban regeneration possible and cater for the needs of the local community?  What suggestions and advice can be provided for future sports stadia, and the Kuip in particular, having value for the local community in working-class-quarters?

1.3 Innovation and relevance

The motive for this research is twofold. On the one hand, the motive is a societal “problem” because present-day there is much debate about this subject. On the other hand, the motive of this study is a broader scientific discussion. This section makes clear what this study adds to our knowledge of the role of stadia within the regeneration of a disadvantaged working-class quarters. This research is written in English because, although writing in Dutch would foster readability, the thesis is now connected with international research and debate. Only Dutch quotes from interviews or the literature were accepted verbatim.

1.3.1 Social context

This research is an attempt to make a particular social issue clear. It is about the function of stadia for urban regeneration local communities. Often the construction or renovation of sports stadia is the centre of a project and seen as a catalyst for urban regeneration. Hence this research adds on to the current policy debate concerning whether to build a new or renovate a stadium or not and to what extent it is a catalyst for urban regeneration of a local community. The practical relevance of this research lies in the applicability of the gained insights for the policy practise especially within today’s debate about the World Cup stadia in Brazil and the contribution of the stadia to the often poor Brazilian communities. A good Dutch example is the present-day discussion in Rotterdam about the new Kuip of football club Feyenoord. By comparing the new Kuip plans with several English urban regeneration stadia, like for example the already constructed new Wembley and Emirates Stadium in London, certain things can be possibly learned. Because of the enormous costs of sports stadia, there should be as much positive spill-overs for the local community as possible. This research aims to recommend certain conditions sports stadia should meet to act as a catalyst for urban regeneration and have a function and value for the local community. In this way sports stadia do not only serve city’s or sports team’s interests, but also contribute to the interests of the local community. This insight is very relevant for today’s debate about (new) sports stadia and their role with urban regeneration of disadvantaged neighbourhoods. The case of the new Kuip in Rotterdam illustrates this relevance. The findings of this study are relevant for many people in the field of stadium development in Europe, especially for the new Kuip case. This study, from an urban planning viewpoint, can contribute to the new Kuip plans with several English stadia as reference framework and used to give the new Kuip the best possible function in the working-class quarter Rotterdam- Zuid. However, this research and associated conclusions are also useful for other (future) stadia in Europe.

Pagina | 9

1.3.2 Scientific context

This thesis contributes on the debate and existing theoretical knowledge on stadium impact by combining several general theoretical insights to produce a framework in terms of conditions for future stadium developments. This is important for scientists in several fields like urban planning, economics, architecture and many others because stadia developments can have enormous impacts on the environment and on people (e.g. health). Despite the importance, the contemporary scientific literature about this subject contains certain gaps. Most of the scientific literature about cities and stadium development is based on small-scale case studies of North American stadia. However, Thornley (2002) and Davies (2010) claim the fundamental differences between the funding and development of stadia in North America and Europe limits the use of the observations in Europe. They both claim cities in North America compete strongly with each other to attract big clubs to their city, while in Europe the geographical movement of clubs is very unlikely.

Nevertheless, Searle (2002) claims the evidence from North America has general lessons for cities in Europe. The main body of literature on sports stadia and urban regeneration suggests, although major sports-related projects have an important role in the development of many cities, the high costs do not always result in benefits for the local community. Davies (2008) suggests the research focus over the past decades has been the national economic importance of sport and therefore evidence to support sports-related development to help regeneration goals is questioned. Although several authors investigated the (economic) benefits of major sports events, Gratton et al. (2005) argue research has paid minor attention to the benefits of stadia to the local community. Furthermore, Davies (2010) highlights the small-scale case studies on sports stadia like the study of Jones (2001) and Newman and Tual (2002) on the Cardiff Millennium Stadium and the Stade de France, provide little strong evidence that can be used in other cases. This is because those case studies examined stadia serving a national need, and not stadia primarily built for clubs. Although the benefits of sports-related regeneration are recognized, the evidence from the contemporary literature is according to Davies (2008 and 2010) still not strong enough to justify the building of expensive stadia. Therefore is according to Gratton et al. (2005) and Davies (2008 and 2010) additional research needed to extend evidence for sports-related regeneration for a better understanding of the role of sports stadia in major regeneration projects. The literature has for instance not yet been able to build a framework for sports stadia to maximize the benefits and minimalize the negative impacts in terms of conditions. This research responds to the lack of evidence and tries to fill in the gap in knowledge of the function of sports stadia to act as a catalyst for urban regeneration within a local community to allow more investment in major sports stadia. This will result in additional evidence to support sports-related regeneration to produce benefits for local communities. The theoretical perspective of this study from an urban planning viewpoint, can add to the insight on the function of sports stadia on a local scale for urban regeneration.

1.4 Thesis outline

In order to achieve a responsible answer to the main research question this theoretical research has a methodological, theoretical and a concluding component. To conclude this introductory chapter, now the content and coherence of the three components is described.

1.4.1 Methodology

First of all, in Chapter 2 the research design of the study will be discussed. The operationalization of important concepts, the research methods, the data analysis, the reliability and validity and the limitations and constraints will be described. Pagina | 10

1.4.2 Theory

The theoretical framework is presented in Chapter 3 in which main concepts, theories and debates about the subject will be discussed. It elaborates on the phenomenon of sports stadia, the key elements of urban regeneration and the specific positive and negative effects of stadia for urban regeneration of a local community. Expert-interviews and own research about European stadia will also be used for feedback of the theory. This theory has prompted discussions of some tensions that (new) stadia faces for urban regeneration of a certain area considered in the next section of this thesis (Chapter 4). This is followed by a policy analysis in Chapter 5 of four English stadia which were combined with urban regeneration projects, and the new Kuip case in which this combination is questioned. This aims to highlight the difference between English stadia and the new Kuip case and will identify the area in which the new Kuip can learn from the English cases.

1.4.3 Conclusion

The conclusions of this study in Chapter 6 consists of relating all the parts together and answering the overarching research question and sub-questions. The findings of the study will be presented as conditions which sports stadia must meet if they want to act as a catalyst for urban regeneration and cater for local community’s needs. Also some recommendations will be made for further research and policy making. Following the conclusions, this study is concluded with a final consideration, with the researcher's own thoughts on the conclusions and the case study of the new Kuip in Rotterdam.

Pagina | 11

2. Sports Stadia and Urban Regeneration - Methodology

n this chapter the methodology of the research will be presented as a clear research. The research design represents the framework for collection and analysis of data (Yin, 2003; Bryman, 2008). I The research design makes an attempt to give a clear foundation for this research to fill in the gap of the lack of evidence of the value of sports stadia in the upgrading of disadvantaged working-class quarters. First, the key concepts applied in this research will be operationalized in section 2.1, before moving on to the explanation of the overall design and research methods in section 2.2. Finally, the data analysis (section 2.3) and the reliability and validity (section 2.4) will be clarified and this chapter is concluded in section 2.5 by a discussion of the limitations of this research.

2.1 Operationalization

The transition from theory to empirical research is called the operational phase; it is the process in which theoretical concepts are made measurable (van Thiel, 2010). The theoretical concepts are defined and framed in Table 1.

Table 1: Operationalization of important concepts.

Term Explanation Author(s) Stadium Stadium developments imply in this study the construction of development new and the redevelopment of existing stadia. In this way the study tries to be comprehensive and modern, because in contrast to the past today’s stadium developments are also about the upgrading of existing stadia. Working-class A working-class quarter (“volkswijk” in Dutch) implies in this quarter study a traditional neighbourhood where “average people” live, mostly labour-class. A working-class quarter is disadvantaged because it consists of simple homes and a few services in often poor conditions. Residents in this situation often end up in a negative spiral which is hard to escape. Urban Urban regeneration is one of the most important strategies Roberts and Sykes, regeneration to address deprivation. It consists of a comprehensive and 2000; Tsenkova, integrated vision to improve a declining and disadvantaged 2002; Rousseau, area economically, physically, socially and environmentally. 2009. Sports-related Major sports infrastructure, like stadia, are increasingly used Evans, 2005; Ahlfeldt urban regeneration as regeneration tools because it can have a positive impact and Maennig, 2010; on the regeneration of disadvantaged working-class quarters, Davies, 2010. beyond the other sports objectives. Sports-related regeneration refers therefore to the way major sports infrastructure can be used to regenerate an area economically, socially, environmentally and physically. Economic urban Economic regeneration is an essential part of the process of Roberts and Sykes, regeneration urban regeneration. It is needed to counter the economic 2000; Thornley, decline experienced by many disadvantaged 2002; Tsenkova, neighbourhoods. The economic section of urban 2002; Smink, 2010; regeneration deals for example with the attraction of Legros, 2013. businesses to an area, which consequently leads to improved job opportunities for local people. Environmental The environmental quality of an area is important because Roberts and Sykes, urban regeneration the location decision of many firms and residents is based on 2000; Tsenkova,

Pagina | 12

this aspect. The environmental side of regeneration is 2002; Ryan and connected with the economic and physical elements of Weber, 2008; Legros, regeneration. Improving the environment can have benefits 2013 for both businesses and residents of the local community; the environmental perspective is important for resident’s quality of life. Physical urban Physical regeneration is the main engine of regeneration. The Roberts and Sykes, regeneration physical aspect of urban regeneration deals with the physical 2000; Tsenkova, improvement of the neighbourhood with housing, 2002. transportation and public space. For example, the urban design of the environment affects housing values. There are many elements of the physical aspect including buildings, sites, open spaces, services and transport infrastructure. Social urban The urban environment of a neighbourhood is the social Roberts and Sykes, regeneration component of urban regeneration. The social component 2000; Tsenkova, deals with the improvement of the social environment 2002; Smink, 2010; including healthcare, education and safety. A welcoming, safe Legros, 2013. and a pleasant environment is very important for people’s neighbourhood. This has also to do with the image of neighbourhoods. Economic growth can only be achieved if the negative image of disadvantaged areas is improved.

2.2 Research design and methods

The methodology is the framework of the research and research activities. The design of this study is a theoretical design and a combination of a case study design and a comparative design. The research uses multiple sources of information. Based on existing theory, expert-interviews, own research and a policy analysis of several cases as an inductive approach of reasoning, several tensions and in the end recommendations will be formulated as conditions. The following paragraphs will elaborate on the design and methods of the research.

2.2.1 Phase 1: Theoretical design. Methods: Literature study, expert-interviews and own research.

This research from a theoretical perspective consists primarily of reading and analysing a lot of literature because theory is the framework of the study. First, by far the most important source of information is existing academic literature. Second, grey literature like government reports, dissertations and theses is used. However, the research is also empirical. In addition to the literature study, some expert-interviews are conducted. The expert-interviews serve as supplement to the other sources of information for the theoretical framework. Qualitative research is suitable for complex situations, if existing knowledge is inadequate (Bryman, 2008). A common method for gathering information is from interviews (van Thiel, 2007). In this research, qualitative research as part of the theory part is chosen to trace individual visions of different people who have been selected very carefully. According to Boeije et al. (2009) qualitative research is suitable for mapping the perspective of certain individuals or groups. With interviews, further insight into the phenomenon sports stadia and urban regeneration can be obtained. The expert-interview as research method is a specific form of semi‐structured interview which uses the knowledge and experience of persons with sports stadia and urban regeneration in addition to the theory. The semi- structured character means that interviews are structured on the basis of a fixed number of questions or topics. These subjects are derived from the theoretical framework and Chapter 4 about the tensions. Table 2 illustrates the chosen experts who represent a broad range of groups who have had in some way experience with the development of stadia in the Netherlands.

Pagina | 13

Table 2: Overview of “experts”.

Interviewee Job

Germen Oosterhof Bewonersplatform Venserpolder

Henk Markerink CEO Amsterdam ArenA

Ben Veenbrink Stadium Consultancy Arend Rutgers BAM/A&E Architecten

Wouter-Jan Verheul Technische Universiteit Delft

Residents/entrepreneurs - neighbourhood the Kuip

The experts intend to cover an extensive range of knowledge about this phenomenon; so the interviewees are perceived as experts and are selected on basis of their knowledge, experience and expertise. An expert in this study is, based on the definition of Belting (2008), defined as a person who has a high degree of skill and knowledge in the domain of stadium development, due to long‐time experience and has status, power‐to‐act and decision‐making opportunities based on these skills and knowledge. In addition to the expert-interviews, several experts are not interviewed but are represented by different sources because not always interviews were possible. One person (Germen Oosterhof) has been questioned by e-mail and one person his opinion (Wouter-Jan Verheul) is represented by consulting his book (“Stedelijke iconen: het ontstaan van beeldbepalende projecten tussen betoog en beton”) and several interviews on the internet. Also the view of Henk Markerink is represented by several interviews on the internet. In this way it is attempted to express the opinion of the experts as good as possible. It should be noted that after conducting the interviews, and in addition the interviews with the residents and entrepreneurs, the decision was made that enough information was obtained and that conducting more interviews was not necessary. This also because of the theoretical design of the study; the expert-interviews are only used as addition to the theory. This is why a massive framework of interview is not necessary in this research. Quotes of the interviewees are shown in the text as follows:

“…………………….” (see Appendix ..)

Reference is made to the appendix because the entire interview can be consulted in the appendix. The striking quotes of the of the interviewees are in the text paraphrased in own words in English. The added value of the observations from the interviews is reflection on the consulted theory. In this way the consulted theory can be confirmed, rejected or supplemented.

In addition, own research about the stadia of the clubs of the highest division of the eight best countries based on the UEFA country ranking is included in this first phase. This ranking (see Table 3) is considered as a representative division to investigate stadia in Europe. Examining stadia of all European countries would be too much and unnecessary. The aim of this was to identify similarities and differences across Europe regarding stadium developments. The period since 1974 has been taken in order to see how the location of stadia has changed within cities, because this can explain a lot about the relationship with urban regeneration. Although the time period is until 2014, new stadia being built today until 2018 are also included in this study. This is done to extend the expiry

Pagina | 14 date of this study. If the research only included stadia until 2014, the data would be soon outdated because many new stadia are today under construction especially for the European Championship 2016 in France and the World Cup 2018 in Russia.

Table 3: UEFA Country Ranking May 2014 and investigated stadia (only highest division).

# Country (1-4) Stadia # Country (5-8) Stadia 1 Spain 20 5 Portugal 16 2 England 20 6 France 20 3 Germany 18 7 Russia 16 4 Italy 20 8 The Netherlands 18

After reading a lot of (grey) literature, conducting some interviews and own research, things were still unclear and raised questions. This is where the tension part starts (Chapter 4). Several tensions are identified stadia have to deal with regarding the urban regeneration of the local community, based on Chapter 3.

2.2.2 Phase 2: Comparative case study design. Method: Policy analysis.

After the tension part, a policy analysis is carried out about several cases (Chapter 5). The design of this research is a combination of a case study design and a comparative design. First, it is a case study design because in phase 2 particular cases will be intensively investigated. The comparative design implies the existence of several cases who are compared with each other. The following paragraphs will elaborate on the design of the case studies.

2.2.2.1 Case studies

A case study is an in-depth study of a particular research problem used to narrow down a very broad field of research into a few researchable examples (Yin, 2003). It is a research strategy which focuses on understanding the dynamics present within single settings (Eisenhardt, 1989). The case study research design is useful for testing whether a specific theory and model actually applies to phenomena in the real world (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2003). Each stadium is subject of an individual study, but the study as a whole covers several stadia and in this way uses a multiple-case design. This thesis consists of embedded case studies, because every case is split in multiple units of analysis (generation, type of stadia development and model of sports-related regeneration). Multiple case studies have distinct advantages in comparison to single-case designs; Yin (2003) suggests evidence from multiple cases is considered more convincing and the overall study is therefore regarded as being more robust according to the replication logic.

2.2.2.2 Case selection

Studying several cases should reveal whether stadia in practice serve as a catalyst for the local community. By studying several cases, broader conclusions can be drawn about the consulted theory. In principle, any new stadium can be used as case study. However, the selection of cases consists of four English stadia and one Dutch stadium (see Table 4).

Pagina | 15

Table 4: Overview of cases.

Case Country Construction year New Wembley England 2007 Emirates Stadium England 2006 New Anfield England 2016 New White Hart Lane England 2017 New Kuip The Netherlands 2018

The English stadia are chosen based on the theoretical framework and own research about the stadia of the clubs of the highest division of the eight best countries based on the UEFA country ranking 2014. This revealed that most of the English stadia are located on a semi-urban location and are often connected with urban regeneration projects. They are perceived as examples to the rest of Europe because those stadia are not relocated to the outskirts of the city, instead they stay on the existing location and are redeveloped and combined with large urban regeneration projects. In this way the stadia have value for the local community in disadvantaged working-class quarters. Two stadia are already constructed, and two stadia are proposed to be constructed in the coming years. The Dutch case, the new Kuip, is selected because there is at the moment much debate about the new stadium and the aim of this research is to contribute to the debate. Unfortunately, the plans of new Anfield, new White Hart Lane and new Kuip were during this research still at an early stage. This is why those cases are briefly analysed, while the already constructed cases new Wembley and Emirates Stadium are analysed in more detail. The Dutch case is perceived as equivalent as the English cases (e.g. all five stadia are located in a working-class quarter) and will be compared to each other. The added value of this method is to see if the heavily debated Rotterdam case can learn from the English cases.

2.2.3 Phase 3: Concluding design. Method: Creation of conditions

The last phase of this study consists of the concluding chapter in which all research- and sub- questions are answered based on the previous phases. Most important part is the formulation of conditions, as part of one of the sub-questions, which sports stadia should meet to act as a catalyst for urban regeneration and to have a function for the local community.

2.3 Data analysis

The concluding phase of this study consists of the creation of conditions on the basis of the consulted theory, policy analysis, expert-interviews and own research. All expert-interviews are recorded, transcribed, coded and analysed by the researcher itself. By using existing theory, the analysis of interviews began by identifying the key concepts as initial coding categories (deductive category application). Operational definitions for each category were determined using the theory (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). The coding categories are the four defined elements of urban regeneration: economic, environmental, physical and social. The principle of triangulation have been taken into account. Triangulation means the use of multiple research methods in an investigation (Bryman, 2008). The policy analysis on key terms consists of the same method as the analysis of interviews; policy documents of the cases are analysed and compared with the new Kuip case by the same coding categories as key terms. The expert-interviews and policy analysis are part of phase 1 and 2 in addition to the consulted theory, phase 3 doesn’t consist of analysing but just the creation of Pagina | 16 conditions and the final conclusions. At the end of Chapter 3, Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 several important notes and recommendations are formulated. This is done like this:

Important notes/recommendations:

 …….

Aim of this is to note the most important observations of the chapter and to build up to the conclusions of this study. By formulating the most important findings after each chapter, the source of the conditions and final recommendations in Chapter 6 is clear because those conclusions come from the case studies and theoretical research and they are a logical enumeration from the aforementioned notes.

2.4 Reliability and validity

The semi-structured interviews provides a framework to ensure validity and reliability. In a semi- structured interview, an interview guide containing the main topics and questions will be used. The interview guide consists of initial open-ended questions, intermediate questions and ending questions. On the basis of the interview guide, the topics and the related questions are asked to the respondents in a fixed order. The interview process is still flexible because the interviewer follows to some extent a script. All respondents are interviewed according to a fixed pattern, which increases the repeatability and the reliability of the study. All residents from the surrounding neighbourhoods of the Kuip are for instance interviewed according to the same interview guide. This offers the possibility for other researchers to evaluate the analysis of the actual researcher (van Thiel, 2007; Bryman, 2008; Boeije et al., 2009). The internal validity of a theoretical research as this is high, especially because the research is really detailed due to the large amount and diversity of information. The theoretical framework of the study has identified a set of constructs to guide the whole process. The theory of interest and rival theories, in which stadia are not perceived as a catalyst for urban regeneration, are addressed to ensure internal validity. Although the internal validity is high, the generalization of the findings to other similar situations (external validity) is uncertain. The domain of this study is very broad (Europe), because although expert-interviews are mostly based on Dutch experience, the consulted literature, policy analysis and own research is from all over Europe. Triangulation will be used as much as possible to enhance the internal validity and the reliability. This is also why, in addition to the literature study and expert-interviews, own research has been included in the study. The theoretical study relies on multiple sources of evidence (science, grey literature, expert-interviews, policy analysis and own research) and the interview protocol ensures the reliability and replication.

2.5 Limitations

The limitations of this research are discussed in this paragraph. One possible limitation could be that arguing whether a stadium is a catalyst or not based on the creation of conditions, although it is based on a massive theoretical framework, expert-interviews, own research and policy analysis, it is still a subjective and arbitrary assessment. This is because it is theoretically possible that a stadium that meets only a few conditions is still a catalyst for urban regeneration. In that case, a stadium will partially act as a catalyst for urban regeneration. It is difficult to draw a border. Secondly, the number of interviews can be seen as a lack. However, this decision has been made during the process because it is primarily a theoretical design and there was enough adequate information available.

Pagina | 17

3. Sports Stadia and Urban Regeneration - Theoretical Framework

his chapter provides the theoretical framework of the research. Firstly, the history of the development of sports stadia in Europe will be examined in section 3.1. In addition, several T textboxes will illustrate and underpin the theory with examples of real-life stadia to exemplify the typology of stadia locations and the different roles of the local community within this typology. After this the relation between sports-related development and urban regeneration will be discussed in section 3.2. The sections 3.3 and 3.4 will outline the disagreement (positive and the negative impacts) of stadia for urban regeneration based on four defined elements of urban regeneration.

3.1 Sports stadia development

3.1.1 Sports stadia through history: transition from stadia as downtown normal stadia to semi-urban stadia having a function for a local community

Sports stadia have evolved in the course of time. The development of sports stadia started in ancient Greece and Italy where stadia like the well-known Coliseum in Rome were mainly used for sports matches and gladiator shows (Farbrother, 2001; KPMG, 2012). The first modern stadia emerged in the late 19th century, because there was a growing demand for events for a wider audience and new technologies were introduced which made the construction of stadia easier (John et al., 2007; KPMG, 2012). Figure 1 shows the history of stadia and its three different locations which will be discussed in the next paragraphs.

Figure 1: Share of top division stadia locations in Europe 1900-2012.

Drawing on the theoretical analysis made by Chanayil (2002), Thornley (2002), Sheard (2005), Spampinato (2009) and KPMG (2012), five generations and three locations of stadia can be identified through history. The sixth stage has been added by the author itself. The typology of stadia locations reflects the stadium developments through history. The downtown city centre stadia were primarily visible in generation 1-2, the out-of-town stadia in generation 3-5 and the semi-urban working-class quarter in generation 5-6. The choice of location of new sports stadia can have far-reaching Pagina | 18 consequences for the environment and consequently for urban regeneration. Back in the days, downtown sports stadia did not have any function for the local community; it were just places used to receive a lot of spectators during (sports) events. On the other hand, recent years has shown that the combination with urban regeneration projects in addition to semi-urban stadia projects has increasingly gained significance. The following generations of stadia and a threefold division of locations which reflects the six stages of stadia development through history are identified:

 1st generation - large uncomfortable stadia 1. Downtown city centre  2nd generation - comfort stadia  3rd generation - commercial stadia 2. The outskirts of the city  4th generation - flexible multi-use stadia  5th generation - urban iconic flagship stadia  6th generation - urban regeneration stadia 3. Semi-urban working-class quarter

1st generation. Downtown: large uncomfortable stadia

Originally, sports stadia were primarily used to receive a large amount of spectators because of the lack of media (television, internet). Going to stadia was according to Farbrother (2001) and Ampt (2011) the only way to watch live sports. Because of this purpose, the stadia did not have any architectural value, were uncomfortable and the provision of facilities was basic (Sheard, 2005; Spampinato, 2009). This model of “stadia as normal stadia”, built to facilitate as much spectators as possible, was very common in Europe these years. Spampinato (2009) claims typical examples of European sports stadia were London Wembley (1923), Milan San Siro (1926), Berlin Olympiastadion (1936) and Madrid Santiago Bernabéu (1947). The main function of the first generation of sports stadia as “stadia as normal stadia” was in every case the same. The focus was on the sports events itself. Consequently, there was no emphasis on the function of stadia for the local community. The stadia of the first phase were regularly situated in the downtown city centre because most people lived over here. The downtown city centre is therefore the first identified location of the typology of locations of stadia. Are downtown city centre stadia capable to act as a catalyst for urban regeneration of the local community? Textbox 1 elaborates more on this issue, with an additional case study example from Cardiff to underpin the theory.

Textbox 1. Location 1: Downtown stadia. The case of the Cardiff Millennium Stadium.

The first identified location of sports stadia is the city centre. The downtown location of stadia was particularly common in Europe till the 1950s, but nowadays especially in North-America a lot of stadia are situated in the city centre. The positive effects of stadia on this city centre location are due to the integration of stadia in the social and transport structure of the city. Advantages are for example the already existing good infrastructure and transport facilities (Chanayil, 2002; Bay Area Economics, 2006; Maennig and Du Plessis, 2009). Though, according to Chanayil (2002) and Thornley (2002) downtown city centre stadia will not form a good catalyst for urban regeneration. How does this theory works out in practice? Although in Europe downtown city centre stadia are today not very common, there is one perfect recent European example of a downtown city centre stadium: the Cardiff Millennium Stadium. This stadium will be briefly examined to reveal whether the theory can be confirmed. Are downtown city centre

Pagina | 19 stadia really not capable to act as a catalyst for urban regeneration and have no value for the local community?

The Millennium Stadium (see Figure 2) was originally built for the Rugby World Cup 1999 in Cardiff, the capital of Wales. Since then, it has been the home of the national rugby and football teams. In addition, the stadium is used for all kinds of events including large concerts (Millennium Stadium, 2014). The extent to which the stadium has been a catalyst for urban regeneration can be explored based on studies of Jones (2001), Jones et al. (2007) and Smink (2010). The Millennium Stadium was not built in a disadvantaged semi-urban working-class quarter, it was built in the city centre of Cardiff. This central location was chosen because they focused specifically on organizing international events, such as football matches of the national team of Wales, pop concerts, trade fairs and shows. The stadium and its associated events have had a major economic impact on Cardiff and on Wales; firstly because of the short-term expenditure impacts by visitors, and secondly by media exposure that resulted in long-term investment to Cardiff and Wales (Jones, 2001; Jones et al., 2007). Other benefits of the iconic stadium are hard to measure (e.g. identification). This is why the effects of place marketing, media coverage and visitation have been most noticeable (Jones et al., 2007). However, the construction of the Millennium Stadium was not combined with urban regeneration projects; the interests of the surrounding neighbourhoods were completely ignored. The focus was primarily on high profile and place marketing. Although the stadium hosted many major international events and the international position of the city of Cardiff have been strengthened by the arrival of the stadium, the Millennium Stadium has clearly not been a catalyst for urban regeneration of the local community (Jones, 2001; Smink, 2010). The theory can in this way be confirmed: downtown stadia are not a good catalyst for urban regeneration of the local community. This does not mean downtown stadia are bad stadia, because the Millennium Stadium has brought major economic benefits to the city of Cardiff and Wales. Wales has gained according to Jones et al. (2007) a long-term comparative advantage for Wales in major event hosting. Nevertheless, for having value of a local community and regeneration the location of the city centre is not the best option.

Figure 2: Millennium Stadium (Cardiff).

Pagina | 20

2nd generation. Out-of-town: comfort stadia

The emergence of live television coverage of sports matches in the late 1950s ended the first generation of stadia. This first generation stadia, which were designed to accommodate as much as spectators as possible, were in bad conditions and because of this people increasingly stayed at home and avoided the old downtown stadia (Farbrother, 2001; Sheard, 2005; Spampinato, 2009). The physical aging problem of uncomfortable stadia was solved in the 1960 and 1970s by moving stadia away from city centres to the periphery. Because city centres lacked space for stadia, clubs wanted to leave their existing downtown location and relocate to new out-of-town sites in which the new stadia were equipped with better facilities to improve the spectators’ comfort (KPMG, 2012). Church and Penny (2013) claim this second phase of stadia was much more about the inside of stadia; the relocation provided the clubs the opportunity to design the stadium for increasing revenues. Most prominent European examples of this generation are according to Spampinato (2009) Rome Olympic Stadium (1953), Napoli San Paolo (1959) and Munich Olympiastadion (1972). The second generation of stadia started the second location of sports stadia: out-of-town sites which are through history especially present in Germany (see Textbox 2). The second generation of stadia ended with the building of large stadia in Italy for the World Cup 1990, which were completed just at the time when a new phase of European sports stadia emerged (Spampinato, 2009). This is partly the reason the present-day stadia in Italy are outdated, paragraph 3.1.3 elaborates more on this. Although the inside of stadia were upgraded, stadia were relocated out of the city centre and still did not have any function for the local community.

3rd generation. Out-of-town: commercial stadia

A next generation of modern stadia started to emerge in the 1990s in which stadia were replaced with reasons of economic obsolescence instead of physical aging (Veenbrink, 2006; Ampt, 2011; Putting, 2013). This new generation of stadia incorporated commercial activities because economic priorities became much more important for clubs; clubs increasingly needed stadia that generated more revenue for them. This resulted in a continuation of the trend of out-of-town stadia. A striking example of this generation is the Bolton Reebok Stadium (1997); this stadium was built far off Bolton and Spampinato (2009) notes the upcoming commercialisation is reflected in the stadium’s name. Gaffney (2008) and Church and Penny (2013) state naming rights of stadia were used to maximise the economic utility of stadia. So even in the late 1990s, people were still not aware of the value of stadia for the local community because stadia were primarily built in the periphery to generate income for the clubs. This commercial way of thinking continued in the next generation of stadia.

4th generation. Out-of-town: flexible multi-use stadia

This fourth generation is an extended form of the previous phase and started according to Veenbrink (2006) in the Netherlands because the Netherlands wanted to organize the European Championship 2000 and the stadia at that time were not good enough to host a major event. Stadia of this new generation transformed according to Inglis (2003) Sheard (2005) and Spampinato (2009) into large innovative multifunctional entertainment centres. Mommaas (1993) argues the growth of the leisure industry resulted in an increase in major event halls and Giulianotti (1999) called this process of the emergence of large entertainment halls “mallification”. Stadia as entertainment halls started to accommodate users 365 days a year because stadia just for sports events were not feasible to finance the expensive stadia (Spampinato, 2009; Ampt, 2011). In addition, Gaffney (2008) and Church and Penny (2013) note that non-sports events emerged in stadia because this new generation of stadia were designed to make profit by incorporating all kinds of commercial facilities into stadia. The

Pagina | 21

Netherlands was in these days an example to the rest of the world; the first two stadia of this generation of multipurpose stadia were Amsterdam ArenA (1996) (see Textbox 2) and Arnhem Gelredome (1998). The downtown stadia of the first generation were primarily built to accommodate as much spectators as possible, in contrast the out-of-town entertainment halls of this fourth generation were built to host as much events as possible to earn money (Spampinato, 2009). The trend of constructing large out-of-town stadia continued and the trend spread across Europe; the Gelsenkirchen Veltins Arena (2001) is for example also a good example of this generation of stadia. Though, there was still no clear emphasis on the role of stadia for the local community. The second till the fourth generation of stadia have made the second location of the typology of stadia locations explicit: out-of-town stadia. Textbox 1 explained downtown city centre are not good in terms of acting as a catalyst for urban regeneration of the local community. But what about the value of the out-of-town stadia for the local community? Textbox 2 elaborates more on this issue, with examples of stadia from the Netherlands and Germany to support and underpin the theory.

Textbox 2. Location 2: Out-of-town stadia. The case of the Amsterdam ArenA and German stadia.

The second location of stadia is on the outskirts of the city. Once downtown city centres were built up, with little space for large sports stadia, this resulted in a trend of establishing stadia further away of city centre. The stadia are built in a no man’s land on a location on the outskirts of the city. Since urban regeneration focusses on existing urban areas instead of the development of new ones, Thornley (2002) and Smink (2010) argue out-of- town stadia can only be partly a catalyst for urban regeneration because there is no local “In Duitsland zie je elk project waarbij ze community. How does this theory een nieuw stadion gaan bouwen gaan ze works out in practice? The midden in de bossen zitten.. daar denken Amsterdam ArenA is a good Dutch example of this kind of ze dat ze alle ruimte hebben en zijn ze out-of-town stadia. Furthermore, niemand tot last” (see Appendix 6) B. Veenbrink stresses that this kind of stadia are primarily present in Germany: the Allianz Arena (Munich) and Commerzbank Arena (Frankfurt) are good recent examples of stadia on the outskirts of the city. Those stadia will be briefly examined to reveal whether the theory can be confirmed. Are out-of-town stadia not fully capable to act as a catalyst for urban regeneration and have value for the local community?

The Amsterdam ArenA (1996) was the first multifunctional stadium with a mobile roof in Europe. The ArenA hosts annually approximately 70 events - from soccer events to pop concerts and dance parties (Mans and Rodenburg, 2000). The Amsterdam ArenA has been an example to many other multifunctional stadia that have since been built according to the same design and organisation (Amsterdam ArenA, 2014). The stadium on the outskirts of Amsterdam triggered the development of a major leisure economy (Veenbrink, 2006). However, this occurred according to B. Veenbrink several years after construction of the stadium, urban regeneration of the surrounding area was not part of the original plans. Although the construction of the stadium boosted a major economy outside the stadium, it did not connect well with local communities. The benefits for

Pagina | 22 the surrounding areas are therefore questioned. People in “In de loop der jaren is het zo surrounding areas argue the geworden, in plaats van dat het van benefits are mainly for the tevoren bedacht was..[..]..ook de ArenA affluent and therefore feel moest ergens komen waar er niemand excluded. In addition, Kok (2013) claims “de verzameling kantoren, last van had” (see Appendix 6) bedrijven, horecagelegenheden en muziekpodia vormen meer dan vijftien jaar na opening van de Arena nog steeds een anonieme en zielloze enclave in de stad, zonder relatie met de directe omgeving”. The Amsterdam Arena is nowadays part of a large area with a regional function. In this way it is not an isolated stadium but several years after the opening of the stadium it has created its own environment with many regional and national facilities. Nevertheless, G. Oosterhof claims the surrounding areas were not part of the original stadium plans. B. Veenbrink and G Oosterhof confirm the conclusions of Thornley (2002) and Smink (2010) about out-of-town stadia and especially the Amsterdam ArenA. The out-of-town Amsterdam ArenA has been partly a catalyst for urban regeneration. Urban regeneration was not well recognized during construction of the stadium, but through the years the stadium has “Katalysator voor stedelijke been the engine of regeneration. In vernieuwing? Dat is zeker in addition, urban regeneration Venserpolder niet het geval. Het focusses on existing urban areas stadion stond er al toen men tot de instead of the development of new ones and therefore the Amsterdam conclusie kwam dat er ook iets voor Arena, which was built in a major de bewoners van Venserpolder moest open space, is perceived as not a gebeuren” (see Appendix 5) very good example of catalyst of urban regeneration.

As previously mentioned, German stadia are in Europe most prominent in out-of-town locations (see also paragraph 3.1.3). Literature based on small- scale case studies of German stadia like Ahlfeldt and Maennig (2010) state that the stadia built for the World Cup 2006 are highly innovated stadia, but the design is primarily functional. They claim that the German out-of-town stadia have no interaction with their surroundings, which resulted in little (economic) spill-overs. Many German stadia are not designed to contribute to the city’s interests including the regeneration of neighbourhoods: “In Germany’s preparations for the Cup, it was widely forgotten that striking stadium architecture can not only fulfil the management criteria of professional organizations, but can also contribute to city development“ (Ahlfeldt and Maennig, 2010, p.631). B. Veenbrink confirms the consulted literature; he argues “Het Allianzstadion is een introvert that the out-of-town stadia, which are primarily present in stadion.. een donutstadion.. Een stadion Germany, do not contribute to moet juist extrovert worden ontworpen, the regeneration of a local om zo verblijfskwaliteit te realiseren en community. He illustrates this een relatie met de omgeving te houden using the example of the Allianz en te verbeteren” (see Appendix 6) Arena. The Allianz Arena was built in Munich in 2005 for the

Pagina | 23

clubs Bayern Munich and 1860 Munich. B. Veenbrink stresses that the stadium is very much inwards-oriented because it is designed to maximise profit inside the stadium. In this way he confirms the conclusions of Ahlfeldt and Maennig (2010), who claim that the construction of the stadium very much focussed on the clubs and not the contribution to the local community. Most obvious clue for this is the location of the stadium; the Allianz Arena is situated on the outskirts of Munich, surrounded only by highways (see Figure 3). This location is according to Ahlfeldt and Maennig (2010) a weakness, because the stadium is isolated from the surroundings and local communities and therefore do not contribute to urban regeneration. This is in line with the conclusions of Smink (2010) and Thornley (2002) about out-of-town stadia. The “In Frankfurt dachten ze we Commerzbank Arena (Frankfurt) is hakken een paar bomen om en er according to B. Veenbrink another staat een stadion” (see Appendix 6) example of a recently built stadium in an urban no man’s land. Figure 3 illustrates exactly his observation, the stadium has been built in the middle of a forest not contributing to regeneration. So the theory can be confirmed; although out-of-town stadia can be very positive for the respective clubs, this location is not the best option in terms of urban regeneration. Similar to the city centre stadia, out-of-town stadia are designed to be functional. Stadia are primarily built to attract (inter)national events for a high profile city, or for increasing income for clubs because on the outskirts of the city is much space for large stadia. Again, those stadia do not have to be bad designed stadia, but in terms of having value for a local community and regeneration stadia on the outskirts of the city are not the best option.

Figure 3: German out-of-town stadia: Allianz Arena (Munich) and Commerzbank Arena (Frankfurt).

Pagina | 24

The latest significant step in the development of stadia are the fifth and sixth generation of stadia: the urban iconic flagship stadia and the urban regeneration stadia. Especially the sixth stage is the beginning of the emergence of stadia which have value for the local community. Basically the fifth and sixth stage are different but not in time sequence, those two phases are happening at the same time. Some recently built stadia are for example part of both phases. Though the two stages are explained separately to understand the different elements better.

5th generation. Semi-urban: urban iconic flagship stadia

Doucet (2010), Ahlfeldt and Kavetsos (2011) and Ahlfeldt and Maennig (2011) conclude in the last few years cities are increasingly building iconic flagship projects because urban design is becoming more important for the experience of visitors and local residents. This new generation of stadia features high-quality architectural design and are urban centres of entertainment seven days a week. This means that stadia increasingly are moving backwards inwards the city. Although this doesn’t mean the generation of out-of-town stadia has ended, recently a gradual increase in the share of stadia being built on semi-urban locations across Europe is seen (see Figure 1 and Appendix 9-17). An example of this generation is the new Wembley (London), although this stadium is also part of the sixth generation because it is part of a large urban regeneration strategy.

6th generation. Semi-urban: urban regeneration stadia

Several authors (Bale, 1995; Euchner, 1999; Jones, 2001; Thornley, 2002; Hall, 2004; Davies, 2005; Misener and Mason, 2008; Church and Penny, 2013) argue the last two decades iconic new stadia are increasingly built on semi-urban locations to improve disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Those last two generations of stadia ended the pre-neighbourhood function of stadia. According to John et al. (2007) public authorities recognized the problems of out-of-town sites and decided to build new stadia in semi-urban areas to have a function for local communities. This resulted in the third location of the typology of stadia locations: semi-urban working-class quarters. Good example of this generation of stadia are English stadia like the London Emirates (2005) which have been a catalyst for urban regeneration. More about the English urban regeneration stadia in paragraph 3.1.3 and Chapter 5. Textbox 1 and 2 showed that city centre stadia and out-of-town stadia are not capable to act as a catalyst for urban regeneration of the local community. Nevertheless, stadia situated in a semi-urban working-class quarter seems to be capable of having value for the local community.

Pagina | 25

Textbox 3 elaborates more on this issue, with the Stade de France (Paris) example to exemplify the role of stadia in disadvantaged semi-urban working-class quarters.

Textbox 3. Location 3: Semi-urban working-class quarter stadia. The case of Stade de France.

The third location of stadia, and the most common in Europe, is the semi- urban working-class quarter. In this situation stadia are deliberately placed, or upgraded instead of moving to another site, in an urban area with social disadvantage, so it can serve as a catalyst for urban regeneration. A. Rutgers argues stadia become in this way part of the local “Ik geloof meer in een stadion community. Chanayil (2002), Thornley dat onderdeel uitmaakt van de (2002) and Smink (2010) state new gemeenschap” (see Appendix 7) stadia should be preferably built in a working-class quarter, because on this location the stadia can have a major impact on the urban regeneration of the surrounding neighbourhood. Building a stadium in such an area will result in a spin-off, particularly if the construction of a stadium is combined with existing urban regeneration projects and improvement of the level of facilities. How does this theory works out in practice? Stade de France (Paris) is a good example of a stadium in a deprived semi-urban working- class quarter. This stadium will be briefly examined to reveal whether the theory can be confirmed. Are semi-urban working-class quarter’s stadia really capable to act as a catalyst for urban regeneration and in this way have value for the local community?

Stade de France (see Figure 4) was built as venue for the World Cup 1998 in France. Based on the studies of Newman and Tual (2002), Vermeulen (2007) and Smink (2010), conclusions can be drawn about the role of the stadium within the wider community. Vermeulen (2007) argues Stade de France was built because of two different reasons. Firstly a national and sportive reason; France wanted to host a major event for the first time in decades, but in contrast to surrounding countries like Italy and Germany, France lacked a national stadium. However, during the planning process the city of Paris realized the value of the stadium for one of its most disadvantaged neighbourhoods. The stadium was therefore deliberately built in Saint-Denis and integrated within the local community (Newman and Tual, 2002). Vermeulen (2007) notes objectives were first focused on sports (hosting the World Cup), but the inclusion of disadvantaged Saint-Denis shifted the stadium to a social objective (urban regeneration). Positive was the involvement of residents and the location within a semi-urban working-class quarter. The neighbourhoods around the stadium profited by the increased facilities and improved image. The stadium has therefore served as a catalyst for urban regeneration, although this was not the primary reason to build the stadium (Newman and Tual, 2002; Smink, 2010). Consequently, the theory can be provisionally confirmed: stadia constructed in a semi- urban working-class quarter can act as a catalyst for urban regeneration and in this way have a positive effect on the local community.

Pagina | 26

Figure 4: Stade de France (Paris).

3.1.2 Present-day stadia

There are according to Davies (2010) essentially two major types of aims of stadia developments. Some stadia are primarily seen as serving a national need, built to host major flagship events like the Olympic Games or the World Cup. The second more common type are those built for clubs, in order to move to a commercial more attractive stadium to develop new opportunities for increasing income. According to Veenbrink (2006) there are two concepts of constructing stadia: multifunctional stadia and mixed use stadia. Multifunctional stadia are, besides the sports events, built to host major non-sports events like concerts and conferences. This type of stadia is part of the fourth generation of stadia development and is more inwards-oriented. Aim is to increase income by increasing the number of events and thus the use of the stadium during a year. This type of stadium has a lot of advantages for municipalities because more events means more tourism and also more profile. Examples are the Amsterdam Arena, the Veltins Arena (Gelsenkirchen) and the Gelredome (Arnhem) (see Figure 5). The second type of stadia, mixed use stadia, is according to Veenbrink (2006) for municipalities more useful for regeneration of an area. Mixed use developments means the inclusion of commercial and leisure functions in or adjacent to stadia which results in an increase of traffic and use. Moreover, mixed use stadia means a synergy in construction costs and double use of public infrastructure like parking, public transport and roads (Veenbrink, 2006). This type of stadia is more outwards-oriented; the focus is on the surroundings of the stadium. A Dutch example of this type of stadium is the Euroborg stadium (see Figure 5), although it has not been constructed in an existing neighbourhood.

Figure 5: Flexible multifunctional stadium Gelredome (Arnhem) vs mixed use stadium Euroborg (Groningen).

Pagina | 27

3.1.3 Similarities and differences in Europe: stadia culture and context dependent

Certain trends of stadia developments are the same in Europe. The former downtown located clubs wanted to move because they were restricted in inner city locations. Sports stadia were increasingly built further away from the city centre, in semi-urban locations and on the borders of the city (Figure 1 and Appendix 9-17). Result was that the location of functions no longer was predetermined. Leisure functions like sports stadia no longer found their location automatically at the city centre. Vermeulen (2007) argues out-of-town sites have for instance more available land, looser building restrictions and better accessibility. These advantages from out-of-town locations are a reason that the classical model of stadia in deprived semi-urban working-class quarters was rapidly declining during the period 1980-2000. Several authors “Wat je vaak ziet is dat oude stadions in (Gaffney, 2008; Spampinato, 2009; Ampt, stedelijke gebieden zitten op relatief dure grond 2011; Church and Penny, 2013; Putting, 2013) met hoge potentie. Die verhuizen naar buiten de argue stadia were located on the outskirts of stad naar een plek waar je wel goede connecties the city predominantly for financial reasons for heb met openbaar vervoer en andere vormen the clubs. B. Veenbrink confirms the notion of van transport. Op die manier maken ze een stadia moving to the outskirts of the city for grondtransactie die geld oplevert om een deel financial reasons. He argues stadia are relocated to the periphery because in this way van het stadion te financieren” (see Appendix 6) they can sell their existing expensive downtown stadia to finance a part of new stadia. Figure 1 showed the trends in Europe of city centre stadia to out-of-town stadia in the period 1980-2000. The assumption of a trend of relocating stadia further away of the city centre like out-of- town stadia is clearly reflected in Figure 6. Vermeulen (2007) already explored the location change of Dutch stadia. In addition, when we look at the stadia of the clubs of the highest division of the eight best countries based on the UEFA country ranking 2013/2014, several conclusions can be made. Many football clubs in Europe moved in the last thirty years from the city centre to a stadium outside the traditional city centre (see Appendix 9-17). This information clearly indicates an outward shift from sports stadia In Europe towards the outskirts of the city. Most stadia in the highest divisions in Europe are located on a semi-urban location (42,5%), followed by the out-of-town location (32%) (see Appendix 9). However, there is also an inwards oriented trend visible from 1990 on of out-of- town stadia to semi-urban and even city centre stadia (see Figure 6). In difficult economic times with a critical view on public spending, the urban regeneration stadia emerge. Although there are certain similar trends distinguished in Europe, the location of stadia is also different across Europe because the location of sports stadia is very context and culture dependent.

Pagina | 28

Figure 6: Location of stadia in Europe.

LOCATION STADIA 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50%

40% % of stadia %of 30% 20% 10% 0% Spain England Germany Italy Portugal France Russia Netherlands Countries

Downtown Out-of-town Semi-urban

First of all, stadia who are under currently under construction and completed in the upcoming years are included in the research (see Appendix 9-17). This choice has been made because Russia and France are currently in a large upgrading process regarding stadia because of the upcoming European Championship 2016 and the World Cup 2018. Hosting major events is an important accelerator of the construction of new stadia; in the countries who recently hosted major events, like the Netherlands (European Championship 2000) and Germany (World Cup 2006), the average age of stadia is very low which means those countries have relatively modern stadia (see Figure 7). Portugal is a little bit an exception, because three stadia built for the European Championship 2004 are currently used by second division clubs, so those relatively new stadia are not included in the research because it only includes stadia out of the highest division. Also one stadium built for the major event in 2004 (Estádio Algarve) is today not used for football, but all other kinds of cultural events. This is the reason the average age of stadia in Portugal is relatively high, compared to other countries who recently hosted a major event.

Figure 7 shows the average age of the stadia in Italy and England is very high. Having said that, Italy does have a problem: institutionalised policy failure regarding stadia. In the late 1990s club owners spent money on expensive players and they avoided comfort for the fans. The Italian stadia are part of the second generation of stadia, which ended with the building of large sports stadia in Italy for the World Cup 1990. Italy missed therefore the new phases of sports stadia. Meanwhile, they are almost all cathedrals in the desert and out-dated. Present-day pay-tv broadcaster Sky Italia broadcast all Serie A matches live and has 4 million subscribers, and yet the Italian stadia are empty (Volkskrant, 2007). This has a structural cause: "Het Italiaanse voetbal is zo gepolitiseerd dat clubs niet mee kunnen met de moderne tijd. Als clubs een nieuw stadion willen bouwen, zijn er zoveel politici die zich daar mee bemoeien dat de bouw nooit van de grond komt. Er is nooit geld” (Football agent Mino Raiola in: NOS, 2014). Italy should invest in new multifunctional and mixed use stadia to lure spectators and increase income. The recently built Juventus Stadium (2011) is the only exception in Italy. Important is the owner structure of stadia; football club Juventus is the owner of the stadium and thus can have economic benefits of the stadium. However, almost all other stadia in the Serie A are owned by the municipality. The clubs are tenants and do not invest any money into something that is not their property (Tosi, 2012; NOS, 2014). This is a major issue in Italy regarding old stadia.

Pagina | 29

Figure 7: Average age of stadia in Europe.

AVERAGE AGE STADIA

Average age stadia

NETHERLANDS 16 RUSSIA 25 FRANCE 35 PORTUGAL 42 ITALY 71

COUNTRIES GERMANY 17 ENGLAND 61 SPAIN 39 AGE IN YEARS

In contrast, in England the average age of stadia is high mainly because of culture “In Engeland is het minder makkelijk voor een club reasons. The pay-tv broadcaster Sky Sports om te verhuizen. Verhuizen omdat de grond ergens has 7 million subscribers, and yet the stadia goedkoper is en om ergens wat voor de buurt te of the Premier League have a high betekenen? Nee, want die buurt is misschien occupancy rate. A broad supply of pay-tv is compatible with a high occupancy rate if the helemaal niet van hun” (see Appendix 6) stadia are comfortable (Volkskrant, 2007). B. Veenbrink argues this has something to do with different cultures. The research “In Duitsland zie je elk project waarbij ze een revealed for instance that England has not nieuw stadion gaan bouwen gaan ze midden in de much out-of-town-stadia like Germany (see bossen zitten..[..]..De Engelsen houden meer van Figure 6). Textbox 2 already explained Germany has a lot of out-of-town stadia with het volkse, en willen het voetbal en de clubs meer no connection with their surroundings. The bij de mensen houden om zo een hele sterke research about stadia in Europe confirms this binding met de wijk te houden” (see Appendix 6) observation. Also B. Veenbrink agrees that many German stadia are built with no connection with surroundings. Furthermore “Na de ArenA zijn veel projecten gekomen die he argues in England football clubs have a dachten we kunnen ook een multifunctioneel firm connection with their neighbourhood, because the people who were born there stadion bouwen. Met alle respect, Gelsenkirchen is support their local team. This is why sports geen Amsterdam, je kunt niet het concept overal stadia are very much culture dependent. In kopiëren. Het is natuurlijk niet altijd mogelijk om the Netherlands people often complain zo’n multifunctioneel concept overal neer te about nuisance of stadia, this is why there plaatsen” (see Appendix 6) are not much down-town stadia. This is in contrast with England and Spain, here are not much out-of-town stadia. The biggest stadia of Spain are all situated in densely populated areas. In Spain and especially England clubs and their related stadia do not move easily away of their neighbourhood. Instead, clubs often stay at their home ground and try to upgrade their stadia combined with urban regeneration projects. Good examples of this are the stadia of Tottenham

Pagina | 30

Hotspur, Arsenal, Wembley and Liverpool (see Chapter 5). It is clear that sports stadia are very culture and context dependent. Every country, neighbourhood and club is different. B. Veenbrink stresses therefore copying some successful cases from the past is not always a guarantee for success. The Amsterdam ArenA was the first multifunctional stadium in Europe and was an example for other stadia in Europe. But this was not a success in other countries. People often do not realize sports stadia are context dependent.

3.2 Urban regeneration and sports-related regeneration

3.2.1 Four elements of urban regeneration

According to Tsenkova (2002) and Rousseau (2009) urban regeneration and gentrification are one of the most important strategies to address deprivation. Cameron (2003) highlights cities often want to change the image of the post-industrial city and therefore favour upgrading of certain disadvantaged areas of cities. Urban regeneration and gentrification are two very interrelated terms and Maloutas (2012) even argues gentrification has become synonymous with urban regeneration. They both imply investment in disadvantaged working-class quarters offers a solution to economic decline. Both terms design an urban environment that will attract and serve the interests of more affluent users in which existing local residents are often displaced. Lim et al. (2013, p.193) argues “while both gentrification and regeneration conceptualize the same phenomenon, the former pays attention to the losers and the latter to the winners”. In fact, urban regeneration represents the next wave of gentrification. Regeneration has an emphasis on improving the local community, while Rousseau (2009) states gentrification is the process with a focus on the attraction of members of the middle- class. Gentrification is in this way a major intervention which changes the entire social character of an area. In this research the focus is on regeneration, although certain elements of regeneration are obviously also related to gentrification.

Figure 8: Cartoon about regeneration/gentrification

Nevertheless, the restructuring of an area is nowadays not limited to the physical component; the social aspects has gained weight (Griffiths, 1993; Olukoya, 2012). The emphasis is therefore nowadays on a holistic approach; urban regeneration is a broad concept with various components like the economic-, environmental- physical- and social part of urban regeneration (MacGregor, 2010). Today, urban regeneration consists of a comprehensive vision with different measures to improve an area through collaboration between the local community and public- and private parties (Couch, 1990; Johnson et al., 2000; Curtis and Cave, 2001; Macgregor, 2010). Percy (2001) states regeneration is increasingly the problem solver of social inclusion by reintegrating disadvantaged

Pagina | 31 people that have become excluded from a bright future. Urban regeneration is a process focusing on all elements of an area that help contribute to the creation of a more sustainable environment. Therefore, urban regeneration deals with the planning of existing urban areas instead of the development of new ones (Legros, 2013). The following all encompassing definition of urban regeneration by Roberts and Sykes (2000) will be used: “urban regeneration is a comprehensive and integrated vision which leads to the resolution of urban problem and which seeks to bring about a lasting improvement in the economic, physical, social and environmental condition of an area that has been subject to change.” Regeneration can thus be divided into four different elements; the economic, the environmental, the physical and the social aspects of an area (see Figure 9). The four elements of urban regeneration are explained in the next paragraphs.

Figure 9: Four elements of urban regeneration.

3.2.1.1 Economic

Economic regeneration is an essential part of the process of urban regeneration. Regeneration is often primarily about the economic element, because this one is considered as the most important one in today’s globalized economy. Roberts and Sykes (2000) argue economic regeneration is needed to counter the economic decline of many disadvantaged working-class quarters. The economic part is about the improvements of the local economy like the creation of local jobs to decrease the unemployment rate (Tsenkova, 2002; Legros, 2013). Furthermore, Smink (2010) argues the economic section of urban regeneration deals with improvements like the supply of a mixed provision of services to improve the area to become economically competitive. The arrival of new services and businesses makes the environment more attractive to potential businesses and residents, which should result in improved job opportunities for local people.

3.2.1.2 Environmental

The environmental aspect of regeneration is often underexposed. This is not appropriate, because the environmental quality of an area is very important for the location decisions of many firms and residents. Roberts and Sykes (2002) argue environmental problems are important to the success of a regeneration because they have a major impact on the image of an area. The environmental aspect of regeneration looks for instance at the amount of pollution and the quality of the infrastructure of the area including amenity improvements, ground treatment and improved site access (Roberts and Sykes, 2002; Tsenkova, 2002; Legros, 2013). In addition, the enhancement of the urban environment can produce many benefits for both businesses and residents of the local community; the

Pagina | 32 environmental element of regeneration is important for resident’s quality of life because it is an important feature of the urban and natural spaces of an area.

3.2.1.3 Physical

The physical aspect of regeneration, which is about the improvement of the urban design of the neighbourhood, is often the main engine of regeneration (Roberts and Sykes, 2002). There are many elements of the physical aspect including buildings, open spaces and transport infrastructure. The transport infrastructure is very important, Bay Area Economics (2006) suggests transportation access should consider public transport, cars and other modes of transportation like train, bike and pedestrian access. According to Ryan and Weber (2008) the physical appearance of neighbourhoods also significantly affects housing values. The physical appearance of neighbourhoods is important because it is a sign of the quality of life; Roberts and Sykes (2002) and Tsenkova, 2002) claim inappropriate infrastructure and obsolescent buildings blight property prices and image of an area.

3.2.1.4 Social

The social environment of a neighbourhood is the social component of regeneration which deals with the improvement of the social environment including healthcare, education and safety (Tsenkova, 2002; Legros, 2013). A safe and pleasant environment is very important for people’s neighbourhood because an urban environment designed for people meeting each other can for example benefit the neighbourhood and the people itself for creating an identity (Smink, 2010). The negative image of an area is often problematic for regeneration, because Tsenkova (2002) argues potential residents avoid the neighbourhood because of the negative image of fear of crime and low-quality schools.

3.2.2 Three models of sports-related urban regeneration

The transition from stadia as downtown normal stadia to semi-urban stadia having a function for a local community is already briefly discussed in section 3.1. The use of sports stadia as a tool for regenerating particular areas of cities has become popular in recent years. Jones (2001) and Davies (2008) emphasize that from 1980 on, cities in Europe are increasingly using the construction of stadia to attract investment in order to accomplish economic growth. An improved image was also high on the agenda: “Stadiums feature on the business pages as much as in the sports columns as new arenas are perceived by city boosters as symbols of success, as magnets to attract new industry and development, and to provide a multifunctional leisure facility” (Bale, 1995, p.13). Nevertheless, Davies (2010) notes over the last two decades there has been a shift in investment in sports for sake, to investment in sports for good: “The use of sports to address regeneration objectives has largely stemmed from the belief that it can confer a wide range of economic and social benefits to individuals and communities beyond those of a purely physical sporting nature, and can contribute positively to the regeneration of declining urban areas” (Davies, 2010, p.13). Throughout the 1990s, sports stadia are more and more built to achieve positive impulses on economic development and social exclusion in disadvantaged areas (Davies, 2008 and 2010). Sports-related regeneration refers therefore to the way that major sports infrastructure like stadia can be used to regenerate an area economically, environmentally, physically and socially (Davies, 2010). Davies (2010) identified three models through which sports stadia are used in combination with regeneration projects, based on the work of Evans (2005). Sports stadia can be an iconic driver, an integrated catalyst or an independent key player in the process of regeneration. The models are summarised in Figure 10 and each will be explained below.

Pagina | 33

Figure 10: Models of sports-related regeneration.

3.2.2.1 Model 1: Sports-led Regeneration – “iconic flagship projects”

In the first model, the development of sports stadia is seen as the driver within the process of urban regeneration. Doucet (2010) argues cities are increasingly using iconic flagship projects like stadia in order to upgrade a certain district because iconic stadia have attractive power. This attractive power of iconic buildings can according to Verheul (2013) lead to the arrival of new businesses and investment. This model is part of the fifth stage of stadia development because stadia are in this model architectural flagship projects instead of designed purely to functionality (Ahlfeldt and Maennig, 2010). Examples of recent unconventional stadia architecture are the new Wembley (London), RheinEnergie Stadium (Cologne) and Allianz Arena (Munich). These stadia were created as distinctive designs and new visiting-cards for their respective cities (Ahlfeldt and Maennig, 2010). The new Wembley Stadium is for example an iconic flagship development for London, but also part of a regeneration programme (Davies, 2010). On the other hand, although the Allianz Arena in Munich is an iconic flagship project, the location is isolated from surroundings (Ahlfeldt and Maennig, 2010). Ahlfeldt and Maennig (2010) claim unconventional iconic architecture should illuminate their surroundings and contribute to the image of the area. Though, often flagship projects do not result in benefits for the local community because the interests of local people are excluded during the high profile project (Evans, 2005 in: Davies, 2010).

3.2.2.2 Model 2: Sports-Regeneration – ”integrated area-based strategy”

In this second model, the construction of stadia is integrated into an area-based strategy at an early stage (Davies, 2010). This means in addition to the construction of stadia, establishing a comprehensive program to improve the surroundings by creating, for example, all kinds of facilities in the area (Chanayil, 2002; Smink, 2010). In this way the construction of stadia is not “isolated”, but part of an overarching strategy of an area. This model corresponds with the latest sixth stage of stadia development. The new Wembley Stadium (London) is an example of this model; the stadium is being used as a catalyst for the regeneration of the surrounding area. In this model a stadium development is the symbol of regeneration and used to drive real estate and other developments (Davies, 2010). Nevertheless, also in this model local communities are often excluded (Evans, 2005 in: Davies, 2010).

Pagina | 34

3.2.2.3 Model 3: Sport and Regeneration – “independent interventions”

In this third model, stadium developments are not fully integrated into an overarching strategy of the regeneration of an area. Rather, the construction of stadia are projects which are added as a part of a regeneration strategy at a later stage (Davies, 2010). Ahlfeldt and Maennig (2010) suggest stadium architecture is in this model simply functional; the stadia should not be major flagship projects to dominate the surroundings. Though, because the construction of stadia is not part of a general regeneration strategy, stadia often lack any integration with the immediate environment. The potential for a stadium as a catalyst for urban regeneration is limited if it´s location is very isolated and not integrated within the wider environment (Jones, 2001; Chanayil, 2002; Thornley, 2002). There are according to Spampinato (2009) and Ahlfeldt and Maennig (2010) a lot of examples of stadia that lack any integration with their urban content; prominent examples are the Veltins Arena (Gelsenkirchen), St. Jakob-Park (Basel) and San Siro (Milan). The Veltins Arena is a typical example; it is a highly innovative multifunctional stadium but it has not been designed for public spill-overs (Ahlfeldt and Maennig, 2010). Davies (2010) argues in this model regeneration programmes are developed without inclusion of communities too because of the different interests of the regenerators and the local communities.

3.3 Sports stadia as catalyst for urban regeneration

Based on the structure of Smink (2010) and the four defined elements of urban regeneration (economic, environmental, physical, social), in this paragraph the positive impacts of (new) stadia for urban regeneration of a local community will be discussed.

3.3.1 Economic: Spin-off of stadia in semi-urban working-class quarters

Clubs relocate their home stadia to other sites because it produces an increase in income to compete with other clubs (Noll and Zimbalist, 1997), while Verheul (2012) argues many cities around the world invest massive amounts of money on sports stadia to produce spill-overs for disadvantaged areas to solve social and economic problems. Several authors (Chema, 1996; Jones, 2001; Chanayil, 2002; Thornley, 2002) suggest new stadia can result in economic growth. This is confirmed by B. Veenbrink and A. Rutgers, who both argue that stadia can have positive impulses for neighbourhoods. However, Chema (1996) and Chapin (2004) state physical and “Een stadion trekt werkgelegenheid aan, functional isolation can prevent stadia from spurring wat weer veel economische voordelen voor economic growth; sports stadia can only produce de wijk kan opleveren” (see Appendix 6) economic benefits if it is located in an urban environment and integrated into the existing infrastructure: “Vroeger speelde in steden de meeste bedrijvigheid zich vaak af rondom de kathedraal. Een stadion is de kathedraal van de eenentwintigste eeuw en voetbal is de religie” (Henk Markerink, CEO Amsterdam ArenA in: Kok, 2013). Therefore Chanayil (2002), Thornley (2002) and Chapin (2004) argue stadia should be built in a semi-urban working-class quarter to produce an economic spin-off and improve the local community. Ahlfeldt and Kavetsos (2011) claim if the development of stadia is accompanied by existing urban regeneration projects and the improvement of facilities, local residents can have consumption benefits because of the offered facilities. This implies a need of the construction of stadia as a mixed use development, as mentioned in paragraph 3.1.2. Chanayil (2002), Weed and Bull (2009) and Robinson et al. (2011) claim that even if stadia do not have a significant impact on the economy of a city, it may be significant for disadvantaged semi- urban working-class quarters because stadia generate significant economic benefits to local

Pagina | 35 communities and businesses through revenue, infrastructure and employment. In this way stadia can create job opportunities to the locals, during and after construction, which is according to Olukoya (2012) a key element of urban regeneration.

The economic spin off from iconic stadia projects also consists of the rise of property prices. Small- “Het Emirates Stadium is ook een stadion met scale studies from Davies (2005) and Ahlfeldt and allemaal arbeiderswoningen om zich heen. Maennig (2008 and 2010) about new Wembley Daar dacht men eerst ook dat de woningen and stadia in Berlin show that the value of pal naast het stadion niets meer waard properties within a range of 3-5km of new stadia rise as a result of increased popularity of the area. waren door de vele overlast. Integendeel is According to Ahlfeldt and Kavetsos (2011) and gebeurd, de waarde van de woningen is Verheul (2012) iconic projects like stadia change alleen maar toegenomen” (see Appendix 6) the image and increase the attractiveness of neighbourhoods. This literature is supplemented by the view of B. Veenbrink, who argues a rise in property prices was evident in the new Emirates Stadium case and thus stadia can have enormous economic impacts on working-class quarters.

3.3.2 Environmental: Upgrading environment to improve resident’s quality of life

The emphasis in literature is on the economic and social part of urban regeneration. Moreover, if the environment is subject of study, it is almost always about the negative effects on the environment. This is why the positive effects of stadia on the environment has not much been taken into account. Stanners and Bourdeau (1995) state environmental quality is a key element in regeneration and interrelated to the other three parts of regeneration. Therefore, Vermeulen (2007) argues environmental objectives are often part of the broader plan for an area because the construction of stadia is the perfect opportunity to improve the quality of the infrastructure and public spaces of an area. Roberts and Sykes (2002) note, although environmental problems are often very expensive to solve, environmental regeneration is very important because improved environmental quality can result in improved image and consequently better conditions for local residents and businesses. Lim et al. (2013) claim open spaces not only contribute to the visual appeal of a neighbourhood, but also provide recreational spaces that increases traffic which in turn boost the local economy. If the environment of a disadvantaged area is improved, the attractiveness to potential residents and businesses is improved (Smink, 2010).

3.3.3 Physical: Improved accessibility and architectural iconic design

Several authors (Chema, 1996; Jones, 2001; Roberts and Sykes, 2002; Tsenkova, 2002) argue the construction of stadia should be combined with the improvement of the physical environment because the physical appearance of neighbourhoods is important for the quality of life for residents and businesses. If the construction of stadia is combined with leisure facilities and commercial spaces, the demand for employees and traffic increases resulting in a need for improved accessibility of the area. Bay Area Economics (2006) suggest accessibility by different modes of transportation is very important, especially public transport, bike and pedestrian access in terms of sustainability.

Architectural quality and urban design are becoming increasingly important for cities to stand out in the competitive globalized world (Ahlfeldt and Maennig, 2010). Ahlfeldt and Kavetsos (2011) and Verheul (2012 and 2013) claim unconventional iconic stadium architecture, like the Allianz Arena (see Figure 11), can be used to create new landmarks and in this way result in an indirect visual amenity effect because the external visual appearance of stadia is very important for community satisfaction.

Pagina | 36

In addition, B. Veenbrink argues architecture can have a major added value because this attracts people. For “Architectuur kan zeker een meerwaarde the overall vision of an area it is therefore vormen. Als je een mooi stukje recommended to use iconic architecture to improve vormgeving neerzet in een gebied, zien disadvantaged areas. Ahlfeldt and Maennig (2011) mensen daar is iets te doen. Dus vanuit state unconventional stadium architecture can have an enormous impact on the regeneration of an area. This een visie van het gebied is het een is also why stadia are deliberately placed in belangrijke functie” (see Appendix 6) disadvantaged areas, because positive spill-overs for the local community justify the additional costs of unconventional stadium architecture (Ahlfeldt and Maennig, 2010; Doucet, 2010). This does not only apply to the stadia itself, Chanayil (2002) notes the importance of the design of public space outside stadia because attractive surroundings can result in substantial benefits for the local community. Ryan and Weber (2008) argue for instance urban design can have a positive effect on property prices.

Figure 11: The Allianz Arena: LED lightning as urban design.

3.3.4 Social: New image of the neighbourhood, increase in health and involvement of local residents

Because of the uncertain direct revenues and high costs of stadia, stadia are often legitimized by advantages which are less easy to quantify (Putting, 2013). Ahlfeldt and Maennig (2010), Ahlfeldt and Kavetsos (2011) and Olukoya (2012) note the strong metaphoric character of stadia and associated clubs produces recognition, identification and a civic pride effect for local residents. In addition, Veenbrink (2006) and Verheul (2012) argue stadia are cathedrals of the modern era and brand the image of an urban area which contributes to a collective sense of identity and social cohesion: “Stedelijke iconen maken mensen bewust van hun stad of buurt. Iconen brengen een bewustzijn, niet alleen aan toeristen, maar ook aan bewoners zelf, ze worden daarom ingezet om trots te vergroten” (Verheul, 2012, p.30). Studies by Thornley (2002) and Davies (2008) reveal that stadia and associated clubs generate positive impacts on citizen pride in the surrounding area. Thornley (2002) illustrates this by the example of the contribution of Manchester United to a “successful” Manchester. The construction of stadia is the perfect opportunity to bring local forces together and to put urban regeneration on the agenda (Baade and Dye, 1990; Griffiths, 1993; Thornley, 2002): “Urban regeneration is also a matter of psychology: creating a sense of civic identity; establishing a feeling of belonging to a collective entity beyond the individual” (Griffiths, 1993, p.4). If a dynamic public domain is created around stadia, stadia can be a catalyst for a social boost because it reinforces social cohesion within the neighbourhood because more meetings between people will take place (Griffiths, 1993; Chema, 1996; Smink, 2010). The creation of local support is a vital part of the

Pagina | 37 process of urban regeneration. Jones (2001) suggests stadia can have value for the local community if there is support of the immediate neighbourhood. Finally, the construction of stadia can according to MacGregor (2010) and Olukoya (2012) have a positive impact on the health of citizens in disadvantaged working-class quarters because the stadia in sports districts promote good health and sports lifestyle. Nevertheless, these positive effects are very difficult to measure and are maybe more long-term effects.

3.4 Sports stadia as barrier for urban regeneration

In the previous section, the positive developments of stadia for urban regeneration has been explained. This section has the same structure as the previous section, only in this section the negative trends for urban regeneration caused by the construction of stadia will be discussed.

3.4.1 Economic: Great uncertainty about the economic promises and the contribution to the local community

Numerous authors have criticized the value of the economic promises. The most common arguments against new stadia are the costs and the additional risks due to the high degree of uncertainty: “Het succes van katalysatorprojecten is niet verzekerd. Ondanks de nobele intentie om door fysieke interventies een gebied in economisch, sociaal en cultureel opzicht op te stuwen, zijn kritische vragen te stellen ten aanzien van de realiseerbaarheid van deze ambities” (Verheul, 2012, p.32). The uncertainty is also due to the difficulty to estimate the impact of stadia. Baade and Dye (1990) conclude the indirect benefits to the immediate environment, like the improved image, are hard to measure. This creates great uncertainty about the contribution of stadia to the urban environment and the boost it can give to urban regeneration. In addition, Chema (1996), Thornley (2002), Gratton et al. (2004) and Veenbrink (2006) “Bij de Icedome is er geen vaste huurder en ook argue the revenues of the stadium itself are al worden er faciliteiten bijgebouwd, het zijn also problematic because of the boom and bust meer sportclubs en scholen die zo’n baan huren. cycles of visitors and the related revenues and Bij de Kuip is Feyenoord de vaste huurder en thus stadia are often underutilised “Met alleen voetbal verdien je de bouw van een stadion niet moeten er alleen evenementen tussendoor terug” (Henk Markerink, CEO Amsterdam ArenA komen. Dat is heel wat anders” (see Appendix 7). in: Financiële Dagblad, 2012). Many large stadia have been built for major events, especially Olympic and World Cup stadia, with little attention to legacy use resulting in “white elephants”, which cost after realizing more money than they produce (Prasser, 2007; Verheul, 2012): In China, Zuid-Afrika en Portugal roesten stadions weg na de grote voetbaltoernooien. Dat is pure geldverspilling” (Henk Markerink, CEO Amsterdam ArenA in: Financiële Dagblad, 2012). Bruzelius et al. (2002) and Putting (2013) argue policy makers who are responsible for the optimistic economic promises, are no longer in the position of responsibility when the stadia are in use because stadium projects are built over several years. This is why the costs and risks are often underestimated in major projects (Flyvbjerg et al., 2003; Verheul, 2012). Consequently, opponents of stadium projects claim stadia have little impact on the economy (Baade and Dye, 1990; Baade, 1996; Rosentraub, 1997 and 2000; Siegfried and Zimbalist, 2000). Baade (1996) and Crompton (2001) claim economic spin-offs do not equal the huge costs of stadia. In addition, Coates and Humphreys (2000), Vermeulen (2007) and Ahlfeldt and Maennig (2008) note economic benefits are not equally distributed across the city, while all taxpayers contribute evenly. The economic feasibility of major stadia is therefore always highly debated. For example, developers already question the feasibility of

Pagina | 38 the planned national Icedome skate complex in Almere that should cost €183 million (FTM, 2014). This stadium has according to A. Rutgers a difficult business model, because it will not have a permanent tenant. This is a different situation than many football stadia, like the new Kuip with Feyenoord as permanent tenant. Not surprisingly, at the end of this study (June 2014), the Icedome stadium has been cancelled: “Het is niet gelukt om de benodigde middelen en partijen bijeen te krijgen. Er is geen geld” (RTL Nieuws, 2014). The feasibility of stadia is in general questioned, but every stadium has a different context and therefore a different business model: “Niet ieder land trekt afdoende evenementen aan of bezit meerdere voetbalclubs van naam, zoals Brazilië. Soms krijg je een fantastisch idee onder ogen voor een stadion voor 80.000 mensen. Dan maak je een rekensommetje en worden het er 40.000” (Henk Markerink, CEO Amsterdam ArenA. In: Financiële Dagblad, 2012).

Secondly, Baade and Dye (1990), Blair and Swindell (1997), Rosentraub (1997) and Jones (2001) argue the scale and quality of created jobs are often uncertain and stadia attracts primarily low skilled, low paid and seasonal jobs. A study of Kok (2013) revealed that residents from the Amsterdam ArenA surrounding neighbourhoods Venserpolder and Bijlmermeer occasionally visit the stadium as a steward or cleaner. This means only temporary jobs. Baade and Dye (1990) and Smink (2010) conclude neighbourhoods gain a comparative “advantage” in unskilled, low-income and seasonal labour, which is often not the goal of urban regeneration. Furthermore, McGregor and McConnachie (1995) state many jobs created within disadvantaged working-class quarters will go to adjacent neighbourhoods, instead of benefiting local residents.

Thirdly, although the surrounding neighbourhood of a stadium can benefit, economic development in a stadium district can come at the expense of other neighbourhoods and thus little new economic activity is created within a city (Baade and Dye, 1990; Baim, 1994; Baade, 1996a and 1996b; Chanayil, 2002; Chapin, 2004; Robinson et al., 2011). Moreover, Kidd (1995) and Fainstein (2010) question if stadium projects in working-class quarters truly benefit the local residents, because the benefits may accumulate very unevenly across the local community. Hackworth (2002) highlights urban environments that have been physically improved may result in gentrification and in particular benefiting more affluent users. The study of Jones (2001) revealed for instance that the development of the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff involved the destruction of a local sports facility available at low cost to all residents, which was replaced by retail and a health club for a higher segment. Although rising real estate prices can be seen as a positive development of new stadia for a neighbourhood as section 2.3.1 argued, instead Graham (2002) and Olukoya (2012) claim high costs can expel local businesses and residents. Verheul (2012) claims that in this situation desired goals like a decrease of crime can be result of displacement effects because existing local residents move to other neighbourhoods and facilities are only used by the more affluent users.

3.4.2 Environmental: Nuisance and (visual) pollution for residents without experiencing benefits

Generally, the impact of sports stadia on the environment can be negative as a result of the clearance of buildings and green spaces thereby increasing waste and carbon emission (Robinson et al., 2011). Vermeulen (2007) illustrates stadia require a large amount of land to be constructed; demolishing existing ground might be necessary and consequently conflicts arise between the economic element and the environmental element of stadia. Graham (2002) and Spirou and Bennett (2003) claim residents of the local community of stadia are primarily afraid of the enormous increase in traffic attracted by the events at stadia which also leads to pollution as a negative impact on the environment. This is confirmed by residents in the surrounding neighbourhoods of the new Kuip (see Appendix 8). Other negative impacts of stadia are according to Olukoya (2012) traffic congestion, built-up construction areas, noise and light pollution and overcrowding.

Pagina | 39

However, environmental pollution can also be visual pollution. Visual pollution can have a negative impact on the aesthetic experience of the residents of stadium areas and consequently affect people psychologically. For instance in the case of the new Kuip, the use of LED lightning is questioned by local residents (see Appendix 8). In this way stadia are perceived as a barrier by residents of the neighbourhood, because the stadium is hardly a facility for the local community. Instead, stadia should form a bridge between neighbourhoods by fulfilling a clear function for the neighbourhood (Thornley, 2002). Chapin (2004) suggests negative impacts can be mitigated by resident-only permit parking to avoid nuisance for the local community. Also the surroundings of stadia can be designed to minimize nuisance. According to B. Veenbrink the Emirates Stadium is a good example of this, because this stadium was “Bij het Londen Emirates Stadium heb je maar 300 almost completely designed as a public parkeerplaatsen voor 60.000 mensen, maar transport venue. However, it should be iedereen in Londen is gewend om met openbaar noted that this is very context dependent. vervoer te komen. Als je er 3000 parkeerplaatsen People in London are used to use public transport, while the case of the Kuip in voor de deur maakt, dan staan er 3000 auto’s. Als je Rotterdam shows in general people come parkeerplaatsen creëert komen ze” (see Appendix 6). from all over the country to the stadium by car.

3.4.3 Physical: Influence of large companies and organizations

A negative effect of the constructing of stadia in terms of physical public space is the influence of large organizations. The influence of large companies is visible in the physical public space of an area. Kidd (1995) states stadia can act as a “Trojan Horse”, resulting in commercial control over disadvantaged working-class quarters. NRC (2010) suggests every nation and every city that hosts a major global sports event submits voluntarily to the excessive demands from “colonizers”. The Olympic Games 2012 witnessed for instance sovereign authority from the Olympic Committee IOC in London. Other famous example is the control of the FIFA in countries during the World Cup. This control includes ridiculous measures like the closure of some highways for FIFA officials. Moreover, the event related sponsors claim a monopoly on advertising in and around the stadia; local cafes even have to mask their facades if they sell a competing beer (NRC, 2010). If this is not handled in the right way by government, it can be a negative aspect of new stadia (Jones, 2001; Smink, 2010). Figure 12 shows the case of the Europa League Final 2013 in Amsterdam, in which every banner or advertisement other than UEFA and related sponsors had to be removed.

Figure 12: Amsterdam ArenA Europa League Final 2013: all Ajax and other expressions removed.

Pagina | 40

3.4.4 Social: Wrong kind of visitors, social exclusion and opposition of local residents

Sports stadia can also have a negative social impact on local communities. Thornley (2002) doubts the attraction of the wrong kind of visitors including vandalism, noise and pollution, which makes the local environment less attractive. Bale (1990) and Olukoya (2012) state this crowding, hooliganism and crime can cause disruptions in the normal life of the local residents. Moreover, Couch et al. (2000) and Jones and Stokes (2003) claim that local residents from disadvantaged working-class quarters are often marginalised in urban regeneration initiatives because many urban regeneration projects in working-class quarters suffer from lack of participation from members of the local community. Aitcheson and Evans (2003) state that urban regeneration initiatives often concentrate on developing an elite flagship project at the expense of community-based projects. This results in facilities that few local residents would be interested in attending or too expensive for them to frequent. Such development leaves local residents feeling even more disconnected, contributing to social exclusion and undermining participation in regeneration programmes (Couch et al., 2000). For instance, the study of Kok (2013) “Een gevoel van buitengesloten zijn overheerst: revealed that people from neighbourhoods near 'We leven langs elkaar heen” (see Appendix 5). the Amsterdam ArenA feel excluded. G. Oosterhof confirmed people feel that the primary focus was the construction of the stadium and that the benefits of the stadium mainly go to the affluent. Local residents are therefore concerned about new stadia developments. Community acceptance is important with the construction of stadia. Thornley (2002) suggests people support stadium developments if it is part of an Olympic or World Cup bid for reasons of pride, but when transferred to a private club peoples’ reactions often change to one of opposition. The construction of new stadia is regularly accompanied by strenuous protests by the citizens. Ahlfeldt and Maennig (2011) note stadia are seen as a public good at the city or national level but bad at the local level; major stadia exhibit a NIMBY character. B. Veenbrink “Er zijn altijd mensen die zijn tegen. Vaak zijn mensen confirms this, but he claims there are alleen tegen omdat ze weten dat als ze tegen zijn ze always people opposing major projects geld kunnen vangen. Zo simpel is het gewoon, het tegen like major stadia. In addition, he argues this are often people who are against zijn om tegen te zijn. Dus je kunt het nooit helemaal every proposed project, also because goed doen, maar over het algemeen geldt hoe meer je they know they should be ze erbij betrekt, hoe beter het is” (see Appendix 6). compensated.

3.5 Conclusion

In this chapter emphasis was on the relationship between sports stadia and urban regeneration. A trend through history in Europe has been distinguished which resulted in a typology of three stadium locations and several different types of stadia. The literature consisted of five generation of stadia, the sixth generation has been added by the author itself to give a complete and up to date overview. This revealed that although many recently built stadia are highly innovative and eye catchers, this does not say anything about the role of the stadia within the local community and the way the stadia boosted the regeneration of surrounding neighbourhoods. In addition, three models of sports- related regeneration have been discussed. This made clear which role major sports infrastructure can play within regeneration projects. Though, it should be noted that this three-part division is also sometimes overlapping and thus it is sometimes difficult to classify major sports infrastructure projects. Related to the own research, it was pleasant to acknowledge that those outcomes of the stadia of the eight selected countries in Europe (see Figure 6) corresponded to the literature of

Pagina | 41

Figure 1. The last two sections discussed the effects of stadium developments on urban regeneration of a local community. The positive effects and the negative effects of (new) sports stadia have been examined on the basis of four defined elements of regeneration: economic, environmental, physical and social. Those four elements of regeneration have first each been examined and this division was retained because it is based on firm scientific grounds. New or upgraded stadia can for each element of regeneration have a positive and negative impact. Some of those impacts are obvious but some are also well thought. Consequently, this raises some questions about possible tensions between positive and negative impacts of stadia for a local community. The next chapter will elaborate on those tensions.

Important notes/recommendations:

 Stadia are transformed through history from accommodating as much spectators as possible to stadia having a value for a local community.  Downtown stadia and out-of-town-stadia are not a good catalyst for urban regeneration. In contrast, stadia in semi-urban working-class quarters are capable to act as a catalyst for urban regeneration and have value for the local community. The location of stadia is hence very important.  Two major types of aims of stadia developments are distinguished: stadia serving a national need (for flagship events) and stadia built for clubs (for income generation). Newly built stadia are not per se good for urban regeneration of the local community.  Two concepts of constructing stadia are distinguished: inwards-oriented multifunctional stadia and outwards-oriented mixed use stadia. Although multi-use is important for the financial feasibility of stadia, latter concept seems to be better for having value for the local community.  Although there is a certain stadium development trend across Europe, there are also differences within Europe because stadia are culture and context dependent. Especially the countries who hosted recently a major event like the World Cup have relatively new and modern stadia. Germany is among them with a range of “young” stadia, but most of them are built out-of-town and have therefore no connection with surroundings. The construction of those stadia focused on profit maximization of the clubs resulting in no public spill-overs and not having value for the local community. Italy and England have relatively old stadia. But this does not necessarily mean these are bad designed stadia. Especially in England stadia are often built or upgraded in combination with the upgrading of the surrounding disadvantaged neighbourhood. In this way stadia stay on the existing, often semi-urban, location and have a major positive impulse on a disadvantaged surrounding community.  Both Model 1: Sports-led Regeneration – “iconic flagship projects” and Model 2: Sports- Regeneration – ”integrated area-based strategy” seems appropriate for major sports infrastructure like stadia to actually act as a catalyst for urban regeneration of disadvantaged working-class quarters. Urban iconic flagship stadia and urban regeneration stadia are today very common.

Pagina | 42

4. Sports Stadia and Urban Regeneration – Tensions

ased on the previous chapters, several tensions are distinguished about the value of stadia for the local community. All tensions have the same structure: at the left the stadia don’t have B value for the local community and therefore don’t act as a catalyst for urban regeneration, while at the right stadia indeed act as a catalyst for urban regeneration and have value for the local community:

Stadia designed for sports team’s interests VS Stadia designed for local community’s interests

The order of the tensions is arbitrary, because there is no rank order of importance and it is difficult to compare them with each other.

4.1 Tension 1: Design and location of stadia

Downtown or out-of-town VS Semi-urban mixed multifunctional stadia use stadia

The choice of location and type of stadia is very important for its role within urban regeneration. Chapter 3 illustrated clubs relocate to new sites mainly for economic reasons. Thornley (2002) emphasises the opportunity for new income for clubs from increased seats and commercial functions. Stadia are often built to profit maximization for the respective club; Spirou and Bennett (2003) argue some stadia are primarily designed with an inwards-oriented view to encourage as much spending as possible within the stadia (see Figure 13). Chapin (2004, p.201) states for instance: “Sports teams often actively fight entertainment-oriented projects near their facilities because they think these projects compete with sales inside their stadiums”. Stadia who are primarily built for the clubs were back in the day’s downtown stadia, but today they are especially built as multifunctional stadia on the outskirts of the city. Multifunctional stadia are, besides the sports events, built to host major non-sports events like concerts and conferences and is very much inwards-oriented. Aim of those stadia is, again, to increase income by increasing the number of events and thus the use of stadia during a year. The multipurpose character of multifunctional stadia is in this way especially crucial for the financial feasibility. The question of legacy and the remaining non-sports or non-event days is always an issue with sports stadia and the related sports events. The economic feasibility of big and expensive stadia is always highly debated and criticized because of the costs and the additional risks due to the high degree of uncertainty (Gratton et al., 2004). Stadia are built to increase revenues, but Chema (1996) and Veenbrink (2006) highlight the problem of underutilised stadia; sports stadia are usually used once a week for sports matches. This could lead to the white elephant scenario, especially in the case of prestige stadia built for major events, in which expensive stadia are sometimes never used again and even demolished. Overall this creates great uncertainty about the feasibility of stadia and therefore the contribution of stadia to the urban environment and

Pagina | 43 the boost it can give to urban regeneration. Sports events like the Olympic Games and the World Cup have a short time span, but stadia last for decades and therefore white elephants should be avoided. Iconic architecture can have attractive power, but stadia are according to Ashworth (2011) cathedrals in the desert if they are built in an area where it has little interaction with the local community and consequently little value for local residents. Jones (2001) and Chapin (2004) note physical and functional isolation can prevent stadia from acting as a catalyst for urban regeneration. There are a lot of examples of stadia who lack integration within the wider environment. Those stadia are often out-of-town stadia primarily built for the respective clubs.

Figure 13: Inwards-oriented stadium.

Thornley (2002) indicates the embedding in the environment is crucial for the role of stadia in urban regeneration. If this is not the case, the stadium is isolated and the local community may not encounter any benefits. Bess (1989) argues those stadia avoid detachment from the local community. Because of this stadia should be built and integrated within an urban content to avoid the danger of isolationism. Several authors (Chema, 1996; Jones, 2001; Chanayil, 2002; Thornley, 2002) suggest new stadia can result in an economic spin-off for the local economy of the neighbourhood surrounding the stadia, especially if that neighbourhood is a disadvantaged working- class quarter. In those deprived areas stadia can act as a catalyst for urban regeneration and have value for the local community for instance in terms of creating job opportunities for local people. In this way sports stadia contribute to local community’s interests, instead of only club’s interests. An outwards oriented mixed use development, instead of an inwards oriented multifunctional stadium, is for urban regeneration of the local community much more appropriate.

4.2 Tension 2: Flagship architecture

Costs and visual pollution VS Architectural iconic design

Pagina | 44

In times of economic crisis, vacancies and cuts, t is interesting to examine who should pay for the incremental cost related to unconventional architectural iconic design, which benefits the local community but not the owner or the respective club of stadia. Ahlfeldt and Maennig (2010) argue the aim of the owners of the stadia is to maximize revenues and profit, external effects for the overall city are not relevant to “Het is altijd alleen de vraag wie er voor de kosten them. This is also why the privately financed moet opdraaien. Een stadionexploitant zegt, ik German Wold Cup stadia are built outside denk niet dat er meer of minder naar het stadion cities reduced to functionality for football and therefore have no interaction with their van Ajax komen omdat het stadion mooi of lelijk surroundings and consequently not good in is. Voor de omgeving en de vastgoedwaarden van terms of urban regeneration (Ahlert, 2005). anderen is het natuurlijk wel interessant als er een Although iconic unconventional stadium stukje mooie vormgeving aan de grondslag ligt architecture can have positive impacts, maar dan is de vraag: moet je als stadioneigenaar according to B. Veenbrink it is difficult to of club daarvoor opdraaien?” (see Appendix 6) convince a profit maximizing owner to spend money to benefit the overall public because they primarily focus on the stadium itself and don’t care about external effects. Also the element of visual pollution is important with this tension. Visual pollution can have a negative impact on the aesthetic experience of local residents. In this way stadia are perceived as a barrier by residents of the neighbourhood, because stadia are hardly a facility for the local community. The Juventus Stadium (Turin) dealt with this tension by building the stadium partly underground; the overall building is not very high so it fits better in the urban environment.

Nevertheless, visual pollution is according to B. Veenbrink and A. Rutgers subjective so those arguments are not always justified. The long-term “Visuele vervuiling is natuurlijk gewoon een positive effects of stadia on the local community kwestie van een mening over architectuur. Ik is the cause of architectural iconic design. Stadia denk dat het alleen maar positief is als je een as urban icons have a nice design and they can mooie vormgeving hebt” (see Appendix 6) according to Verheul (2012) act as a catalyst for the local community. Unconventional iconic stadium architecture can be used to create new landmarks and in this way result in positive effects for a local community and added value for the regeneration of a particular area, because the visual appearance of a location is very important for community satisfaction (Ahlfeldt and Maennig, 2010 and 2011; Ahlfeldt and Kavetsos, 2011). The arrival of iconic projects can be a deliberate move by authorities to upgrade disadvantaged neighbourhoods (Doucet, 2010). Unconventional iconic stadium architecture can produce a positive indirect effect in terms of social cohesion, but also in terms of rising property prices which is discussed in the next tension.

4.3 Tension 3: Rising property prices.. negative or positive?

Local community displacement VS Higher property prices

Fainstein (2010) doubts if the impact of stadium projects in working-class quarters will truly benefit the existing local community. Although rising real estate prices can be seen as a positive development of new stadia for a neighbourhood, high costs and rents can expel local businesses and Pagina | 45 residents (Bay Area Economics, 2006; Olukoya, 2012). Verheul (2012) illustrates positive statistics as rising incomes or decrease of crime can be result of displacement effects which are often associated with gentrification. In this way stadia are not a catalyst for urban regeneration, because local residents are expelled and the problem of disadvantaged people shifts to other neighbourhoods.

In contrast, the studies of Ahlfeldt and Maennig (2010) and Davies (2005) revealed that the value of properties within a range of 3-5km of new sports stadia rise as a result of increased popularity of the area. Also the Emirates Stadium illustrated this rise in property prices. This means the use of constructing stadia to increase the attractiveness of certain areas can be justified (Ahlfeldt and Kavetsos, 2011). The increased popularity is also a result of an improved image and renewed confidence in the neighbourhood.

4.4 Tension 4: Negative or positive impact on social environment?

Social exclusion VS Collective identity and opposition and social cohesion

The construction of stadia and related urban regeneration projects suffer according to Couch et al. (2000) from a lack of clear targets for local residents, contributing to social exclusion. Local residents are therefore always concerned about new stadium developments. Thornley (2002) and Ahlfeldt and Maennig (2011) state the construction of stadia for clubs is regularly accompanied by protests by local residents because stadia are seen as bad at the local level. Stadia primarily built for clubs offers resistance because stadia exhibit a NIMBY character. Spirou and Bennett (2003) argue because of the NIMBY attitude of local residents, stadia projects often deliberately try to get round the desires of the local community. In this way stadia do not have value for the local community and are a major barrier for urban regeneration.

In contrast, Veenbrink (2006), Ahlfeldt and Maennig (2010), Ahlfeldt and Kavetsos (2011) and Olukoya (2012) argue stadia are cathedrals of the modern era because they are able to brand the urban environment and consequently facilitate identification and a collective identity for local residents. The construction of stadia is a good opportunity to create wide support and to start urban regeneration of a particular area (Baade and Dye, 1990; Thornley, 2002). B. Veenbrink claims support for stadium projects is needed because in this way you can involve the local community and reach a new target group. With the design of the surroundings of stadia, collective identity and social cohesion can also be realized. Creating a “Als je het goed doet betrek je ze er natuurlijk large square in front of the stadium, like the new bij en als je het slecht doet dan houdt je ze op Anfield and new White Hart Lane case or the een afstand en laat je ze niks zeggen. Je kunt Olympic Way as entrance to the stadium area in het nooit helemaal goed doen, maar over het the new Wembley case, are examples of this. This algemeen geldt hoe meer je ze erbij betrekt, can be used on non-event days for recreational hoe beter het is. En hoe beter je kunt inspelen activities for the local community including op hun behoeften, je hebt een hele doelgroep markets which reinforces social cohesion within the neighbourhood because more social liggen” (see Appendix 6) interaction will take place.

Pagina | 46

4.5 Tension 5: New large companies vs local entrepreneurs

The interests of large companies VS The interests of existing local entrepreneurs

The influence of large organizations within or around stadia in terms of physical public space is always highly debated. To finance the construction of new stadia or the redevelopment of existing stadia, companies are gathered to invest in the mega project. In exchange for investing a lot of money in stadia, large and wealthy organizations get control. Van der Burg (2013) illustrated that in an entire new Kuip a large constructing company would have had much influence and gain a lot of revenue from the new stadium. These commercial companies are most of the time guided by financial gain. The influence of large organizations is also visible in public space, especially with major sports events. Every nation and every city that hosts a major global sports event like the World Cup, are “colonized” by major organizations like the FIFA and event-related sponsors who claim a monopoly on advertising in and around the stadia of major events.

The arrival of new stadia often means more businesses in and around the stadia. If stadia are focussed on increasing revenues, they can have negative effects on local entrepreneurs which means they are not a catalyst for urban regeneration. The monopoly of large companies and sponsors, especially during major events, can be a negative aspect of new stadia for the local entrepreneurs. According to Jones (2001) this monopoly should be avoided to preserve the character of the local community. Existing local businesses should “Er zijn projecten waarbij afspraken gemaakt coexist harmoniously with new competitors. The worden..[..]..je moet het niet als bedreiging new Wembley case illustrates that this can be zien maar juist als kans” (see Appendix 6) arranged with certain appointments. Therefore B. Veenbrink argues the arrival of new businesses is an opportunity for a neighbourhood and not a threat for the local community. This is according to him a misunderstanding because of the negative perceptions on event-related sponsors.

4.6 Tension 6: Growth at the expense of existing entertainment districts?

Substitution effect VS Crowd attracting role

Although this tension is more about the city level, the competition with the existing leisure industry within the same city is always questioned. Critics of stadium projects argue the construction of new stadia promotes little new consumption; economic studies suggest new stadia often means growth at the expense of existing leisure industry and existing neighbourhoods (Baade and Dye, 1990; Baim, 1994; Chanayil, 2002; Chapin, 2004). Although stadia can have benefits for a local community, it may provide a substitute for existing entertainment sites; large stadium projects redirect spending from one activity to another, producing only a very small increase in economic activity (Baade, 1996; University of Michigan, 2014). University of Michigan (2014) suggests the problem with substituting

Pagina | 47 entertainment within a city is that revenues collected at sports events are distributed to club owners and athletes who don't spend the money in the stadium’s city.

However, new or redeveloped sports stadia usually create jobs during and after construction. Though many stadia simply replace older stadia in another “Ik denk dat er heel veel mogelijkheden part of the city, direct employment (stadium staff) liggen en niet dat dat het een verplaatsing and indirect employment (local shops) is usually increased at new stadia (University of Michigan, is. Ik zie het stadion meer als een kans als 2014). This means increased job opportunities for het goed opgezet wordt...[..].. Je moet het local people which is especially in struggling working- niet zozeer zien als concurrentie tussen class quarters a huge benefit and boost to urban centrum en buitenwijken maar meer regeneration. This is confirmed by B. Veenbrink and tussen steden” (see Appendix 6) A. Rutgers, who point at the opportunities and not the possible negative consequences. B. Veenbrink even argues it is a misunderstanding because it is not about competition within cities, but between cities.

4.7 Tension 7: Resident’s quality of life

Nuisance for residents VS Improved quality of life

The resistance of the local residents is based on increased traffic, the unconventional architectural design and other undesirable consequences of sports and events fans (Ahlfeldt and Maennig, 2011). Especially the increase in traffic and pollution because of (sports) events, during the week and in weekends, is perceived as a negative effect of stadia. In this way the construction of stadia is a barrier for the local community because stadia do not have value for the local community. In this situation stadia have a negative impact on the environment and the local community only witnesses the negative effects of stadia.

On the other hand, the construction of stadia means an opportunity to improve the quality of the physical infrastructure and the urban and natural spaces of a disadvantaged working-class quarter. This is the physical and environmental element of urban regeneration. The amount of pollution can for instance be diminished, so the environmental quality improves which can result in improved site access and an improved resident’s quality of life (Roberts and Sykes, 2002). In this way stadia and its related site improvements leads to positive impulses for the local community and thus stadia are perceived to act as a catalyst for urban regeneration.

4.8 Conclusion

This chapter discussed several tensions about the value of stadia for the local community which are based on the theoretical framework of Chapter 3. On the one hand stadia don’t have value for the local community and therefore don’t act as a catalyst for urban regeneration, while on the other hand stadia indeed can act as a catalyst for urban regeneration and consequently have value for the local community. In the next chapter (Chapter 5), English urban regeneration stadia will be discussed

Pagina | 48 and compared to the new Kuip case. In this way the weaknesses and strengths of the new Kuip plan emerge.

Important notes/recommendations:

 The choice of location and type of stadia is very important for its role within urban regeneration.  There is often great uncertainty about the feasibility of stadia and therefore the contribution of stadia to the urban environment and the boost it can give to urban regeneration. White elephants, prestige stadia built for major events in which stadia are sometimes never used again and even demolished, should be avoided.  Iconic flagship projects with an unconventional design can have a major added value for a local community like community satisfaction and a rise in property prices. However, this is not enough to have value for urban regeneration. Iconic architecture can attract all the attention, but they have no value if they are built in an area where it has little interaction with the local community. The arrival of iconic projects can be a deliberate move by authorities to upgrade disadvantaged neighbourhoods.  Stadia can result in a negative impact on a local community. Nuisance is for instance the number one named critics of stadia. This is also why there is often much resistance when a new stadium is proposed.  Stadia are “cathedrals of the modern era” because they are able to brand the urban environment. In addition, if a dynamic environment is created around stadia, social interaction between people can be improved resulting in a collective identity.  Many stadia and urban regeneration projects suffer from a lack of clear targets for local residents, contributing to social exclusion. Local residents are therefore concerned about new stadium developments.

Pagina | 49

5. Sports Stadia and Urban Regeneration – Cases

n this chapter recently built or proposed English stadia will be compared to the proposed new Kuip as hypothetical case by means of a policy analysis of the several cases. Firstly, in section 5.1 I the English stadia are examined and in section 5.2 the new Kuip case will be explored. After this in section 5.3 the several cases will be compared to each other and we will see if the Rotterdam case can learn from cases overseas. Finally, in section 5.4 an overarching conclusion of this chapter will be presented.

5.1. English urban regeneration stadia

Paragraph 3.1.1 already discussed the differences in Europe regarding sports stadia. Sports stadia seems to “Projecten waarbij de hele buurt be culture and context dependent. Chapter 3 helemaal geregenereerd gaat worden als illustrated the average age of the stadia in England is very high. In England clubs have a firm connection gevolg van het stadion project? Ik denk with their neighbourhood, and therefore there are not dat je het in Engeland meer ziet dan in much out-of-town stadia. In England clubs and their andere Europese landen” (see Appendix 6) related stadia do not move easily away of their neighbourhood. Instead, B. Veenbrink argues clubs often stay at their home ground and try to upgrade their stadia combined with urban regeneration projects. Good examples of this are the following stadia: new Wembley, Emirates Stadium, Liverpool’s new Anfield and Tottenham Hotspur’s new White Hart Lane. All four stadia have a major connection with urban regeneration projects and each will be discussed in the next paragraphs. It should be noted that the cases which are about proposed stadium plans (New Anfield, New White Hart Lane), are not examined in detail because the plans are in an early phase. The other two cases which are already constructed (New Wembley and Emirates Stadium) are performed as a quick scan and serve for the all-round view.

5.1.1 New Wembley

Everyone around the world knows the famous Wembley stadium in London. The new Wembley Stadium opened in 2007, on the original Wembley Stadium site. The old stadium was demolished and rebuilt for an astounding 1 billion euros (AD, 2006; Guardian, 2009). The state-of-the-art stadium is an example of the 1st type of stadia developments: a stadium for a national need because it is primarily built to host matches of the English national team. It is an iconic flagship project which is also used to host major events like the Champions League Final, boxing matches or pop concerts. The arch spans the length of the stadium and represents iconic architecture (see Figure 14), but the stadium is also the central point of a major regeneration project of a part of London (Ahlfeldt and Maennig, 2010). The new Wembley stadium is located in the Brent area which was a semi-urban deprived working-class quarter. Unemployment in Brent was above the London average of 6.9% and the area was ranked 53rd out of 354 within the local authority national deprivation index (Brent Council, 2009). The location of Wembley is the best possible location for a stadium to have impact on the urban regeneration of an area. Therefore Wembley is a combination of the 4th, 5th and 6th generation of stadia development: it is a multi-purpose stadium, iconic flagship project and also an urban regeneration stadium. Because it is built to host major events but also part of urban regeneration programme including a lot of surrounding commercial leisure developments, the stadium can be categorized as a combination of a multifunctional and mixed use stadium.

Pagina | 50

Figure 14: New Wembley (London).

The studies of Ahlfeldt and Maennig (2010) and Davies (2010) revealed the stadium has been used to link together several regeneration initiatives in London. The construction of new Wembley is therefore an example of a combination of the 1st and 2nd model of sports-related urban regeneration: it is an iconic flagship development for London, but the construction of the stadium was also used as a catalyst for the regeneration of the local community, so the new Wembley stadium also fits into the 2nd model. Regarding urban regeneration of the local community, according to Ahlfeldt and Kavetsos (2011) in the case of the new Wembley an increase in property prices of up to 15% occurred in the surroundings of the stadium. Even at distances of 3km, spill-overs were found because of the iconic visual amenity effect of the distinctive arch (Ahlfeldt and Kavetsos, 2011). From the beginning the local community was the focus of the plans. Brent Council (2009) states the regeneration process combined with the construction of the new stadium provided jobs for local people living in the disadvantaged working-class quarter who were currently unemployed or under- employed. For instance, local people were trained for locally created jobs and local people were best placed to secure the new jobs, during and after construction (Brent Council, 2007). Moreover, public space has been designed both for events days and the local community. For instance, the available parking spaces provide on non-event days car parking to the facilities and the big entrance route Olympic Way is available for event crowds on event days and local community activities like markets and festivals on non-event days (Brent Council, 2009). In addition, parking permits for event days for local residents and businesses was introduced to protect the local community from parking nuisance (Brent Council, 2007).

5.1.2 The Emirates Stadium

The Emirates Stadium is from 2005 on the home ground of Arsenal and is located in the Holloway area, former deprived semi-urban working-class quarter. Arsenal’s former location was Highbury, just a few hundred metres away from the new stadium (see Figure 15). Highbury was a fantastic old- fashioned English football stadium, but it lacked commercial functions to increase the revenues for Arsenal. They wanted to relocate to a new stadium, and because of the relationship with the neighbourhood they wanted to locate the new stadium close to the old one: Arsenal (2010) states: “When planning began to move to a new stadium in 1999, Arsenal wanted to remain in Islington, the home of the Club since 1913, and in the process do much more for the local area than simply build the Club a new home”. The new Emirates Stadium was built on a former industrial location and is an example of the 2nd type of stadia developments because it is only used as home ground of Arsenal, besides occasional concerts and international matches. The construction of the stadium was part of a

Pagina | 51 wider regeneration project of the surrounding area: “Emirates Stadium was the obvious focal point of Arsenal Football Club’s move but it was also the catalyst for substantial regeneration in the area and a host of other projects” (Arsenal, 2010). The home ground of Arsenal is in this way part of the 6th generation of stadia development as urban regeneration stadium. B. Veenbrink notes the construction of the stadium have had a major “Het Emirates stadion heeft een grote influence on the surrounding neighbourhood. It is invloed gehad op wat er de laatste jaren th also in some way part of the 3 generation of stadia gebeurd is in de wijk” (see Appendix 6) because commercialisation is reflected in the stadium’s name. The Emirates Stadium was one of the first stadia after the Bolton Reebok Stadium which got a commercial stadium name. However, this is nowadays very common because this provides much income. Because the stadium is part of a wider regeneration strategy, the Emirates Stadium is an example of the sports-regeneration model similar as the Wembley case. The new stadium has had an enormous influence and value for the local community: “As one of the largest regeneration schemes in Europe, the Emirates Stadium project provided enormous benefits to the local community which included the creation of over 2,600 new jobs through the development, which included more than 1,800 long-term positions” (Arsenal, 2010). Also environmental regeneration was important and social inclusion was one of the major aims. The club played in many ways a major role in the regeneration of a deprived working-class quarter. The Arsenal case is a special case, because the former stadium was also part of the urban regeneration strategy. Figure 15 shows the old Highbury stadium which was part of residential development; the former stands have been converted into apartments including residents’ facilities.

Figure 15: Former Highbury front, new Emirates Stadium back (London).

5.1.3 New Anfield

Another good example of what is yet to arrive, is according B. Veenbrink the renovation of Anfield. Anfield (see Figure 16) is an example of the 2nd type of stadia developments because it is the home of Liverpool F.C. and is located in the semi-urban working-class quarter Anfield of the city Liverpool. Similar to the new Wembley case, the location of Anfield is the best possible location for a stadium to have impact on the urban regeneration of an area. In 2002, the club proposed plans to replace Anfield with a new 60.000-capacity stadium in adjacent Stanley Park. Anfield with a capacity of 45.000 has become too small compared to other major stadia in England (Old Trafford, Emirates

Pagina | 52

Stadium). Liverpool wanted to increase income by building a new stadium. However, the owners have “Een ander goed voorbeeld wat er nu abandoned the proposed new stadium, preferring aankomt is de verbouwing van Anfield. instead to redevelop and expand Anfield (BBC, 2012). Project waarbij de hele buurt daar New Anfield is a perfect example of the 6th generation of helemaal geregenereerd gaat worden stadia development, because B. Veenbrink claims the redeveloped Anfield stadium will be the centrepiece of a als gevolg van het stadion project” (see major regeneration project of a large disadvantaged Appendix 6) area of Liverpool. In this way many of the pre-1919 obsolete properties will be replaced and upgraded to modern standards (Keepmoat, 2014). The renovation of Anfield is therefore an example of the 2nd model of sports-related urban regeneration: sports regeneration. While writing this thesis, the Anfield regeneration plans were approved by the Liverpool Council. In front of the stadium there will be a public square created that will act as a buffer between residents and the stadium and will also be available for non-match-day activities for the local community (Anfield Project, 2014). The rebuilding of the Anfield Stadium is “a major step forward for the football club but more importantly the residents" (BBC, 2012.) Increasing the capacity of Anfield is according to Liverpool (2014) important because it will give Liverpool the opportunity to increase the revenues and it will increase the economic and social impact of the stadium by bringing more jobs and tourism revenues to the Anfield area. In this way the stadium can act as a catalyst for further investment in the Anfield area.

Figure 16: Anfield (Liverpool).

5.2.4 New White Hart Lane

White Hart Lane (Figure 17) is the home ground of Tottenham Hotspur and is located in the deprived semi-urban working-class quarter Tottenham of London, which is well-known for the riots that erupted in the summer of 2011 (Guardian, 2013). The stadium will in the coming years be replaced by a new stadium, on the vacant site adjacent to the old stadium. This new White Hart Lane is an example of the 2nd type of stadia developments because it is only used as home ground of Tottenham Hotspur. The new stadium aims to have a big impact on the urban regeneration of the local community. In fact, the new stadium plans are part of a wider regeneration of Tottenham and is in this way part of the 6th generation of stadia development as urban regeneration stadium. Because the stadium is part of a wider regeneration strategy, the new White Hart Lane is an example of the sports-regeneration model similar as the Wembley and Anfield cases. A Spurs spokesperson states “It

Pagina | 53 is vital to have wider regeneration such that the effect of the investment in the stadium is maximised to the benefit of the whole community” (Guardian, 2013). Sainsbury’s, a major British supermarket company, has last year opened a new big store as part of the new Tottenham Hotspur Stadium regeneration – employing 280 local people. In this way it gives the local community, an area of high unemployment, great new opportunities (Tottenham Hotspur (2013). The new stadium aims to have social benefits to the area which struggles with poverty and social deprivation. Striking is the exceptional public square which will be created for the local community. Tottenham Hotspur (2013) claims “too often new stadia are surrounded by empty, dead space and car parks. This would not be right in Tottenham. Near the new stadium a new public square will be designed to provide something special for local people, with 24/7 open public access.” This public square will provide a place for hosting local street markets or community events including workshops and health screening units. The design of this square ensures this acts as a fans zone on match days as well as adding to the allure of the space on non-match days. The Guardian (2013) argues that a huge investment in the Tottenham regeneration project, including the construction of a new stadium, will bring major economic and social benefits to the area which struggles with poverty and social deprivation.

Figure 17: White Hart Lane (London).

5.2 New Kuip

5.2.1 Ambition for a new stadium

The Kuip (see Figure 18) is already in use from 1937 and is primarily used for matches of Feyenoord. The Kuip is situated in Rotterdam-Zuid, which is a semi-urban disadvantaged working-class quarter. It was even called a Vogelaarwijk, which implies it is a problem area and needs substantial investment to improve the area (Rijksoverheid, 2012). Similarly to the three English cases, the location of the Kuip is the best location for a stadium to act as a catalyst for urban regeneration. The Kuip is a major icon and landmark for Rotterdam and the surrounding neighbourhoods. Feyenoord has been involved in ambitious new stadium plans for years. The most striking one was a new stadium for the World Cup 2018 on the banks of the river Maas. When the World Cup was assigned to Russia and not to the Netherlands, the plan on the banks of the Maas seemed too expensive and Feyenoord chose a new stadium plan on the training complex adjacent to the Kuip. However, the plan for an entire new Feyenoord stadium has been cancelled because of financial and support reasons. First of all, the economic crisis was partly the reason for a lack of funding because the new stadium should have cost

Pagina | 54 approximately 365 million euros. Secondly, there was also uncertainty whether the new stadium would benefit Feyenoord or the owners of the stadium. According to van der Burg (2013) the ownership structure of the new stadium would mainly benefit the construction company (Volker Wessels) because this company would also be co-owner of the new stadium. Because of the high costs the city council of Rotterdam refused in 2013 the necessary substantial support.

Figure 18: The Kuip (Rotterdam).

5.2.2 Renovation: multifunctional state-of-the-art Kuip

After the new stadium plans were cancelled, plans were created to maintain and rebuild the monumental Kuip. On the 1st of May 2014 Feyenoord decided to renovate and expand the current stadium in conjunction with constructing company BAM. Feyenoord wants to pursuit Ajax, and the Kuip is at its maximum in revenues. An additional problem with the contemporary stadium is that, although the stadium is located in a semi-urban working-class quarter, it is according to A. Rutgers a bit isolated from the local community which is a wasted opportunity. This is also “Ik denk dat het stadion beter kan because of the location between the railway and roads. The communiceren met de naaste popular Kuip is the basis for the plan, but it will be expanded from 52.000 to an approximate 70.000 spectators (Feyenoord omgeving zodat het gebouw veel Founders Consortium, 2014). The new Kuip (see Figure 19) is meer leeft in de stad en de wijk. an example of the 2nd type of present-day stadium De interactie met de omgeving developments, because the stadium will be primarily used for ontbreekt er nu wel een beetje Feyenoord. The new Kuip represents iconic architecture with aan eerlijk gezegd.. Dit is een the outside LED lightning. This adopts the Allianz Arena and gemiste kans” (see Appendix 7) Ziggodome example of LED lightning. Although the Kuip is perceived as an icon by A. Rutgers and the local community (see Appendix 8), with the new architectural and urban design the function as a landmark for “De Kuip is een icoon van Rotterdam Rotterdam will be strengthened. In this way the new en de wijk” (see Appendix 7) Kuip is part of the 5th generation of stadia development: urban iconic flagship stadia.

Pagina | 55

Figure 19: The new Kuip.

The new Kuip is also an example of the 4th generation stadia because it implies to be a flexible multi-use “Multifunctionaliteit zie je bijna overal, stadium: “Een schuifdak is op de toekomstige het is nodig voor de exploiteerbaarheid voetbaltempel een harde eis. Dit om extra inkomsten te van het stadion. De concerten zijn een genereren, onder andere uit concerten” (AD, 2014). A Rutgers note it is nowadays very common to build welkome aanvulling voor het stadion” flexible roofs on stadia for comfort and multi-use (see Appendix 7) reasons, also the upcoming renovations of the stadia of Barcelona and Real Madrid will include the construction of a mobile roof. The hosting of events throughout the “Een week lang stadion vol betekent year is a major aim mainly for financial reasons to make extra inkomsten. Dat willen we hier the stadium feasible. An example of this is the Veltins Arena (Gelsenkirchen), which is during winter for several ook gaan realiseren. Concerten maar weeks used as place for Christmas markets. Non-sports ook jongerendagen en van alles en events are very important to make stadia feasible. nog wat. Als het stadion maar vaak gebruikt gaat worden” (see Appendix 7) Nevertheless, is this feasible with the competition of the Amsterdam ArenA, Gelredome, Ziggodome and Heineken Musical Hall? The total cost increases strongly due to the addition of a retractable roof, is this “Ik denk niet dat ze zich rijk moeten profitable? The assumption that the upgraded new Kuip rekenen want al kijk je naar afgelopen will attract a lot of major events like pop concerts to jaren hoe de Arena het met grote make the stadium feasible is questioned by The Groene concerten doet.. dat valt de laatste Amsterdammer (2013). It is argued that the new Kuip jaren behoorlijk tegen” (see Appendix 6) should compete for major events with the Amsterdam ArenA, Gelredome and Ziggodome. Though, biggest problem is that Mojo Concerts, the largest concert promoter “De vernieuwing van de Kuip is geen prestigeproject in the Netherlands, has shares in the van de overheid zoals WK stadions vaak zijn. Feyenoord Heineken Music Hall, Ziggodome and heeft nou eenmaal een enorme aantrekkingskracht, Gelredome. The probability of attracting mensen willen erbij horen” (see Appendix 7) large pop concerts to Rotterdam seems difficult (see Appendix 6). The competition is fierce and the big international artists like Madonna do sometimes not even visit the Netherlands. However, A. Rutgers claims they are not afraid for a white elephant scenario (see Appendix 7). He argues this project is not like the World Cup stadia which often become white

Pagina | 56 elephants. Optimists say that the competition is part of other segments and the new Kuip will be the biggest stadium in the Netherlands, and therefore attractive for Mojo to host concerts. Mojo will also be involved in the construction of the inside of the stadium, this seems very logical. If the new Kuip is designed according to the wishes of Mojo, the stadium is much more competitive and this is where the battle is won. Although a maximum number of concerts in the Kuip is set, “Mojo kijkt gewoon puur naar because of noise nuisance, B. Veenbrink argues if Mojo can waar ze het meeste geld kunnen earn more in the new Kuip it seems logical they will host verdienen” (see Appendix 6) concerts in Rotterdam instead of Amsterdam. This argument seems plausible, but it is still uncertain.

5.2.3 Mixed use Kuip?

The new Kuip is perceived as a multifunctional stadium, but what about mixed use developments? The plans for an entire new Kuip which was cancelled was part of the plan for a new ”Stadionpark” (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2010). In this way the development of the new Kuip and the sports-related plans were part of the 2nd model of sports-related urban regeneration, because the stadium was part of an area-based strategy. This is confirmed by B. “Er waren mooie plannen met dat Veenbrink. In the contemporary plans for the gehele nieuwe stadion, dat is helaas renovation of the Kuip, the local community will get a beetje weg. Die specifieke locatie moet positive impulse because of the so-called Feyenoord wel een hele breed gaande visie hebben. DOK with new sports, leisure and accommodation Als je dat doet kan je het onderdeel van functions in the immediate vicinity of the stadium. This will also be additional revenue for Feyenoord and the Rotterdam maken” (see Appendix 6) neighbourhood. Also on the Maas side of the stadium a square will be realized which should become a meeting place for Rotterdam-Zuid. So the local community is not completely forgotten. Nevertheless, the plan lacks a bigger picture which is confirmed by B. Veenbrink. The present-day plans to rebuild the Kuip seems to be not part of an integrated plan for upgrading the local community of Rotterdam-Zuid. Although the plan states the new stadium will have a positive impulse on the economic and social consolidation of Rotterdam-Zuid and the area development around the new Kuip will make an important contribution to the intended positive breakthrough in the southern part of Rotterdam, this is the only sentence about the value of the new stadium for the local community. There are for instance no hard commitments about how much jobs are for locals. Also the aim of the square seems nice, but it should be integrated within the existing “Een brede visie voor de omgeving rond infrastructure and used for local activities so it can het project moet ontwikkeld worden, dan lead to social cohesion. If the square is realized on the alleen te denken wat Feyenoord aan het existing parking place, it is still an isolated square stadion zal hebben” (see Appendix 6) which will result in disappointing effects. It seems to be that the interests of Feyenoord are priority, and not the interests of the local community: “Het uitgangspunt is dat door de komst van een groter, multifunctioneel stadion het spelersbudget van Feyenoord op den duur al verdubbelen, en de Rotterdamse club daarmee een toppositie in de Nederlandse verwerft en hoge ogen gooit op het Europese podium” (AD, 2014). However, the focus on Feyenoord and the exclusion of the surrounding neighbourhood from the renovation plans is a missed opportunity.

According to A. Rutgers it is not strange that the interests of Feyenoord are high on the agenda because Feyenoord is the initiator of the project. However, the lack of an integrated strategy to upgrade the semi-urban working-class quarter Rotterdam-Zuid seems to be a missed opportunity.

Pagina | 57

Also the focus on the multi-use of the stadium can be better, mixed use stadia are much more appropriate for urban “Bij een project als dit is Feyenoord regeneration of an area. The local community is not much de initiator. Als Feyenoord geen discussed in the new Kuip plans. Explanation of this could be uitbreiding had gewild, hadden wij that the proposed plan is in its starting phase, and thus not niet aan tafel gezeten en had er that detailed. The interests of the local population and the impact of the plan on the local community needs to be niks gebeurd” (see Appendix 7) further examined. The case of new Wembley can be used as an example in this respect. It is important to have an integrated area based strategy to tackle the problems in “De plannen focussen zich meer op disadvantaged areas. The upgrading of the surrounding het stadion dan de omgeving dus neighbourhood requires involvement of the municipality of dat moet niet van Feyenoord Rotterdam. It now seems that the interests of Feyenoord are komen (see Appendix 7) priority, and that the municipality will decide later what to do with the surrounding neighbourhood.

5.3 Comparison

English stadia are often situated in semi-urban working-class quarters and have a major connection with urban regeneration. As paragraph 3.1.3 illustrated, English stadia and clubs have a good connection with their local community. Therefore English stadia often stay in their original neighbourhood and there are not much out-of-town-stadia in England. The new or renovated stadia therefore have, or have in the future, a big value for the local community. The construction of stadia is combined with urban regeneration projects, hence not only the sports team benefits but also the local community benefits from the stadia. The construction of stadia is part of a widespread area- based strategy; the English stadia are part of the 2nd model of sports-related regeneration in which the stadia are an integrated catalyst in the process of regeneration (see Table 5).

Table 5: Overview of cases.

Case Country Generation Type of stadium Sports-related development urban regeneration New Wembley England 4th: Flexible multi-use 1st: Multifunctional for Model 1: Sports- stadia a national need (major led regeneration 5th: Urban iconic flagship events) Model 2: Sports flagship stadia regeneration 6th: Urban regeneration stadia Emirates Stadium England 6th: Urban 2nd: Primarily for clubs Model 2: Sports regeneration stadia regeneration New Anfield England 6th: Urban 2nd: Primarily for clubs Model 2: Sports regeneration stadia regeneration New White Hart England 6th: Urban 2nd: Primarily for clubs Model 2: Sports Lane regeneration stadia regeneration New Kuip The 4th: Flexible multi-use 1st: Multifunctional for Model 1: Sports- Netherlands stadia a national need (major led regeneration 5th: Urban iconic flagship events) Model 3: Sport flagship stadia 2nd: Primarily for clubs and Regeneration

Pagina | 58

In contrast, although the new Kuip is situated in a deprived and disadvantaged working-class quarter and it is theoretically possible to act as a catalyst for urban regeneration, urban regeneration of the immediate surroundings isn’t (yet) a major topic in the stadium plans. The plans include ambitions to improve certain things for the local community, but it lacks an integral and area-based strategy. The new Kuip is part of the 1st model of sports-related regeneration as well like the Wembley case: the stadium is already an icon and this will only be strengthened with the new iconic flagship architecture. The plans seems to be part of the 3rd model of sports-related regeneration as well because there is no integrated strategy, it seems to be an independent intervention. The new Kuip is similar as Wembley focusing on attracting concerts etc., they aim to be a multifunctional stadium. Therefore the new Kuip is part of the 4th, and 5th generation of stadia development (flexible multi-use stadia and urban iconic flagship stadia). However, the new Kuip lacks to be part of the 6th generation of stadia development and the 2nd model of sports-related regeneration; the renovation of the Kuip should be part of an integrated area based strategy as well to be an urban regeneration stadium in order to upgrade Rotterdam-Zuid. This is an important distinguished difference between the English urban regeneration stadia and the proposed new Kuip; although the new Kuip seems to be a perfect opportunity to upgrade the deprived neighbourhood and redevelop the stadium at the same time, this opportunity is not recognized (yet).

5.4 Conclusion – advice for the new Kuip

The English cases show that the combination of the 1st and 2nd model of sports-related regeneration, the way sports can be used to revitalise an area, seems to be a good example for other European stadia. The cases illustrated that stadia can be an iconic driver (flagship architecture) or integrated catalyst (part of an area-based strategy) in the process of regeneration. In addition, the new Wembley case shows that the combination of multifunctional and mixed use stadia seems to be really good for the feasibility of the stadium and the regeneration of the local community. The Kuip in Rotterdam is always praised for its English football atmosphere and therefore named as the most beautiful stadium in the Netherlands. The new Kuip tries to improve this atmosphere by increasing the attendance and preserve the old elements of the, for away teams, frightening Kuip. The plans for the rebuilding of the Kuip focus on the inside of the stadium, to increase revenue for Feyenoord. This is not strange, because Feyenoord is initiator of the renovation plan. However, because of this inwards-oriented view, the contribution of the stadium to the local community is uncertain. Except for a few sentences about the driver role of the stadium, the construction of the stadium is not part of an outwards-oriented wider urban regeneration strategy. This is a wasted opportunity, because the Rotterdam-Zuid area is struggling for decades. The contemporary plans lack the value and contribution of the new stadium as icon for the local community of the deprived working-class quarter Rotterdam-Zuid. Even though the new Kuip equals the English football atmosphere, the stadium developments in England are a great example to the Netherlands and especially for Rotterdam. The building of new or renovation of existing English stadia is part of large-scale urban regeneration projects to upgrade disadvantaged semi-urban working-class quarters. The Kuip as icon of Rotterdam-Zuid can also act as a catalyst for urban regeneration, but they have to enhance and clarify the contribution of the stadium to the local community. Like the English stadia, the new Kuip should be part of the 6th generation of stadium development and the 2nd model of sports-related regeneration; the renovation of the Kuip should be part of an integrated area based strategy as well to be an urban regeneration stadium in order to upgrade Rotterdam-Zuid. In this way the new stadium can be a combination of a multifunctional and mixed use stadium. It should be more about the improvement of an entire area; there are now no clear plans regarding urban regeneration of the working-class quarter Rotterdam-Zuid. The old plan for building an entire new stadium was part of area development of Rotterdam-Zuid, but in the current renovation plans there is too little emphasis

Pagina | 59 on the contribution of the stadium to the local community. This is also party due to the municipality that does not interfere and do not support any plans (yet).

Important notes/recommendations:

 In England clubs have a firm connection with their neighbourhood, and therefore clubs often stay at their home ground and try to upgrade their stadia combined with urban regeneration projects.  The new Wembley stadium is an excellent example of the combination between an inwards- oriented multifunctional stadium and an outwards-oriented mixed use stadium and therefore also a perfect example of a combination between Model 1: Sports-led Regeneration – “iconic flagship projects” and Model 2: Sports-Regeneration – ”integrated area-based strategy. This combination of models seems to be really good for the role of major sports infrastructure within regeneration projects.  The construction of the new Wembley resulted in an increase in property prices of up to 15% in the surroundings of the stadium. The regeneration process combined with the construction of the stadium provided jobs for local people living in the disadvantaged working-class quarter who were currently unemployed or under-employed. Also public space like parking space was designed both for events days and the local community.  The construction of the Emirates Stadium provided huge benefits to the local community which included the creation of many local jobs.  The renovation of the Anfield stadium will include the replacement of many outdated properties.  The construction of the new White Hart Lane will include the creation of local jobs which will give the local community with high unemployment great new opportunities. Also a public square will be realized and designed for hosting local street markets or community events.  All four English stadia are urban regeneration stadia, located in semi-urban disadvantaged working-class quarters and part of a wide integrated area-based strategy to upgrade the surrounding disadvantaged neighbourhood along with the construction or renovation of the stadium. This improves the financial feasibility of the stadium plans, but it also creates local support for the stadium plans in combination with the regeneration plans. In this way the stadia have a major value for the local community and act as a catalyst for the regeneration of the surrounding local community.  In contrast, the new Kuip is a combination between Model 1: Sports-led Regeneration – “iconic flagship projects” and Model 3: Sport and Regeneration – “independent interventions”. The new Kuip is therefore not an urban regeneration stadium because it is not part of Model 2: Sports-Regeneration – ”integrated area-based strategy”. Although several small-scale plans, like the Feyenoord DOK and the construction of a square in front of the stadium, seems to be really good for having a value for the local community, it remains to be seen what the actual design and aim of plans like those are. Such a square should for instance really be embedded in the urban environment of the local community and designed for (sports) events crowds and activities for the local community like markets. In general, the overall plans of the new Kuip are focusing too much on the interests of Feyenoord, lacking the contribution of the upgraded stadium to the local community. This is a wasted opportunity, because the Kuip is situated in a disadvantaged semi-urban working-class quarter and can have a major value for the upgrading of the neighbourhood like the English cases did or do in the future.

Pagina | 60

6. Sports Stadia and Urban Regeneration - Conclusion

This chapter discusses the final conclusions of this research. Firstly, section 6.1 and 6.2 consists of relating all the parts together and answering the sub-questions and overarching research question. After this some recommendations will be made in section 6.3 for further research and policy making. This chapter is concluded with a final consideration in section 6.4, with a reflection on the entire process and the usefulness of the study.

6.1 Answer to sub-questions

In this section all sub-questions will be briefly discussed in sequence.

What is the relationship between sports-related development, like the construction of stadia, and urban regeneration?

Back in the days, sports stadia were designed to accommodate as much spectators as possible with no value for the local community. However, the last two decades the relationship between sports- related development, like the construction of stadia, and urban regeneration has boomed. Urban regeneration is becoming more important and sports-related development have become an important catalyst for urban regeneration in many cities across Europe. The term sports-related regeneration emerged which refers to the way that sports can be used to revitalise an area economically, environmentally, physically and socially. The focus on the local community means a transition from stadia as downtown normal stadia to semi-urban stadia having a function for a local community: the emergence of the urban regeneration stadia, which are mainly seen in England (for additional information, see Chapter 3 and 5).

What are the positive effects of (new) sports stadia to act as a catalyst for urban regeneration and have value for the local community in working-class-quarters?

Stadia and related major events can result in direct and indirect benefits for a local community. It has the potential to boost economic growth; the neighbourhoods around stadia may benefit from the spin-off which consist of all kinds of facilities that are realized in the stadium area. Also rising property prices occurs close to stadia. In addition, stadia have the potential to improve infrastructure, improve image, create local job opportunities and boost civic pride. In this way the resident’s quality of life will be improved. In the end the construction of the stadium can start a phase of urban regeneration in which an entire neighbourhood is redeveloped and upgraded (for additional information, see Chapter 3).

What are the negative effects of (new) sports stadia to act as a barrier for urban regeneration and have no value for the local community in working-class-quarters?

There is always great uncertainty about the feasibility of stadia and thus uncertainty if stadia can have a boost on urban regeneration. The economic impact on the surrounding area is difficult to estimate and hardly measurable. Moreover, the construction of stadia can result in growth at the expense of other neighbourhoods because the stadium district improves because of a spin-off, but other districts are declining because of the decreasing leisure industry. This is why the added value of stadia is perhaps overestimated and the ability of stadia to act as a catalyst is less than supposed.

Pagina | 61

Also the jobs created by stadia are also primarily low-income jobs, which is often not the goal of urban regeneration. In addition, in practice the integration into the existing environment is problematic, so the local community only experience nuisance and pollution without experiencing benefits which consequently can result in social exclusion of local residents. Stadia are in this way not a catalyst, but instead a barrier for urban regeneration (for additional information, see Chapter 3).

What are the tensions for urban regeneration (new) sports stadia must have to take into account?

Based on the literature study, expert-interviews and own research about stadia in Europe, several tensions are identified which stadia must deal to be a catalyst for urban regeneration and have a function for the local community. The tensions are based on the overall tension: stadia designed for sports team’s interests vs stadia designed for local community’s interests (for additional information, see Chapter 4).

 Tension 1: Design and location of stadia. Downtown or out-of-town multifunctional stadia vs semi-urban mixed use stadia  Tension 2: Flagship architecture. Costs and (visual) pollution vs architectural iconic design.  Tension 3: Rising property prices.. negative or positive? Local community displacement vs higher property prices  Tension 4: Negative or positive impact on social environment? Social exclusion and opposition vs collective identity and social cohesion  Tension 5: New large companies vs local entrepreneurs. The interests of large companies vs the interests of existing local entrepreneurs  Tension 6: Growth at the expense of existing entertainment districts? Substitution effect vs crowd attracting role  Tension 7: Resident’s quality of life. Nuisance for residents vs improved quality of life

What conditions must (new) sports stadia meet to make urban regeneration possible and cater for the needs of the local community?

Based on the entire research, several conditions can be formulated which sports stadia must meet, to ensure it has value for urban regeneration and have a function for the local community. Only the first condition is considered as the most important one. The order of the rest of the conditions is arbitrary, they are not ranked by degree of importance. This is because it is very difficult to compare the conditions with each other and (new) stadia often have to meet several conditions because it creates the most support for urban regeneration. The conditions cover all formulated tensions, to achieve the best possible option for urban regeneration. In any case stadia must meet the following conditions to act as a catalyst for urban regeneration and have value for the local community:

- Condition 1: New or redeveloped stadia are located in a disadvantaged semi-urban working-class quarter

The location of stadia within a city is very important in order to be a catalyst for urban regeneration. Although integration into the existing environment is a big benefit for the immediate surroundings in terms of spill-overs, in reality this advantage is not always recognized. In many cases the location of stadia is isolated without interaction with surroundings which is a wasted opportunity. Downtown city center stadia like the Millennium Stadium (Cardiff) and out-of-town stadia like the Amsterdam ArenA, the Commerzbank Arena (Frankfurt) and the Allianz Arena (Munich), are not good examples of catalysts for urban regeneration. Iconic architecture can have attractive power, but they are

Pagina | 62

“cathedrals in the desert” if they are built in an area where it has no value for local residents. Many isolated out-of town stadia are good for the clubs, but not good in terms of urban regeneration. In this way the stadia only serve the club’s interests. The potential for stadia as a catalyst for urban regeneration is limited if its location is very isolated and not integrated within the wider environment. Therefore, the construction of stadia deliberately in a semi-urban working-class quarter is preferred because this increases the chance that stadia serves as a catalyst for urban regeneration and result in an economic spin-off for the disadvantaged local community.

- Condition 2: Construction of stadia is combined with urban regeneration projects to create an integrated area-based strategy

If stadia are deliberately constructed in a disadvantaged working-class quarter, the construction can be combined with urban regeneration projects to create an integrated area-based strategy (model 2 of sports-related regeneration: sports regeneration). The same applies to the renovation of stadia, instead of moving to another location, the existing stadia can be upgraded combined with the regeneration of an entire area. In any case, just building a stadium with no connection with the surroundings cannot be a basis for urban regeneration in the immediate area. Stadia have the biggest positive impact when it is built as part of a larger area-based strategy. The development of stadia, new or renovation, needs to be integrated into a local regeneration strategy to enhance the contribution of stadia to the local community. In this way the stadia serves, besides clubs’ interests, also local community’s interests and this increases the chance that stadia serve as a catalyst for urban regeneration. Chapter 5 and paragraph 3.1.3 illustrated that this strategy is mainly used in England.

- Condition 3: Stadia are constructed as both a mixed use and a multifunctional stadium, to act as trigger for leisure developments and create economic spin-off

One of the common criticisms of stadium developments is that they are not connected with surrounding communities and consequently the economic spin-off to the local community is very small. If a stadium is located in a disadvantaged semi-urban working-class quarter and is combined with urban regeneration projects, the stadium has overcome the criticised isolation. However, it is not only important to combine the stadium project with urban regeneration projects as an integrated area-based strategy, stadium developments should also be combined with leisure developments. This is not part of condition 2 as an urban regeneration project, because this third condition is about the stadium itself. Stadia are often built to maximise profit within the stadium. Stadia who primarily think of the clubs, are often multifunctional stadia. Multifunctional stadia are very much inwards- oriented, because primary aim is to increase income by increasing the use of the stadia during a year. This does not suggest multifunctional stadia are the best option regarding urban regeneration. It can be very good for the clubs; multi-use is crucial for the financial feasibility of stadia. However, those stadia are very much inwards-oriented and this is not the best option in terms of urban regeneration which entails a more outwards-oriented view. Stadia will not be successful if the primary focus of the project is the stadium itself. Stadia as part of a mixed use development have a much more outwards- oriented view. The realization of a leisure industry around stadia can be a trigger and creates synergy between stadia and its urban environment. It is important to have facilities all year round, not just during sports matches. Mixed use developments, rather than a stadium focused on a single mega event or single club, is better to avoid white elephants. The arrival of businesses attracts people, which provides economic spin-off for the local community and consequently urban regeneration can take place. Stadia should not only be designed to maximise profit for the clubs, but also be part of a wider strategy to produce public benefits and positive spill-overs.

Pagina | 63

- Condition 4: Stadia are integrated within the local community and stimulate interaction to create a dynamic environment and social spin-off

In addition to condition 1, if stadia are located in semi-urban working-class quarters it is still not certain if urban regeneration will take place. Integration within the existing infrastructure of the neighbourhood is important to ensure that besides matches in stadia also activities for the local community in and around stadia take place. Stadia should have a broad and crowd attracting function, so stadia are places for interaction and exchange and result in social spin-off. When there are very often leisure and cultural activities around stadia, more meetings between people will take place and stadia can in this way contribute to a collective sense of identity and social cohesion. Creating a dynamic environment around stadia can also have a positive impact on the health of local residents; people will be supported for a healthier and sports life. The example of the Amsterdam ArenA showed that, although a large leisure industry emerged around the Amsterdam ArenA, events in and around the stadium are mainly focused on a major (inter)national audience and do not encourage interaction with the local community to produce a social spin-off. A logical explanation for this lack of function of the stadium for the local community, is that the stadium was built in a no man’s land area (condition 1), originally not linked to urban regeneration projects (condition 2) and primarily built as a multifunctional stadium (condition 3).

- Condition 5: Creation of social support to create commitment through partnerships

If the construction of stadia is combined with urban regeneration projects (condition 2), the project becomes more feasible but at the same time much more complex because many different actors with diverse interests are involved in large-scale projects like the construction of stadia. Condition 4 is mainly about integration within the local community in terms of creating a dynamic environment and an identity to improve social cohesion etc. This fifth condition is more about the planning phase of a project, about creating support for a plan. The combination of constructing stadia with urban regeneration projects needs broad support from the local community because successful regeneration will only be achieved with the support and involvement of the people within the local community. In this way icons are developed from a dialogue with residents and other stakeholders and have value for the local community. This can result in public-private partnerships and community benefit agreements. The creation of common interests means increased chance of success and feasibility of the urban regeneration plan, including the constructing or renovation of a stadium. Important to note is that the partnership with involved local residents must take place prior to the start of the stadium and urban regeneration project. Promises about urban regeneration aims and projects are nice, but agreements must be secured to establish clear long-term targets for local residents. Agreements about how many jobs are for the local people during and after construction like happened in the Wembley case is needed. This also includes strict agreements about the relationship between existing local- and new businesses, so local entrepreneurs are not disadvantaged by new arrived businesses. Stadia become a meaningful icon when their meaning is widely shared and this all together creates wide support for the construction of stadia.

- Condition 6: Stadia incorporate unconventional architectural iconic urban design

The importance of the 2nd model of sports-related regeneration in terms of an integrated area-based strategy is already discussed in condition 2. However, the 1st model of sports-related regeneration is also important for construction of stadia. The latest trend for mega-projects like stadia is iconic architecture. Together with condition 4, the creation of social cohesion, this results in an identity for the local community. Urban icons can have a catalyst function for a local community; iconic architecture have attractive power as cathedrals of the modern era. Unconventional flagship

Pagina | 64 architecture can also raise property values and improve the image of a disadvantaged working-class quarter which possibly leads to economic-spin-off. In this way the positive effects outweigh the additional costs of unconventional architecture.

What suggestions and advice can be provided for future sports stadia, and the Kuip in particular, having value for the local community in working-class-quarters?

Stadium projects should not focus primarily on the interests of the sports teams; also the value of stadia for the local community should be part of the plans as an integrated area-based strategy. English stadia are often the centre of a development of an area and thus seen as catalyst for urban regeneration of a neighbourhood. In contrast, the new Kuip plans are very much inwards-oriented on Feyenoord; the contribution of the new stadium to the local community is uncertain. The upgrading of the stadium is not part of an outwards-oriented wider urban regeneration strategy. This is a wasted opportunity, because the working-class quarter Rotterdam-Zuid is struggling for decades. The Kuip as icon of Rotterdam-Zuid can like the English stadia also act as a catalyst for urban regeneration, but they have to enhance and clarify the contribution of the stadium to the local community.

6.2 Answer to research question

The overarching research question “how can sports stadia be a catalyst for urban regeneration in a working-class quarter and have value for the local community” will be answered in this section. In the previous paragraph some conditions are presented which new or redeveloped stadia must meet to make urban regeneration possible and have value for the local community. In this way stadia can have a major value for the surrounding neighbourhoods. The location of stadia is crucial to have value for urban regeneration. Stadia in semi-urban working-class quarters is the best possible option. However, just constructing a stadium in a disadvantaged working-class quarter is not enough because it remains an isolated phenomenon, without any connection with the local community. Therefore the connection with the urban environment and the combination with urban regeneration projects and leisure developments is also important to create an integrated area-based strategy. Stadia projects should not be focused to the single interests of clubs, the value to the local community should also be taken into account. If stadia meet the formulated conditions, it is likely that stadia are a catalyst for urban regeneration so the disadvantaged working-class quarter will be upgraded and consequently the local community benefits of the stadium plan. However, this does not mean that stadia who do not meet the conditions are bad stadia. The examples of the Allianz Arena (Munich) and Millennium Stadium (Cardiff) show that, although they are not good examples in terms of urban regeneration, they are quite successful stadia. The Allianz Arena has contributed to the current economic and sportive success of Bayern Munich. The Cardiff Millennium has also become a commercial success by hosting international events. Nevertheless, these stadia are not good examples of stadia that promotes urban regeneration and serves the local community. In times of economic crisis, it is a wasted opportunity for a stadium project not be linked to the upgrading of a disadvantaged working-class quarter.

6.3 Recommendations

Stadia should not be designed with a single focus on the interests of the clubs, but the value of stadia for the local community and especially disadvantaged working-class quarters should also be taken into account. This also applies to the new Kuip case, with too much focus on the interests of Feyenoord but a lack of an integrated area-based vision. The English cases show that the

Pagina | 65 construction of new or the upgrading of existing stadia as part of an area-based strategy is valuable for the regeneration of disadvantaged working-class quarters. The Kuip in Rotterdam is always praised for its English football atmosphere. However, because of the inwards-oriented focus on Feyenoord, the contribution of the new stadium to the local community is uncertain. The upgrading of the stadium is not part of an outwards-oriented wider urban regeneration strategy. This is a wasted opportunity, because the Rotterdam-Zuid area is struggling for decades. The contemporary plans lack the value and contribution of the new stadium as icon for the local community of the deprived working-class quarter Rotterdam-Zuid. Even though the new Kuip equals the English football atmosphere, the stadium developments in England are a great example to the new Kuip. The building of new or renovation of existing English stadia is part of large-scale urban regeneration projects to upgrade disadvantaged semi-urban working-class quarters. The Kuip as icon of Rotterdam-Zuid can also act as a catalyst for urban regeneration, but they have to enhance and clarify the contribution of the stadium to the local community. There should be more attention to the area development and the contribution of the stadium to the local community. In this way the local community also benefits from the redeveloped stadium.

6.4 Reflection

Now, at the end of a long period of reading and writing, I have to say I really enjoyed the theoretical research. The choice to do a theoretical study has been a good one because I think that this way of research suits me best. I also think the reasons to do such a theoretical research, because of a lack of theoretical substantiation, were plausible and legitimate. Although there was much information available about stadium developments and urban regeneration, the body of literature still contained certain gaps. However, the overall aim of a theoretical research like this doesn’t mean the study is not explorative. The research was not only theoretical, in fact the study was also empirical because interviews and own research about stadia in Europe was also part of this thesis. However, there are still several indirect positive effects of stadium development that are difficult to measure and quantify. This could be a problem with measuring the impact of stadia on the local community. Secondly, at the end I realize that conducting more interviews might have been better. Nevertheless, I think it was at that time during the process a wise decision to decide the available information was sufficient because all gathered information pointed at the same direction and I had way too much information. Although it was a bit difficult to analyse the new Kuip plans because the plans were at an early stage, I think this research made it very clear that the new Kuip can learn from the English urban regeneration stadia. An alternative way of research, a research completely based on case- studies, would not have been appropriate because of the contemporary lack of theory. On the basis of this research, especially the formulated tensions, such a research can be done in the future. For instance, the role of several constructed European stadia within the local community can be examined along the formulated conditions. Those formulated conditions can also be used with the planning of future stadia, to ensure multi-million stadia have value for a local community and also produces public spill-overs in times of economic crises. In this way this research contributed to the scientific body of literature about stadium development and urban regeneration, and other people can elaborate on this research by examining different cases. It is recommended to do research on the new Kuip if there are final plans because the plans are now in an early phase and it is interesting if plans have changed compared to now (June 2014). In this way can be examined, on the basis of the formulated conditions in this research, if the new Kuip is really capable to act as a catalyst for the regeneration and have value for the disadvantaged working-class quarter Rotterdam-Zuid. Although this research focused on Europe, the associated conclusions are useful especially within today’s debate about the World Cup stadia in Brazil and the contribution of the stadia to the often poor Brazilian communities. Finally, I think I have learned a lot from the entire process and that this research has become a valuable completion of my master’s program.

Pagina | 66

Bibliography – Literature

AD (2014), Feyenoord stelt harde eisen aan Kuipplannen [online]. http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1038/Rotterdam/article/detail/3627762/2014/04/03/Feyenoord-stelt- harde-eisen-aan-Kuipplannen.dhtml [consulted on 3-4-2014].

Ahlert, G. (2005), What does Germany expect to gain from hosting the 2006 Football World Cup - macroeconomic and regional economic Effects. GWS Discussion Paper, pp. 1-25.

Ahlfeldt, G & W. Maennig (2008), Impact of sports arenas on land values: evidence from Berlin. Annals of regional science, (44), pp. 205-227.

Ahlfeldt, G. & W. Maennig (2010), Stadium Architecture and Urban Development from the Perspective of Urban Economics. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34 (3), pp. 629-646.

Ahlfeldt, G. & W. Maennig (2011), Voting on a NIMBY Facility: Proximity Cost of an Iconic Stadium. Urban Affairs Review.

Ahlfeldt, G. & G. Kavetsos (2011), Form or Function? The Impact of New Football Stadia on Property Prices in London. Serc Discussion Paper 87.

Ampt, A. (2011), Inzicht in stadionontwikkeling. Een onderzoek naar het besluitvormingsproces van de verbouw of nieuwbouw van stadions voor Betaald Voetbal Organisaties in Nederland. Technische Universiteit Delft, Den Haag.

Amsterdam ArenA (2014), Stadion en omgeving: Geschiedenis [online]. http://www.amsterdamarena.nl/Stadion-omgeving/Geschiedenis.htm [consulted on 17-4-2014].

Anfield Project (2014), The Plans [online]. http://www.anfieldproject.co.uk/plans/ [consulted on 3 may 2014].

Arsenal (2010), The Community: Regeneration [online]. http://www.arsenal.com/the- community/regeneration [consulted on 12 may 2014].

Ashworth, G. (2011), De Instrumenten van Place Branding, Hoe worden ze ingezet? In: G. J. Hospers, W. J. Verheul & F. W. M. Boekema, City Marketing voorbij de hype. Ontwikkelingen, analyse en strategie. Den Haag: Boom Lemma Uitgevers.

Baade, R. & R. Dye (1990), The impact of stadiums and professional sports on metropolitan area development. Growth and change (21), pp. 1-14.

Baade, R. (1996a), Professional sports as catalysts for metropolitan economic development. Journal of urban affairs 18, pp. 1-17.

Baade, R. (1996b), What explains the stadium construction boom? Real Estate Issues 21 (3), pp. 5-11.

Baim, D. (1994), The Sports Stadium as a Municipal Investment. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Bale, J. (1990), In the Shadow of the Stadium: Football Grounds as Urban Nuisances. Geography, 75 (4), pp. 325-334.

Bale, J. (1995), Introduction in The Stadium in the City. Keele: University Press.

Pagina | 67

Bale, J. (2000), The Changing Face of Football: Stadiums and Communities. Soccer and Society, 1 (1), pp. 91-101.

Bay Area Economics (2006), Neighborhood Economic Impacts of the Proposed San José Stadium. Emeryville: The San José Redevelopment Agency.

BBC (2012), Liverpool to redevelop Anfield instead of building on Stanley Park [online]. http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/19935925 [consulted on 3-5-2014].

Belting, J. (2008), Empirical Methods: Expert Interviews.

Bess, P. (1989,) City Baseball Magic: Plain Talk and Uncommon Sense about Cities and Baseball Parks. Madison: Minneapolis Review of Baseball.

Blair, J. & D. W. Swindell (1997), Sports, politics and economics: the Cincinnati story. In: R. Noll & A. Zimbalist, Sports, Jobs, and Taxes: The Economic Impact of Sports Teams and Stadia. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.

Boeije, H., H. ’t Hart & J. Hox (2009), Onderzoeksmethoden. Den Haag: Boom Lemma Uitgevers.

Brent Council (2007), Wembley: From vision to reality.

Brent Council (2009), Wembley Masterplan. The Planning Service. Brent: Wembley Middlesex.

Bruzelius, N., B. Flyvbjerg & W. Rothengatter (2002), Big decisions, big risks. Improving accountability in mega projects. Transport policy, 9, pp. 143-154.

Bryman, A. (2008), Social Research Methods. Oxford: University Press.

Burg, T. van der (2013), Een analyse van de plannen voor Het Nieuwe Stadion van Feyenoord. Twente: Universiteit Twente.

Chanayil, A. (2002), The Manhattan Yankees? Planning Objectives, City Policy, and Sports Stadium Location in New York City. European Planning Studies, pp. 875-896.

Chapin, T. (2004), Sports facilities as urban redevelopment catalysts. Journal of the American Planning Association, pp. 193-209.

Chema, T. (1996), When professional sports justify the subsidy, a reply to Robert A. Baade. Journal of Urban Affairs, 18 (1), pp. 19-22.

Church, A. & S. Penny (2013), Power, space and the new stadium: the example of Arsenal Football Club. Sport in Society, 16 (6), pp. 721-734.

Coates, D. & B. R. Humphreys (2000), The growth effects of sport franchises, stadia and arenas. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18 (4), pp. 601-24.

Couch, C. (1990), Urban Renewal. Theory and practice. London: Macmillan.

Couch, C., C. Fraser & S. Percy (2003), Urban regeneration in Europe. Oxford: Blackwell Science.

Crompton, J. L. (2001), Public subsidies to professional team sport facilities in the USA. In: Gratton, C. & P. Henry (Eds.) Sport in the City: The role of sport in economic and social regeneration. London: Routledge.

Curtis, S. & B. Cave (2001), Developing a practical guide to assess the potential health impact of urban regeneration schemes. Promotion & Education, 8 (1), pp. 12-16.

Pagina | 68

Davies, L. E. (2005), Not in my back yard! Sports stadia location and the property market. Area, 37 (3), pp. 268-276.

Davies, L. E. (2008), Sport and the local economy: the role of stadia in regenerating commercial property. Local Economy, 23 (1), pp. 31-46.

Davies, L. E. (2010), Sport and economic regeneration: a winning combination? Sport in Society, 13 (10), pp. 1438-1457.

Doucet, B. M. (2010), Rich Cities with Poor People. Waterfront Regeneration in the Netherlands and Scotland. Utrecht: Royal Dutch Geographical Society.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989), Building Theories from Case Studies research. Academy of Management Review, 14 (4) pp. 532-550.

Euchner, C. (1999), Tourism and sports: The serious competition for play. In: D. Judd & S. Fainstein (Eds.), The tourist city, pp. 215-232.

Evans, G. (2005), Measure for Measure: Evaluating the Evidence of Culture’s Contribution to Regeneration. Urban Studies, (42), pp. 959-983.

Fainstein, S. (2010), The Just City. New York: Cornell University Press.

Farbrother, G. D. (2001), Stadium. Virginia: State University.

Feyenoord Founders Consortium (2014), Ambities [online]. http://www.dekuipgroeit.nl/ [consulted on 27 january 2014].

Financiële Dagblad (2012), Amsterdams adviesbureau behoedt Oekraïne voor spookstadions [online]. http://fd.nl/ondernemen/entrepreneur/wereldveroveraars/752326-1204/amsterdams- adviesbureau-behoedt-oekrane-voor-spookstadions [consulted on 10-5-2014].

Flyvbjerg, B., K. Holm & S. L. Buhl (2003), How common and how large are cost overruns in transport infrastructure projects? Transport Reviews, 23 (1), pp. 71-88.

FTM (2014), ‘Een Icedome-complex van 183 miljoen is flauwekul [online]. http://www.ftm.nl/exclusive/het-icedome-complex-van-183-miljoen-flauwekul/ [consulted on 5-4- 2014].

Gaffney C. (2008), Temples of the Earthbound Gods: Stadiums in the Cultural Landscapes of Rio de Janeiro and Buenos Aires, Austin: University of Texas.

Giulianotti, R. (1999), Football: A Sociology of the Global Game. Oxford: Polity Press.

Graham, J. T. (2002), The Neighbourhood-Friendly Stadium. Planning, 68 (7), pp. 28-32.

Gratton, C., S. Shibli & R. Coleman (2004), Sport and Economic Regeneration in Cities. Urban Studies 42, pp. 985-999.

Griffiths, R. (1993), All eyes on Manchester: Sport and urban regeneration. Planning Practice & Research, p. 3.

Hackworth, J. (2002), Post-recession gentrification in New York City. Urban Affairs Review, 37 (6), pp. 815-843.

Pagina | 69

Hall, M. C. (2004), Sport Tourism and Urban Regeneration. In: Ritchie, B. & D. Adair, Sport Tourism: interrelationships, impacts and issues. London: Channel View Publication.

Inglis, S. (2003), This is End to End Stuff, When Saturday Comes, 200, pp. 2-7.

John, G. R. Sheard & B. Vickery (2007), Stadia: a design and development guide. Elsevier Limited, Oxford.

Jones, C. (2001), A level playing field? Sports stadium infrastructure and urban development in the United Kingdom. Environment and Planning, pp. 845-861.

Jones, C., M. Munday & N. Roche (2007), The Millennium Stadium, Cardiff and Wales. The economic impact. Econactive Limited, pp. 1-39.

Johnson, R., P. Gregory, G. Pratt & M. Watts (2000), The dictionary of human geography. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Kavetsos, G. & S. Szymanski (2010), National well-being and international sports events. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31 (2), pp. 158-171.

Keepmoat (2014), Anfield Regeneration, Case Study.

Kok, A. (2013), Vrij Nederland. We leven langs elkaar heen [online]. http://www.vn.nl/Archief/Samenleving/Artikel-Samenleving/We-leven-langs-elkaar-heen-1.htm [consulted on 12-4-2014].

KPMG (2012), A blueprint for successful stadium development. KPMG Sports Advisory.

Legros, A. (2013), Urban Regeneration and its role in today’s society. Toronto: Ryerson University.

Lim, H., J. Kim, C. Potter & W. Bae (2013), Urban regeneration and gentrification: Land use impacts of the Cheonggye Stream Restoration Project on the Seoul’s central business district. Habitat International, 39, pp. 192-200.

Liverpool City Council (2008), Your guide to Housing Market Renewal within Anfield / Breckfield. Liverpool: Liverpool City Council.

Macgregor, C. (2010), Urban generation as a public health intervention. Journal of Social Intervention: Theory and Practice, 19 (3), pp. 38-51.

Maennig, W. & S. Du Plessis (2009), Sport Stadia, Sporting Events and Urban Development: International Experience and the Ambitions of Durban. Urban Forum, 20, pp. 61-76.

Maloutas, T. (2012), Contextual diversity in gentrification research. Critical Sociology, 38 (1), pp. 33- 48.

Mans, D. G. & J. Rodenburg (2000), The Amsterdam Arena: a multifunctional stadium. Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineerings. Structures and Buildings, 140, pp. 323-331.

Misener, L & D. S. Mason (2008), Urban Regimes and the Sporting Events Agenda: A Cross-National Comparison of Civic Development Strategies. Journal of Sport Management, (22), pp. 603-627.

Mommaas, H. (1993), Moderniteit, vrije tijd en de stad. Utrecht: Jan van Arkel.

Pagina | 70

Nas, P. J. M. (2011), Cities Full Of Symbols. A Theory Of Urban Space And Culture. Leiden: Leiden University Press.

Newman, P. & M. Tual, (2002), The Stade de France. The Last Expression of French Centralism? European Planning Studies, 10 (7), pp. 831-843.

Noll, R. & A. Zimbalist (1997), Sports, Jobs, Taxes: Are New Stadiums Worth the Cost? The Brookings Review, 15 (3), pp. 35-39.

NOS (2014), Italiaans voetbal in verval [online]. http://nos.nl/artikel/622280-italiaans-voetbal-in- verval.html [consulted on 1-5-2014].

Olukoya, W. A. (2012), Impacts of Sport Tourism in the Urban Regeneration of Host Cities: The Case of Sheffield. University of Sunderland: International Tourism and Hospitality Management.

Percy, R. (2001), Sports and urban regeneration. Planning Bulletin Issue Ten. London: JWL Limited.

Prasser, S. (2007), Overcoming the White Elephant Syndrome in Big and Iconic Projects in the Public and Private Sectors. In: J. Wanna, Improving Implementation and Project Management. Canberra: ANU Press.

Putting, T. (2013), Frames in de casus van De Nieuwe Kuip. Masterscriptie Urban and Regional Planning, Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam.

Roberts, P. & H. Sykes (2000), Current Challenges and Future Prospects. Urban Regeneration A Handbook, London: Sage Publications, pp. 295-314.

Robinson, P., S. Heitmann & P. Dieke (2011), Research Theme for Tourism. Oxford: CAB International Publication.

Rosentraub, M. S. (1997), Major League Losers. New York: Basic Books.

Rosentraub, M. S. (2000), Sports facilities, redevelopment, and the centrality of downtown areas: Observations and lessons from experiences in the Rustbelt and Sunbelt City. Marquette Sports Law Journal, 10, pp. 219-235.

Rousseau, M. (2009), Re-imaging the City Centre for the Middle Classes: Regeneration, Gentrification and Symbolic Policies in Loser Cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33 (3), pp. 770-788.

RTL Nieuws (2014), Er is geen geld voor de IceDome in Almere [online]. http://www.rtlnieuws.nl/economie/home/er-geen-geld-voor-de-icedome-almere [consulted on 9-6- 2014].

Ryan, B. D. & R. Weber (2008), Valuing New Development in Distressed Urban Neighbourhoods. Journal of the American Planning Association, 73 (1), pp. 100-111.

Searle, G. (2002), Uncertain Legacy: Sydney’s Olympic Stadiums. European Planning Studies, 10 (7).

Sheard. R. (2005), The Stadium: Architecture for the New Global Culture. London: Pesaro Publishing.

Sigfried, J. & A. Zimbalist (2000), The Economics of Sports Facilities and Their Communities. Journal of Economic Perspective, 14 (3), pp. 95-114.

Smink, W. (2010), Een stadion als katalysator van stedelijke vernieuwing? Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht.

Pagina | 71

Spampinato, A. (2009), Stadium History [online]. http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_menu/architecture/historic_stadiums.shtml [consulted on 12-4-2014].

Spirou, C. & L. Bennett (2003), It’s Hardly Sportin’: Stadiums, Neighbourhoods, and the New Chicago. Illinious: Northern Illinois University Press.

Stanners, D. & P. Bourdeau (1995), Europe’s environment: The Dobris assessment. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publication of the European Communities.

Thiel, S. van. (2007), Bestuurskundig onderzoek; een methodologische inleiding. Bussum: Uitgeverij Coutinho.

Thornley, A. (2002), Urban Regeneration and Sports Stadia. European Planning Studies, pp. 813-818.

Tosi, S. (2012), Toward a new management of football. The new Juventus stadium as a private public policy. Milano: Università di Milano-Bicocca.

Tsenkova, S. (2002), Urban regeneration: learning from the British experience. Calgary: University of Calgary.

University of Michigan (2014), Sports stadiums + Pubic subsidies [online]. http://www.umich.edu/~econdev/stadium_subsidy/ [consulted on 30-3-2014].

Veenbrink, B. (2006), Euroborg Stadium a Mixed a Mixed-use Development use Development London: Stadium Revenue Summit.

Verheul, W. J. (2012), Stedelijke iconen: Het ontstaan van beeldbepalende projecten tussen betoog en beton. Den Haag: Boom Lemma Uitgevers.

Verheul, W. J. (2013), Op zoek naar de heilige graal van katalysatorprojecten in stadsontwikkeling. Real Estate Research Quarterly (4).

Vermeulen, R. (2007), Bargaining multifunctional leisure facility location: Shifting alliances and continuously changing objectives. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.

Volkskrant (2007), Voetbalstadions in Italië lopen leeg [online]. http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2698/Sport/article/detail/831560/2007/01/06/Voetbalstadions-in- Italie-lopen-leeg.dhtml [consulted on 30-3-2014].

Weed, M. & C. Bull (2009), Sport Tourism: participants, policy and providers. London: Elsevier Limited.

Yin, R. K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods.

Pagina | 72

Bibliography – Figures

Figures front page: Jonge mediator (2014), Universiteit van Amsterdam [online]. http://www.jongemediator.nl/voor-studenten/universiteit-van-amsterdam/ [consulted on 12 april 2014].

The Guardian (2013), Tottenham's new stadium: how club can cash in on development plan [online]. http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/oct/30/tottenham-new-stadium-local-business- demolition [consulted on 28 may 2014].

Figure 1: KPMG (2012), A blueprint for successful stadium development. KPMG Sports Advisory.

Figure 2: Wales (2014), Rugby Autumn Internationals [online]. http://www.wales.com/en/content/cms/Blog/RugbyAutumnInt081113/RugbyAutumnInt081113.asp x [consulted on 19 may 2014].

Figure 3: Bayern Munchen (2014), Allianz Arena [online]. http://www.bayern.by/allianz-arena- muenchen [consulted on 31 may 2014].

Sportscycle (2010), Michigan Renovates Stadium Even With Bad Economy [online] http://thesportscycle.com/2010/07/ [consulted on 19 april 2014].

Figure 4: Le Point (2012), Que va devenir le Stade de France, gouffre financier pour l'État ? [online]. http://www.lepoint.fr/sport/que-va-devenir-le-stade-de-france-gouffre-financier-pour-l-etat-10-10- 2012-1515314_26.php [consulted on 19 may 2014].

Figure 5: Worldstadiums (2014a), Stadium Architecture: Stadium History [online]. http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_menu/architecture/historic_stadiums.shtml [consulted on 12 april 2014].

RTV Noord (2011), Groningen zuidoost (Gemeente Groningen) [online]. http://www.rtvnoord.nl/groningeninbeeld/?id=7033 [consulted on 12 april 2014].

Figure 6: Dennis Blom (2014)

Figure 7: Dennis Blom (2014)

Figure 8: Southwark Notes (2014), Regeneration? Gentrification? [online]. http://southwarknotes.wordpress.com/what-is-regeneration-gentrification/ [consulted on 23 may 2014].

Figure 9: Lang, 2005 in: Tsenkova (2002), Urban regeneration: learning from the British experience. Calgary: Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary.

Figure 10: Evans, 2005: in Davies (2010), Sport and economic regeneration: a winning combination? Sport in Society, 13 (10), pp. 1438-1457.

Figure 11: Wereldstadions (2014), Allianz Arena [online]. L

Figure 12: Ajax (2013), ArenA klaar voor finale Europa League [online]. http://www.ajax.nl/Ajax- Nieuws/Ajax-nieuwsarchief/Ajax-nieuwsartikel/191350/ArenA-klaar-voor-finale-Europa-League.htm [consulted on 19 april 2014].

Pagina | 73

Figure 13: SkyScraperCity (2011), Stadium and Sport Arenas [online]. http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1395724 [consulted on 12 april 2014].

Figure 14: Wembley Stadium (2014), The Stadium [online]. http://www.wembleystadium.com/TheStadium [consulted on 12 april 2014].

Figure 15: Arsenal (2014), Emirates Stadium. Get to Emirates [online]. http://www.arsenal.com/emirates-stadium [consulted on 12 april 2014].

Figure 16: Helicentre (2010), Fly over Anfield, home of Liverpool FC in a Helicopter [online]. http://www.helicentre.com/latest/news/fly-over-anfield,-home-of-liverpool-fc-in-a-helicopter [consulted on 12 april 2014].

Figure 17: Tottenham Hotspur (2014), New stadium plans: Sainsbury’s Store Kicks Off Tottenham Hotspur Stadium Scheme [online]. http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/the-stadium/new-stadium- plans/ [consulted on 12 april 2014].

Figure 18: BNR (2012), De Kuip, Herman Brood en sport [online]. http://www.bnr.nl/radio/bnr-paul- van-liempt/471337-1203/de-kuip-herman-brood-en-sport [consulted on 12 april 2014].

Figure 19: FFC (2014), De Nieuwe Kuip: Ontwerp [online]. http://www.dekuipgroeit.nl/ [consulted on 12 april 2014].

Table 1: Dennis Blom (2014)

Table 2: Dennis Blom (2014)

Table 3: UEFA (2014), UEFA rankings; Country coefficients 2013/14 [online]. http://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/uefarankings/country/index.html [consulted on 3 april 2014].

Table 4: Dennis Blom (2014)

Table 5: Dennis Blom (2014)

Pagina | 74

Appendix

Sports Stadia – Catalyst for Urban Regeneration of the Local Community?

Pagina | 75

Table of contents

Appendix 1: Interview guide Germen Oosterhof, Bewonersplatform Venserpolder…………..………………..…………….3

Appendix 2: Interview guide Ben Veenbrink, Stadium Consultancy BV………………………………………..……….……………4

Appendix 3: Interview guide Arend Rutgers, BAM/A&E Architecten ………………………………………….…….…....…………7

Appendix 4: Interview guide residents neighbourhoods de Kuip………………………………………………………………………10

Appendix 5: Transcript e-mail interview Germen Oosterhof…..………………………………………………………………………..12

Appendix 6: Transcript interview Ben Veenbrink, Stadium Consultancy BV..……………………………………………………13

Appendix 7: Transcript interview Arend Rutgers, BAM/A&E Architecten……………………………..………………………….21

Appendix 8: Summary interviews residents neighbourhoods de Kuip………….…………………………………………………..28

Appendix 9: Overview stadia Europe…………….…………………………………………………………………………………………………31

Appendix 10: Location of stadia: Spain….…………………………………………………………………………………………………………32

Appendix 11: Location of stadia: England…………………….……………………………………………..…………………………………..33

Appendix 12: Location of stadia: Germany………..………………..……………..……………………………………………………………34

Appendix 13: Location of stadia: Italy……………..………………………………..………………………..……………………………..…….35

Appendix 14: Location of stadia: Portugal………………………………………………………………………………………….…………….36

Appendix 15: Location of stadia: France…………………………………………….…………………………………………………………….37

Appendix 16: Location of stadia: Russia……………..…………………………….……………………………………………………………..38

Appendix 17: Location of stadia: the Netherlands………………………………….…………………………………..……………………39

Pagina | 76

Appendix 1. Interview guide e-mail interview Germen Oosterhof, Bewonersplatform Venserpolder

Datum: 17-04-2014

Locatie: /

Onderwerp: Stadions en stedelijke vernieuwing

Doel + strategie: achterhalen hoe de persoon denkt over sport stadions en hun rol bij stedelijke vernieuwing in de omgeving. Dit wordt gedaan doormiddel van een e-mail interview: Nadruk op zijn mening en ervaring over enkele geformuleerde spanningsvelden met betrekking tot de Amsterdam ArenA.

Introductie onderzoek.

Wat is uw functie bij het bewonersplatform Venserpolder?

Is de wijk betrokken geweest bij de bouw van de Amsterdam ArenA?

Heeft de wijk veel voordeel gehad bij de komst van het stadion?

Heeft u veel overlast van het stadion?

Komen de wijkbewoners wel is in het stadion?

Afronding, bedankwoordje.

Pagina | 77

Appendix 2. Interview guide interview 1: Ben Veenbrink, Stadium Consultancy BV

Datum: 29-04-2014

Locatie: Naarden/Bussum

Onderwerp: Stadions en stedelijke vernieuwing

Doel + strategie: achterhalen hoe de persoon denkt over sport stadions en hun rol bij stedelijke vernieuwing in de omgeving. Nadruk op zijn of haar mening en ervaring over de geformuleerde spanningsvelden en condities. Dit wordt gedaan doormiddel van het stellen van vragen waarin de spanningsvelden en condities naar voren komen. T= Tension C= Condition

Introductie onderzoek, doel interview.

Begin vragen:

- Hoeveel ervaring heeft u met stadionprojecten? - Mijn onderzoek gaat vooral over stadions en de inpassing in de omgeving en de relatie met stedelijke vernieuwing. Wat vind u van de huidige nieuwe stadions? Wat zijn specifieke eigenschappen van Europese stadia?

1. Kosten en onzekerheid T1 + C2

- Stadions die na grote evenementen leegstaan lijkt mij niet de bedoeling… Hoe wordt er met onzekerheid als het white elephant scenario omgegaan? Is er een haalbaarheidsanalyse en hoe wordt dit gedaan? (Bv hoeveel % vd bevolking kan capaciteit max zijn? Hoe bereken je hoeveel events?) - Mening over Conditie 2: Combineren met stedelijke vernieuwingsprojecten

2. Stadion als katalysator T2 +C1/C3

- De literatuur stelt dat voor stedelijke vernieuwing een stadion het best in een achterstandswijk kan worden geplaatst, en niet in het centrum of buiten de stad. Desondanks gebeurt dit in de praktijk niet vaak.. Wordt er niet te weinig gefocust op bundeling met stedelijke vernieuwing en inpassing in omgeving en teveel op de belangen van clubs? - Wordt er na het succes van de Arena niet teveel gefocust op multifunctionele stadia, terwijl mixed use stadia beter zijn voor stedelijke vernieuwing van een buurt? - Mening over Conditie 1: Locatie achterstandswijk + Conditie 3: Mixed-use stadion (en niet alleen multifunctioneel)

3. Lokale belangen T3 + T7 + T9 + C7

- Een van de spanningsvelden impliceert dat een nieuw stadion wel banen oplevert, maar dat dit vooral laag inkomen werk en werk voor aangrenzende gebieden is. Wat vindt u hiervan?

Pagina | 78

- Er is bij de komst van een stadion of een evenement altijd een spanningsveld tussen de grote bedrijven en organisaties en de lokale bevolking en bedrijven… In de literatuur komt naar voren dat dikwijls de lokale bedrijfjes worden overklast door de grote bedrijven, die vaak in het stadion zitten. Hoe wordt hiermee omgegaan zodat de lokale ondernemers ook meeprofiteren? En hoe zit dit met grote evenementen en de monopolie van haar sponsors ten opzichte van de lokale ondernemers? - Worden er harde afspraken gemaakt over bijvoorbeeld het aantal banen voor lokale mensen tijdens en na de bouw, of wordt dit alleen maar gesteld in beleidsdocumenten en wordt het later tijdens het proces vergeten? - Mening over Conditie 7: COMMITMENT. - Hoe wordt er in de praktijk omgegaan met het spanningsveld betere kwaliteit van leven voor lokale bewoners vs overlast en vervuiling? Worden er maatregelen genomen om overlast en vervuiling tegen te gaan?

4. Substitution effect T4 + T5

- Een ander geformuleerd spanningsveld gaat over het feit dat ondanks dat stadions voor economische groei kunnen zorgen, economische activiteit binnen een stad vooral wordt verplaatst van de ene naar de andere wijk dus dat er in ze geheel weinig economische groei plaatsvindt. Wat is uw mening hierover? - Tevens wordt er gesteld dat de komst van stadions een stijging van vastgoedwaarden kan betekenen, maar dat de lokale bevolking hierdoor vaak gedwongen wordt om te verhuizen (en er dus geen stedelijke vernieuwing plaatsvindt: probleem verplaatst zich). Bent u het hiermee eens?

5. Veiligheid openbare ruimte T1 + T6 +C4

- De komst van stadia kan het eenheidsgevoel versterken wat weer kan leiden tot sociale cohesie en toename van veiligheid. Grote pleinen als ontmoetingsplekken bijvoorbeeld. Daarentegen wordt er door tegenstanders gesteld dat bv grote pleinen ook kunnen leiden tot gevoelens van onveiligheid en dat sociale uitsluiting zoals bij de Arena bij aangrenzende wijken soms het geval is op de loer ligt.. Wat vindt u hiervan? - Mening over Conditie 4: creëren van dynamische omgeving.

6. Draagvlak T6 + C5

- De literatuur stelt dat vaak met mega projecten als stadia, lokale bewoners worden uitgesloten vanwege het feit dat lokale bewoners vaak tegen de komst van stadia zijn (NIMBY). Hoe wordt er in de praktijk omgegaan met tegenstand van lokale bewoners? - Mening over Conditie 5: SUPPORT (creëren van partnerships en lokale bewoners er bij betrekken).

7. Design T8 + C6

- De literatuur stelt dat bijzonder architectonisch iconisch design positieve effecten kan hebben op een lokale bevolking, maar er wordt ook gewaarschuwd voor de extra kosten hiervan + de visuele vervuiling.. Wat vindt u hiervan? - Mening over Conditie 6: ICONIC DESIGN.

Pagina | 79

8. Nieuwe Kuip

- Waar moet rekening mee gehouden worden met de nieuwe Kuip? Wat zijn de valkuilen volgens u en kan het stadion een rol spelen bij de stedelijke vernieuwing van Rotterdam- Zuid? - Is de nieuwe Kuip niet te ambities met het aantrekken van mogelijke concerten gezien de concurrentie van de Arena, Ziggodome, HMH en het aandeel van Mojo hierin? Meer mixed use ipv multifunctioneel stadion?

Eindvraag: Hoe kan een stadion het best een functie vervullen in de lokale omgeving? Aan welke condities moet een stadion voldoen om als katalysator voor stedelijke vernieuwing in de nabije omgeving te dienen?

Pagina | 80

Appendix 3. Interview guide interview 2: Arend Rutgers, BAM/A&E Architecten

Datum: 06-05-2014

Locatie: Bunnik

Doel + strategie: achterhalen hoe de persoon denkt over sport stadions en hun rol bij stedelijke vernieuwing in de omgeving. Nadruk op zijn of haar mening en ervaring over de geformuleerde spanningsvelden en condities. Nadruk op de Kuip. Dit wordt gedaan doormiddel van het stellen van vragen waarin de spanningsvelden en condities naar voren komen. T= Tension C= Condition

Introductie onderzoek, doel interview.

Begin vragen:

- Hoeveel ervaring heeft u met stadionprojecten? - Mijn onderzoek gaat vooral over stadions en de inpassing in de omgeving en de relatie met stedelijke vernieuwing. Wat vind u van de huidige nieuwe stadions? Wat zijn specifieke eigenschappen van Europese stadia?

De Kuip

1. Stadion als katalysator T2 +C1/C3

- De literatuur stelt dat voor stedelijke vernieuwing, het upgraden van een wijk, een stadion het best in een achterstandswijk kan worden geplaatst, en niet in het centrum of buiten de stad. De Kuip staat in zo’n achterstandswijk. Het plan voor een gehele nieuwe Kuip wat niet doorgaat was deel van gebiedsontwikkeling van Zuid.. Nu bij de verbouwing wordt er wel vermeld dat het een aanjager voor Rotterdam-Zuid wordt. In wat voor opzicht kan het stadion een rol spelen bij de stedelijke vernieuwing van Rotterdam-Zuid? - In tegenstelling tot oude plannen lijkt er nu weinig mbt gebiedsontwikkeling gedaan.. Wordt er niet te weinig gefocust op bundeling met stedelijke vernieuwing en inpassing in omgeving en teveel op de belangen van Feyenoord? - Wordt er na het succes van de Arena niet teveel gefocust op multifunctionele stadia, terwijl mixed use stadia beter zijn voor stedelijke vernieuwing van een buurt? - DOK Feyenoord? - Mening over Conditie 1: Locatie achterstandswijk + Conditie 3: Mixed-use stadion (en niet alleen multifunctioneel) + Conditie 2: Combineren met stedelijke vernieuwingsprojecten -

2. Kosten en onzekerheid T1 + C2

- Stadions die na grotendeels van het jaar leegstaan lijkt mij niet de bedoeling… Hoe wordt er met onzekerheid als het white elephant scenario omgegaan? haalbaarheidsanalyse events?

Pagina | 81

- Is de nieuwe Kuip niet te ambities met het aantrekken van mogelijke concerten gezien de concurrentie van de Arena, Ziggodome, HMH en het aandeel van Mojo hierin? Meer mixed use ipv multifunctioneel stadion?

3. Lokale belangen T3 + T7 + T9 + C7

- Een van de spanningsvelden impliceert dat een nieuw stadion wel banen oplevert, maar dat dit vooral laag inkomen werk en werk voor aangrenzende gebieden is. Wat vindt u hiervan? - Hoe wordt hiermee omgegaan zodat de lokale ondernemers ook meeprofiteren? - Worden er harde afspraken gemaakt over bijvoorbeeld het aantal banen voor lokale mensen tijdens en na de bouw, of wordt dit alleen maar gesteld in beleidsdocumenten en wordt het later tijdens het proces vergeten? - Mening over Conditie 7: COMMITMENT. - Hoe wordt er in de praktijk omgegaan met het spanningsveld betere kwaliteit van leven voor lokale bewoners vs overlast en vervuiling? Worden er maatregelen genomen om overlast en vervuiling tegen te gaan?

4. Veiligheid openbare ruimte T1 + T6 +C4

- De komst van stadia kan het eenheidsgevoel versterken wat weer kan leiden tot sociale cohesie en toename van veiligheid. Grote pleinen als ontmoetingsplekken bijvoorbeeld. Daarentegen wordt er door tegenstanders gesteld dat bv grote pleinen ook kunnen leiden tot gevoelens van onveiligheid en dat sociale uitsluiting zoals bij de Arena bij aangrenzende wijken soms het geval is op de loer ligt.. Hoe wordt hiermee omgegaan bij de Kuip? (hekken weg) Hoe wordt er een dynamische omgeving gecreerd en wat is het voordeel hiervan voor de lokale bevolking? - Mening over Conditie 4: creëren van dynamische omgeving.

5. Draagvlak T6 + C5

- De literatuur stelt dat vaak met mega projecten als stadia, lokale bewoners worden uitgesloten vanwege het feit dat lokale bewoners vaak tegen de komst van stadia zijn (NIMBY). Hoe wordt er in de praktijk omgegaan met tegenstand van lokale bewoners? - Mening over Conditie 5: SUPPORT (creëren van partnerships en lokale bewoners er bij betrekken). - Rol gemeente?

6. Design T8 + C6

- De literatuur stelt dat bijzonder architectonisch iconisch design positieve effecten kan hebben op een lokale bevolking, maar er wordt ook gewaarschuwd voor de extra kosten hiervan + de visuele vervuiling.. Wat vindt u hiervan, kan het een meerwaarde vormen? - Mening over Conditie 6: ICONIC DESIGN.

Pagina | 82

Eindvraag: Hoe kan De Kuip, of een stadion in het algemeen, het best een functie vervullen in de lokale omgeving? Aan welke condities moet een stadion voldoen om als katalysator voor stedelijke vernieuwing in de nabije omgeving te dienen?

Zenden uitkomsten.

Stage/meelopen?

Bedankwoordje

Pagina | 83

Appendix 4. Interview guide “interviews” residents neighbourhoods Sportdorp, Vreewijk, de Veranda, Bloemhof, Afrikaanderwijk

Datum: 13/14/15-05-2014

Locatie: Rotterdam

Onderwerp: De Kuip en stedelijke vernieuwing

Achterhalen hoe de personen in de omliggende wijken van de Kuip denken over de rol van de Kuip in de omgeving. Nadruk op zijn of haar mening over enkele spanningsvelden en de Kuip op zich. Vraag: woont of werkt u hier en zo ja, hoe lang?

Wat vindt u van het huidige stadion?

Wat zijn de pijnpunten bij het huidige stadion?

Verschil wedstrijddagen en doordeweeks?

Hoe wordt er met de overlast omgegaan?

Wat draagt het stadion bij aan de omgeving?

Wat vindt u van de nieuwbouwplannen?

Pagina | 84

Wat vindt u van het nieuwe ontwerp van de buitenkant?

Afronding interview.

Bedankwoordje

Pagina | 85

Appendix 5. Transcript e-mail interview Germen Oosterhof

Date 17-04-2014

Location: /

Wat is uw functie bij het bewonersplatform Venserpolder?

Ik woon nu helaas niet meer in Venserpolder. Desondanks heb ik er verder bijna heel mijn leven gewoond. Daarom kan ik je ook wel van dienst zijn met betrekking tot je vragen. Ik ben namelijk nog steeds heel erg betrokken bij de Amsterdamse wijk. Ik onderhoud de blog van Venserpolder nog steeds maar dat is min of meer noodgedwongen. Dit komt omdat eigenlijk niemand heeft zich aangemeld toen ik uit Amsterdam naar Hattem ben vertrokken. Dit was erg jammer, maar na een half jaar heb ik de draad weer opgepakt. Afstand maakt op zich niet zo veel uit voor het onderhouden van de blog, ik kan alleen geen foto's meer maken op locatie. Maar die foto’s krijg ik van anderen toegestuurd die er nu nog wonen. Zo blijft de blog toch nog een beetje up-to-date. Ik weet dus wel veel over de wijk, maar als je iemand wilt interviewen die vandaag de dag erg veel betrokken is bij de wijk moet je bij Co Steyn zijn. Die man is echt heel erg betrokken bij Venserpolder. Of anders moet je het bij Gilma Laurence proberen. Zij doet in Venserpolder heel veel op het gebied van sport en dat soort dingen. Deze mensne zijn vandaag te dag meer betrokken bij Venserpolder dan ikzelf.

Is de wijk betrokken geweest bij de bouw van de Amsterdam ArenA en heeft de wijk veel voordeel gehad bij de komst van het stadion? (stedelijke vernieuwing)

Wat betreft katalysator voor stedelijke vernieuwing… Dat lijkt mij duidelijk dat is zeker in de wijk Venserpolder niet het geval. Ik kan hiervan een goed voorbeeld geven. Ooit jaren geleden heb ik meegewerkt aan een project in Venserpolder. Dit ging om een fietsenstalling die in het leven was geroepen door een welzijnsstichting in Zuidoost. Dat is echt een groot fiasco geworden. Heel jammer. Dit kwam omdat het hier om een regeling achteraf ging. Het stadion, de Amsterdam ArenA, stond er al een paar jaar en toen kwam men tot de conclusie kwam dat er eigenlijk ook iets voor de bewoners van omliggende gebieden zoals de Venserpolder moest gebeuren. Een aantal mensen zou er iets wel mee kunnen verdienen. Misschien zou je dat aspect kunnen opnemen in je scriptie: het economisch belang (aantoonbaar). De wijk was niet betrokken toen het stadion werd gebouwd, en ook na de bouw van het stadion bleef het lang stil.

Heeft u veel overlast van het stadion en komen de wijkbewoners wel is in het stadion?

Ja, we hebben meer overlast dan baat bij het stadion. Ik heb alleen Michael Jackson op afstand gehoord (flarden dus) en Tina Turner heb ik er live gezien. Ik weet niet alle exacte cijfers, maar het valt mee qua werkgelegenheid denk ik. Je zou kunnen onderzoeken hoeveel (jonge) mensen uit Zuidoost werkzaam zijn bij ArenA (van A naar A). En dat zou tevens een advies kunnen zijn voor toekomstige stadions. Je zou een oproep hiervoor kunnen plaatsen op deze blog:

Pagina | 86 http://venserpolder.blogspot.nl/. Over het algemeen is er vrij veel overlast van voetbalsupporters tijdens wedstrijddagen. Dat betreuren wij ten zeerste.

Pagina | 87

Appendix 6. Transcript Interview 2 Ben Veenbrink, Stadium Consultancy BV

Datum: 29-04-2014

Locatie: Naarden/Bussum

D Introductie onderzoek, doel interview etc. Hoelang heeft u al ervaring met stadionprojecten?

B Ik zit al 15 jaar in stadions. Wij doen vooral Europese projecten. Wij richten ons meer op stadions zelf en de inrichting ervan, en minder op het gebied eromheen. Maar uiteraard is er een sterk verband tussen het gebied en hoe succesvol je kan zijn met het stadion. Locatie is van alles natuurlijk een belangrijk aspect bij stadions.

D Over de locatie gesproken, de literatuur stelt dat voor stedelijke vernieuwing een stadion het best in een achterstandswijk kan worden geplaatst om zo de buurt te upgraden. In de praktijk, tenminste in de voorbeelden die ik gebruik gebeurt dat niet heel veel.. Wordt er niet te veel gefocust op de belangen van de club?

B Ten eerste gaat het altijd om geld.. wat je vaak ziet is dat oude stadions in stedelijke gebieden zitten op relatief dure grond met hoge potentie.. de Meer bijvoorbeeld.. verhuist naar buiten de stad hopen naar een plek waar je wel goede connecties heb met openbaar vervoer en andere vormen van transport. Op die manier maken ze een grondtransactie die geld oplevert om een deel van het stadion te financieren, dat zie je vaak en daarom denk ik dat je het klassieke model van achterstandswijken en upgraden en regenereren vaak niet meer ziet om financiële redenen. Ajax en de Meer zal ik niet echt een achterstandswijk noemen, kwam wel in de buurt met Zuidoost. Vervolgens misschien Emirates Stadium, die op een bepaald moment verschoof vanaf Highbury, al is dat niet de mooiste buurt van London maar ook zeker geen achterstandswijk.. maar het stadion heeft natuurlijk wel een invloed gehad op wat de laatste jaren gebeurd is. Zeker ook wat er met het oude Highbury gebeurd is. Dus dat is ook weer een voorbeeld. Millennium Stadium is wellicht een voorbeeld, al heb ik daar niet genoeg kennis over..

D Millennium Stadium is toch meer een downtown stadion?

B Jazeker, een ander goed voorbeeld wat er nu aankomt is de verbouwing van Anfield. Het oude Stanley project ook, dat maakt niet uit eigenlijk. Project waarbij de hele buurt daar helemaal geregenereerd gaat worden als gevolg van het stadion project. Ik denk dat jet het in Engeland meer ziet dan in andere Europese landen. Kijk in Duitsland zie je elk project waarbij ze een nieuw stadion

Pagina | 88 gaan bouwen gaan ze midden in de bossen zitten.. daar denken ze dat ze alle ruimte hebben en zijn ze niemand tot last. De Engelsen houden meer van het volkse, en willen het voetbal en de clubs meer bij de mensen houden om zo een hele sterke binding met de wijk te houden. Meer dan eigenlijk in Nederland.. kijk of je daar nou een stadion heb buiten Liverpool of midden in London, je bent gewoon nog voor Preston North End omdat je daar geboren bent.. of ze nou vierde of vijfde divisie spelen boeit niemand kijk je bent daar geboren dus daar ben je voor. Daar is het minder makkelijk om een club te verhuizen.. verhuizen omdat de grond ergens goedkoper is om ergens wat voor de buurt te betekenen.. nee want die buurt is misschien helemaal niet van die club. Dus dat zijn belangrijke aspecten die meespelen. Dus het is heel erg cultuur bepaald ook..

D Wordt er na het succes van de ArenA niet teveel gefocust op de multifunctionaliteit van stadions in plaats van mixed use projecten?

B Ja dat klopt.. in die zin na de ArenA zijn natuurlijk veel projecten gekomen die dachten hey we kunnen ook multifunctioneel stadion bouwen.. Met alle respect, Gelsenkirchen is geen Amsterdam, je kunt niet het concept overal kopiëren. Arnhem Gelredome is ook lastig gebleken. Ook al hebben ze redelijk wat evenementen, succesvol is het stadion nooit geworden. Dus het is natuurlijk niet altijd mogelijk om zo’n multifunctioneel concept overal neer te plaatsen. Rotterdam zou een mogelijkheid zijn, afwachten wat daar gaat gebeuren. Je ziet wel dat de focus steeds meer ligt op het levendig houden, je moet wel traffic genereren, buiten die 14 tot 25 thuiswedstrijden die een club speelt. Wat je daarvoor moet hebben is een model dat je goed bereikbaar bent, en tegelijkertijd ook nog is in een buurt zit dat je stadion attractief is en waar je synergie creëert met je omgeving. En kijk naast de Arena, al is dat misschien niet een goed voorbeeld omdat het in de loop der jaren zo is geworden dan in plaats van van tevoren bedacht was. Dat verkopen ze nu wel zo maar dat is feitelijk niet zo, ook de Arena moest ergens komen waar er niemand last van had en uiteindelijk bleek dat Zuidoost de enige plek was waar nog enige economische ontwikkeling mogelijk was en toen dacht men dan kunnen we in de loop der jaren er nog wel wat aan vast plakken.. Ook al zet je de ArenA in de Flevopolder neer, er komen natuurlijk altijd mensen op af, maar de hele voorzieningen er omheen net zoals Villa ArenA hebben het hele lange tijd moeilijk gehad. Als er geen wedstrijd van Ajax meer zou zijn blijft er helemaal niks meer van over denk ik.. alles wat daar zat de Perry enzo is allemaal gen succes gebleken, in ieder geval wat er van verwacht werd.

D U had het net over de Kuip in Rotterdam en die multifunctionaliteit.. er zijn nu nog maar 2 basic plannen.. focussen ze niet teveel op de multifunctionaliteit en niet op de mixed use? Is het wel haalbaar bijvoorbeeld om events als concerten aan te trekken als Mojo aandelen heeft in Ziggodome en HMH, buiten de concurrentie van Gelredome en ArenA?

B Ja, alleen dat zijn wel hele andere segmenten..de Heineken musical Hall en de Kuip zijn verschillende segmenten, je staat ergens anders. Ik denk alleen niet dat ze zich rijk moeten rekenen want al kijk je naar afgelopen jaren hoe de Arena het met grote concerten doet dat dat ook best wel

Pagina | 89 tegenvalt.. dat valt de laatste jaren behoorlijk tegen.. Ja de tijden dat je acht grote concerten in je stadion heb die zijn voorbij. De concurrentie is groot en de artiesten zijn kieskeurig.. je moet ene stadion hebben waar het mogelijk is en er zijn artiesten die helemaal niet meer naar Nederland komen.. die slaan gewoon rustig Nederland over.. dus ja dan loop je al een belangrijk concert mis. Maar zo’n Mojo kijkt gewoon puur naar waar kan ik het meeste geld verdienen. En als jij U2 voor 60.000 in plaats van 50.000 kan doen voor dezelfde kosten dan is dat altijd beter.. 2 keer 50.000 is dan misschien net zo moeilijk en als je efficiënt kunt op en af bouwen wat in de ArenA ook niet echt het geval is. Ik denk dat je daar je winst kan pakken als Kuip zijnde, en als je volgens de wensen van Mojo ontwerpt kan je het zo goedkoper produceren en dan kan je op grote kostenposten besparen waardoor je veel concurrerender bent. Dat is uiteindelijk waar de slag op gewonnen wordt.

D Hoe zit het precies met de lokale belangen.. er wordt gesuggereerd door tegenstanders dat gecreëerde banen vooral laag opgeleid zijn en laag inkomen werk is..

B Ik denk dat nieuwe banen sowieso goed is. Zeker als je over achterstandswijk heb heb je het per definitie niet over hoog gekwalificeerde banen over het algemeen en als je kijkt naar stadions en de mensen die daar als steward werken bijvoorbeeld in horeca, dat zijn niet altijd mensen uit laag sociale klasse ik denk dat je dat wel moet nuanceren. Ligt er aan welke club en waar natuurlijk.. maar stadion heb je het niet over Shell of weet ik veel een andere multinational dus je heb natuurlijk een paar management jobs in zo’n stadion maar verder heb je gewoon de handjes die moeten schoonmaken, bier moet tappen en de broodjes moet serveren en de weg moet wijzen.

D En hoe zit het met de lokale ondernemers, worden die niet met stadions overklast door grote retailers of worden daar echt afspraken over gemaakt?

B Er zijn toevallig projecten waarbij afspraken gemaakt worden. Volgens mij zijn er niet veel grote retailers in stadionprojecten. Met evenementen als de WK komt wel de Fifa maar dat speelt niet echt denk ik. Met name voor sponsors en het bedrijfsleven dat verbonden is met zo’n club liggen er enorme mogelijkheden denk ik juist door het creëren van netwerken en samenkomen dat moet niet niet zien als bedreiging zien maar juist als kans zien. Ik denk dat de clubs over het algemeen een veel grotere binding hebben met lokale ondernemer dan de cateraars die landelijk of internationaal opereert. Je ziet in stadions ook nauwelijks een MacDonalds ofzo, meer lokale of specialistische cateraars uiteraard die daar de horeca opzoeken.

D Dus die harde afspraken worden er wel degelijk gemaakt?

Pagina | 90

B Voorbeeld in Nederland: in Almelo worden er afspraken gemaakt om geen retail in het stadion te doen. Stad upgraden waarbij de ontwikkelaar en deel heeft. Dus het gebeurt wel maar dat kan natuurlijk allen als de belangen gelijk zijn en je ziet wel dat vaak gemeentes proberen te reguleren in hun eigen belang, waar wel en niet eettentjes mogen komen, waar en wat voor bestemming en soort retail mag komen. Vaak als bescherming van hun eigen binnenstad. Dat is typisch Nederland, typisch Nederlands cultuur denk ik want wij gaan graag midden in de stad winkelen terwijl een Fransman rijdt tien kilometer buiten de stad voor een hypermarche waar je alles kunt krijgen en drie weken niet meer hoeft te halen. Dat is een andere manier van beleving van winkelen. In Nederland zie je niet veel in overdekte mega shopping malls, maar buitenland soms wel waar je alles bij elkaar hebt. Nederlanders willen graag op straat winkelen.. dat is heel erg cultuurbepalend denk ik.

D Een ander spanningsveld impliceert dat nieuwe stadions kunnen groeien voor economische groei, maar tegenstanders zeggen dat nieuwe stadions economische groei verplaatsen en niet echt veel economische groei bijkomt.. wat vindt u hiervan?

B Nou, dat zie ik niet echt voor me. Tenminste begint natuurlijk weer waar komt dat stadion gaat het stadion de binnenstad uit ik denk juist dat er juist heel veel mogelijkheden liggen. Ten eerste wordt het stadion vaak veel groter, moderner, meer beleving dus de economie neemt toe in ze algemeenheid en ik denk niet dat dat een verplaatsing is van. Ik denk niet dat de binnenstad van Amsterdam veel mensen verliest omdat er op zondagmiddag mensen bij Ajax zitten te kijken en daarom ook op donderdagavond niet meer op het Leidseplein komen. Dus tuurlijk hoopt men dat je.. tis nog steeds niet zo succesvol als binnenstad. Ik zie het stadion meer als een kans kan als het goed opgezet wordt.

D Dus eigenlijk wat u zegt de locatie is het belangrijkst als conditie?

B Ja, tuurlijk ik noem maar even in ze algemeenheid is het een grote kans. Kijk maar wat het stadion van FC Twente teweeg heeft gebracht. Drie keer Champions League halen, kampioen en heel Nederland en heel Europa weet waar Enschede ligt. Er komen opeens hordes Italianen naar dat dorp in het oosten. Dus ik denk dat je kan zeggen het stadion ligt niet in het centrum , ondernemers in Enschede en Hengelo profiteren er wel van, in ieder geval door de uitstraling van de regio en vestigingsklimaat wellicht en de universiteit die daardoor een betere uitstraling krijgt. In de belangen van iedereen denk ik je moet het niet zozeer zien als concurrentie tussen centrum en buitenwijken maar meer tussen is Amsterdam een aantrekkelijkere stad dan pak hem beet met een ADO.. Kijk ADO Den Haag zegt internationaal natuurlijk helemaal niks, er zijn natuurlijk wel mensen zeggen ik vind Amsterdam leuk met de grachten, Carre je vestigingsklimaat wordt gewoon interessanter.

Pagina | 91

D Er zijn studies geweest die stellen dat de vastgoedwaardes toenemen door stadions, maar tegenstanders zeggen juist weer dat lokale bewoners hierdoor gedwongen worden om hun huizen te verlaten… Wat is uw mening hierover?

B Dat vind ik ook beetje een drogredenering dat je zegt van lokale bewoners er uit moeten.. die gaan juist weg omdat ze heel veel geld kunnen verdienen a hun woning. Als je ervoor kiest om ergens anders goedkoper te wonen ja dat is natuurlijk aan hun. Ik denk als je bijvoorbeeld kijkt naar het Emirates Stadium als voorbeeld, dat is natuurlijk ook een stadion met allemaal arbeiderswoningen om zich heen. Daar dacht men eerst ook dat de woningen pal naast het stadion niet meer waard waren door de vele overlast, straten worden afgesloten etc.. Integendeel is gebeurd, de waarde van de woningen is alleen maar toegenomen. Dat is toch positief voor die mensen? Kijk het is iets anders als je pal voor je woning een vierbaanssnelweg krijgt voor je neus.. dan kom je er minder vanaf zeker als je niet gecompenseerd wordt dan ben je gewoon de sjaak, maar vaak worden die mensen al gecompenseerd door allerlei overlast dan krijgen ze planschadeschadevergoeding en ook wordt de waarde van hun huis meer waard in paar jaar waardoor ze kans hebben om weg te gaan uit die omgeving als ze dat zouden willen.

D Worden de lokale bewoners gecompenseerd?

B In dit deel van Europa, dus omringende landen ook, heb je gewoon planschadeovereenkomsten voor mensen. Planschade kan uitgekeerd worden, je kan natuurlijk bezwaar aantekenen met allerlei procedures.. dan worden vaak mensen schadeloos gesteld.

D Worden lokale bewoners nou echt bij stadionprojecten betrokken? Bijvoorbeeld door middel van community benefit agreements..

B Ja vaak wel, als het goed doet betrek je ze er natuurlijk bij en als je het slecht doet dan houdt je ze op een afstand zen laat je ze niks zeggen.. wat je ook doet er zijn altijd mensen die tegen zijn. Merendeel 90, 95 procent draagt een voetbal een warm hart toe en vindt het fantastisch wat er gebeurt, maar er zijn altijd 1 of 2 die zeggen ja ik kan me auto niet parkeren of ik hoor gejuich op de zondagmiddag of weet ik het wat allemaal. Er zijn altijd mensen die zijn tegen, dan komt vaak het aspect geld kijken. Vaak zijn mensen alleen tegen omdat ze weten dat als ze tegen zijn ze geld kunnen vangen. Zo simpel is het gewoon, het tegen zijn om tegen te zijn. Dus je kunt het nooit helemaal goed doen, maar over het algemeen geldt hoe meer je ze erbij betrekt, hoe beter het is. En hoe beter je kunt inspelen op hun behoeften, je hebt een hele doelgroep liggen. En buiten de wedstrijden om moet je ook wat doen, dus als je gebruik voor de lokale gemeenschap kan creëren snijdt het mes aan twee kanten, kan je financieel winst maken maar ook goedkeuring van de mensen. Daarom geloof ik ook meer in een stadion dat onderdeel uitmaakt van de gemeenschap

Pagina | 92 dan, bijvoorbeeld in Frankfurt we hakken een paar bomen om en er staat een stadion. Arena is een beetje tussenmodel geworden, onderdeel van de stad geworden in loop der jaren. Maar het mooiste is natuurlijk als je stadion.. kijk in Spanje en Engeland is het natuurlijk fantastisch. Camp nou of Bernabeu of Valencia daar staan de woningen gewoon voor de deur bij wijze van spreken.. iedereen zegt parkeren en toestanden daar maakt het allemaal niet uit en hier is het allemaal een probleem en zegt men je moet zoveel parkeerplaatsen creëren. Dus dat is ook keer zoiets.. in Londen Emirates Stadium heb je maar 300 parkeerplaatsen voor 60.000 mensen, maar goed iedereen in Londen is gewend om met openbaar vervoer te komen. Kijk als je er 3000 parkeerplaatsen voor de deur maakt, dan staan er 3000 auto’s dus je kan altijd zeggen.. zeg het maar. Als je parkeerplaatsen creëert komen ze..

D De komst van een stadion kan echt leiden tot sociale cohesie mensen identificeren zich met het stadion en de club, mede door middel van grote pleinen als ontmoetingsplek, maar tegenstanders zeggen dat kan ook leiden tot sociale uitsluiting en gevoelens van onveiligheid zoals bijvoorbeeld bij de Amsterdam ArenA het geval was.. creëren van dynamische omgeving nodig?

B Nou ja ik denk dat heel belangrijk is dat je een dynamische omgeving creëert. Kijk de Amsterdam ArenA is dan weer een apart geval, omdat vroeger sneed spoorlijn een deel van de stad andere af. Kijk nu is het wel iets verbeterd, maar natuurlijke barrière was het die niet door mensen werd overschreden dus ja dat maakte het van oudsher lastiger. Nu is het wel opener en transparanter geworden, om naar boulevard gaan, mensen die in kantoren zitten reizen nu ook regelmatig naar de Bijlmer af.

D Dat was alleen oorspronkelijk niet het plan natuurlijk..

B Nee je wilde in het begin niet eens in de buurt van het station van de Bijlmer komen bij wijze van spreken dus nee en toen moest je jarenlang door ellende lopen omdat er verbouwd werd.. nu is het wel verbeterd dus tuurlijk was dat in het begin niet het geval integendeel. Waar je om de twee weken 50 of 60.000 mensen komt heb je natuurlijk altijd overlast, maar er zijn ook voordelen. Ik bedoel als je zondag thuiskomt en je kan je auto niet parkeren omdat de voetbal er speelt maar die mensen weten niet beter.

D Iconisch design.. bepaalde studies tonen aan dat iconisch design positieve effecten kan hebben op een omgeving, zoals de boog boven Wembley, maar tegenstanders zeggen weer dat het extra kosten met zich meebrengt en tot visuele vervuiling kan leiden.. wat is uw mening hierover?

Pagina | 93

B Nouja kijk visuele vervuiling is natuurlijk gewoon een kwestie van een mening over architectuur.. kijk als je enerzijds zegt je voegt architectuur toe en anderzijds zeg je het is visuele vervuiling. Ik denk dat het alleen maar positief is als je een mooie vormgeving hebt dan ene blik op een doos die eruitziet al een hangar bijvoorbeeld een Gelredome ofzo. Kijk al zet je het Gelredome midden in Arnhem dan slaat het helemaal nergens op. Nu denk je er staat daar een fabriekshal ofzo prima omdat het erbuiten is. Ik denk wel dat een stukje architectuur toegevoegde waar heeft, het is altijd alleen maar de vraag wie moet er voor de kosten opdraaien. Een stadionexploitant zegt, ik denk niet dat er meer of minder naar het stadion van Ajax komen omdat het stadion mooi of lelijk is. Voor de omgeving, de buurt en voor het imago van de stad en buurt en de vastgoedwaarden van anderen is het natuurlijk wel interessant als er een stukje mooie vormgeving aan de grondslag ligt maar dan is de vraag moetje als stadioneigenaar of club daarvoor opdraaien dus er zit ene kern van waarheid in, de vraag is bij wie hoort de kostenpost thuis. En hoe kan je dat kwantificeren dat is een ander vraag. Ga maar aan iemand vertellen dat de boog van 200 miljoen van Wembley veel meer creëert dan dat de boog er niet had gezeten. Voor de mensen die er naast wonen, dat de mensen aan de andere kan van Londen die boog ook zien…als je een mooi stukje vormgeving neerzet in een gebied, zien mensen wel daar is iets te doen. Dus vanuit een visie van het gebied is het een belangrijke functie.

D Dan over de nieuwe Kuip.. ik vind dat er in de huidige plannen weinig de omgeving wordt berokken, dat het veel te vele over Feyenoord gaat. Wat is uw mening over de rol van de nieuwe Kuip als katalysator voor Rotterdam Zuid en wat zijn de valkuilen volgens u?

B Nou er waren natuurlijk mooie plannen met dat gehele nieuwe stadion, dat is helaas beetje weg. Die specifieke locatie moet je wel een hele breed gaande visie hebben. De onteigeningskosten waren alleen al 200 miljoen geloof ik , al die bedrijven die aan het water lagen. Als je dat doet kan je onderdeel van Rotterdam maken. Dan zou je zeggen als je dat integraal aanpakt kan je er een mooie binnenstedelijke ontwikkeling van maken. Met wonen aan het water, fantastisch prominente rol.. maar dat is politiek heel lastig en financieel met dit klimaat natuurlijk ook bijna niet te doen met die onteigeningskosten.. woningen worden niet meer verkocht bedrijfsruimte is ook geen behoefte meer aan dus dat is en heel lastig plan op dit moment denk ik. Wat zijn de valkuilen voor de nieuwe kuip? Heel moeilijk denk ik, de plannen focussen zich meer op het stadion dan de omgeving dus dat moet niet van Feyenoord komen, maar dat is lastig.

D als ik gewoon aan u vraag wat zijn de condities waaraan een stadion moet voldoen om stedelijke vernieuwing mogelijk te maken?

B Puur de locatie, het betrekken van de omgeving, doelgroepen, kijken of je een economisch model kan ontwikkelen waardoor er een win-win situatie ontstaat en dat kan natuurlijk alleen maar door die vorige voorwaarden dus dat je de omgeving er bij betrekt. Dus dat je ene brede visie voor de omgeving rond het project ontwikkeld, dan alleen te denken wat Feyenoord aan het stadion zal hebben belang bij maatschappelijke betrokkenheid en groeien doelgroep, maar niet zozeer het hele

Pagina | 94 gebied erbij betrekken. Als je dat als stad wil zal je een actieve rol moeten spelen en ik heb het idee dat er nu een beetje een eilandengedachte heerst dat het om Feyenoord gaat en dat de gemeente later wel gaat bekijken wat ze gaan doen met het gebied.

D Over dat economisch model , hoe zit het met haalbaarheidsanalyse van stadions?

B Penetratiegraad van wat halen we uit de markt.. Fc Twente zei bijvoorbeeld toen we halen nog heel weinig uit de markt dus er ligt veel potentie. Er ligt aan welke wijk en wie is je doelgroep daar moet je goed naar kijken. Ligt aan marktanalyse en segmentatie, wie zijn je doelgroepen je oekt naar de juiste mix.

D Bedankt voor het interview.

Pagina | 95

Appendix 7. Transcript Interview 2 Arend Rutgers, BAM/A&E Architecten

Datum: 06-05-2014

Locatie: Bunnik

D Introductie onderzoek, doel interview etc. Nadruk op verbouwing van de Kuip.

D In wat voor opzicht kan het nieuwe stadion de Kuip een rol spelen bij de stedelijke vernieuwing , dus het upgraden van Rotterdam-Zuid?

A Uiteraard, 3en stadion trekt altijd mensen aan. Dit geld bij nieuwe stadions, maar ook bij vernieuwbouw zoals bij de Kuip het geval is. Uiteraard trekt dit werkgelegenheid aan, wat weer veel economische voordelen voor de wijk kan opleveren. Kijk, Feyenoord heeft nou eenmaal een enorme aantrekkingskracht, mensen willen erbij horen. Dit geldt voor veel mensen, bedrijven, lokale mensen etc. Feyenoord heeft een naam door heel Nederland. Het is niet voor niks dat de mensen op zondagmiddag vanuit heel Nederland naar Rotterdam rijden voor een wedstrijdje Feyenoord kijken. Sociaal gezien is Feyenoord een rolmodel voor kleine kinderen. Kleine jochies kijken er naar uit om later ooit in dat mooie stadion te spelen. Dus zeker in dat opzicht, het promoten van sport kan het een rol spelen. Al zijn zulke sociale indicatoren zoals imagoverbetering vaak moeilijk te kwantificeren. Bovendien is er ook een spin-off omdat de infrastructuur rond het stadion wordt aangepakt en verbeterd wordt.

D In tegenstelling tot oude plannen lijkt er nu weinig met betrekking tot gebiedsontwikkeling gedaan.. Wordt er niet te weinig gefocust op bundeling met stedelijke vernieuwing en inpassing in omgeving en teveel op de belangen van Feyenoord?

A Ehm, bij het voorgaande plan was de huidige Kuip leegstaand geworden. Het nieuwe stadion zou op Varkenoord komen, bij de huidige sportvelden. Er zou dan een park worden gemaakt of iets in die richting, de Kuip had geen functie voor Feyenoord meer. Dat was een hele andere situatie. Maar daar waren wij eerlijk gezegd niet bij betrokken, een andere partij zat aan tafel. Bij een project als dit is Feyenoord de initiator. Als Feyenoord geen uitbreiding had gewild, hadden wij niet aan tafel gezeten en had er niks gebeurd. Feyenoord zoekt financiers voor het project en is uiteindelijk bij ons uitgekomen. Waar wij overigens heel blij mee zijn uiteraard. De vernieuwing van de Kuip is geen prestigeproject van de overheid zoals WK stadions vaak zijn. In Zuid-Afrika, Azië en het Midden- Oosten gebeurt dit nog wel is. Primair moet het stadion een business model hebben, er moet rendement uit komen anders heeft het voor Feyenoord geen zin. De gemeente lift uiteindelijk mee met het plan, er had al veel eerder wat kunnen gebeuren maar nu dit gebeurd wordt het voor de

Pagina | 96 gemeente ook opeens heel interessant. Vandaar dat er veel wordt gefocust op de voordelen voor Feyenoord, puur omdat Feyenoord heeft gevraagd voor de uitbreiding en voordelen er van moet hebben. Dit is niet per sé een slecht ding, dat s gewoon een feit.

D Wordt er na het succes van de Arena niet teveel gefocust op multifunctionele stadia, terwijl mixed use stadia beter zijn voor stedelijke vernieuwing van een buurt?

A We moeten nog in gesprek met de gemeente voor een vergunningstraject. Daardoor gaan we nog veel in gesprek de komende tijd, maanden zegmaar. Multifunctionaliteit zie je bijna overal, het is nodig voor de exploiteerbaarheid van het stadion. De concerten zijn een welkome aanvulling voor het stadion, daardoor word er ook een dak op het stadion gezet. Tegenwoordig moet dit nou eenmaal, ook al is het voor veel supporters niet te begrijpen en niet leuk. Er komt geen ArenA dak wat het schrikbeeld is van vele supporters, gekozen voor een flexibel doek wat lichtdoorlatend is. Voor de business case moet het dak en het stadion wel rendabel zijn. Er komen heel veel zalen en commerciële ruimten bij, die moeten doordeweeks worden verhuurd. Vaak ook nog is met uitzicht op het veld, wat een meerwaarde is voor zulke zalen. Buiten het stadion en in het stadion komen veel faciliteiten zoals eettentjes de KFC’s van deze wereld. Er moeten doelgroepen worden gekoppeld. Het model van mixed use is een beetje verleden tijd vanwege het moeilijke economische klimaat. Er moeten dan functies om het stadion heen worden gemaakt om het stadion mee te financieren. Anders kan het stadion niet gefinancierd worden. Dit hebben we ooit bij het nieuwe stadion van de Graafschap gedaan, maar het nieuwe kantoor wat naast het stadion zou moeten komen bleek niet te verkopen. Het is gewoon een moeilijke markt, de kantoren en winkelmarkt is gewoon moeilijk nu. En toen degradeerden de Graafschap ook nog is dus toen was het helemaal niks meer, als je het kantoor niet verkoopt zit je met een probleem. Daardoor werken we nu met kleinere business cases in plaats van grote business cases. Elke commerciële ruimte bijvoorbeeld inde Kuip is een kleine business case, elke ruimte moet exploiteerbaar zijn anders is er niks aan te verdienen.

D Wat betreft de concerten, er is enige discussie of concerten wel haalbaar is voor Rotterdam met de vele concurrentie van Heineken Musical Hall, Gelredome, ArenA en Ziggodome en de aandelen van Mojo hierin.. ook al is een Heineken Musical Hall een anders segment.. wordt er met Mojo samengewerkt, dus bijvoorbeeld dat het stadion naar hun wensen wordt ontworpen om concerten naar Rotterdam te halen?

A Ja, Mojo gaan we er zeker bij betrekken. Er gaan nog gesprekken komen met betrekking tot concerten en het design van de stadion binnenkant. Gesprekken zullen gaan over hoeveel ruimtes heb je nodig voor opslagruimten enzo zulke dingen zijn wel belangrijk met dit aspect. Bijvoorbeeld in Gelsenkirchen bij het Schalke 04 stadion zijn soms hele weken het stadion bezet.. in de winter zijn er allerlei toestanden met een sneeuwbaan.. het stadion is gewoon een week lang bezet.. een week lang. Een week lang stadion vol wat betekent extra inkomsten etc. Dat willen we hier ook gaan realiseren. Concerten maar ook jongerendagen en van alles en nog wat. Het maakt niet uit wat, als

Pagina | 97 het stadion maar vaak gebruikt gaat worden. Er is helaas wel vanwege mogelijke geluidsoverlast wel een max aantal concerten hier bij de Kuip waar aan gehouden moet worden.. dit heeft allemaal met van die vergunningen te maken.. dus dit is misschien niet zo gunstig, maar als Mojo hier meer kan verdienen komen ze natuurlijk gewoon hierheen. Dus dat is wel de bedoeling en uitgangspunt van ons ontwerp, het is niet voor niks een multifunctioneel stadion. We kijken de gesprelen met Mojo dan ook positief tegemoet.

D Dan de lokale belangen.. Hoe wordt hiermee omgegaan zodat de lokale ondernemers ook meeprofiteren? Worden er harde afspraken gemaakt over bijvoorbeeld het aantal lokale bedrijven rond of in het stadion en banen voor lokale mensen tijdens en na de bouw?

A Dat weet ik eerlijk gezegd niet zeker.. Ik weet wel dat er partijen zich hebben aangemeld voor ruimten in of rond het stadion, vooral Rotterdamse partijen maar lokale partijen weet niet zeker. Moet nog naar gekeken worden denk ik, het is wel een goed punt met betrekking tot stedelijke vernieuwing. Het is helaas nog een beetje te vroeg om hierover iets zinnigs te zeggen. Persoonlijk vind ik dat de lokale belangen goed behartigd moeten worden tijdens het gehele proces.

D Ik weet dat de supporters van Feyenoord heel erg bij het proces van het nieuwe stadion betrokken worden. Hun mening wordt erg gewaardeerd en daar wordt naar geluisterd. Maar hoe zit het met de lokale bewoners? Hebben die ook een stem?

A De ambitie is er zeker om lokale bewoners er bij te betrekken.. Grappig dat je dat zegt, ik kreeg toevallig pas een mail van een mevrouw die pal naast de Kuip woont die zegt moet ik nou voortaan altijd mijn gordijnen dicht houden door dat led licht... Onzin natuurlijk, maar goed het is wel een goed punt ja, hier moet nog naar gekeken worden. Ik weet niet precies of er nog gesproken gaat worden, die worden nu nog een beetje onderbelicht. Het moet ook niet overdreven worden, het plan focust natuurlijk wel op Feyenoord.

D Stadions kunnen het eenheidsgevoel versterken wat weer kan leiden tot sociale cohesie en toename van veiligheid. Grote pleinen als ontmoetingsplekken bijvoorbeeld. Hoe wordt hiermee omgegaan bij de Kuip? Ik las bijvoorbeeld dat de hekken rondom het stadion worden weggehaald.. Hoe wordt er een dynamische omgeving gecreëerd en wat is het voordeel hiervan voor de lokale bevolking?

A Aan de Maaszijde waar nu het Maasgebouw staat wordt een supportersplein gerealiseerd wat echt voor Rotterdam-Zuid wordt gerealiseerd. De Olympiazijde wordt ook aangepakt maar dit wordt meer een verkeerskundig plein, hier komt ook verkeer te rijden. Dat is nu al een beetje het geval. Dus dit

Pagina | 98 wordt geen ontmoetingsplek, die ontmoetingsplek komt aan de andere kant. De hekken rondom en in het stadion worden waarschijnlijk weggehaald, probleem alleen hierbij zijn veiligheidsissues dus we zijn hiermee veel in gesprek met alle betrokkenen. KNVB etc is hier niet zo blij mee denk ik met al die veiligheidsmaatregelen tegenwoordig.. Zo willen we het liefst ook de gracht weghalen, maar goed veiligheid staat voorop. Rondom het stadion is het ook de bedoeling om een welkome sfeer te creëren, zodat iedereen zowel bezoekers als bewoners zich thuis voelen. Een ontmoetingsplek staat hoog op de agenda van het plan.

D: Hoe zit het met het huidige parkeerterrein aan de Maaszijde als daar een ontmoetingsplek wordt gerealiseerd?

A: Het parkeerterrein blijft in principe. Er is onderzocht dat er ongeveer 1200 parkeerplaatsen in de omgeving nodig zijn, alleen als er andere functies zoals hotels komen op huidige parkeerplaatsen ontstaat er een probleem. Dus daar moet nog naar gekeken worden. Want dan komen we parkeerplaatsen tekort, dit is uiteraard niet de bedoeling. Gelijk voor het nieuwe Maasgebouw wordt de ontmoetingsplek gemaakt, althans dat is nu het ontwerp.

D: Is het niet heel erg cultuurbepaald? Bij het Emirates stadion zijn maar 300 parkeerplaatsen en komt iedereen vanuit Londen met de metro, terwijl bij Feyenoord iedereen uit het hele land komt met de auto..

A Ja dat klopt. Kijk wij proberen in de omgeving parkeerplaatsen te creëren zodat er een beweging ontstaat naar het stadion. Parkeerplaatsen zijn normaal onrendabel. Wij gaan proberen de parkeerplaatsen te gebruiken voor overdag functies zoals de winkels etc. Parkeerplaatsen is alleen een beetje moeilijk.. Stadions lenen zich niet echt voor parkeren vanwege de constructie, dit is een beetje technisch verhaal. Zoveel stadions hebben ook niet veel parkeerplaatsen, alleen de Arena en de Euroborg, verder zie je niet veel parkeerplekken bij stadions. Daarbij wordt ook het treinstation aangepakt en er komt ook op termijn een nieuwe metrolijn. Zo wordt de infrastructuur en de bereikbaarheid verbeterd. We proberen een golf van mensen te maken en niet alles op 1 plek bij het stadion dat is niet slim. De uitgang van de metro maken in het stadion is bijvoorbeeld niet aan te raden, dit moet een stroom worden om zo mensen verspreiden naar de metro. De verbeteringen in de infrastructuur gaan allemaal in samenspraak met de gemeente, het hele stadionplan wordt als kapstok gebruikt om dingen in het hele gebied te verbeteren, terwijl dit allang veel eerder gedaan had kunnen worden. Zelfde geldt in het stadion, de parterretribune is al 20 jaar oud en die gaan we aanpakken.. daar komen ze nu pas mee..

D Dat zijn toch van die ouderwetse stijgertribunes?

Pagina | 99

A Ja klopt, dat kan echt niet meer. Wij gaan nieuwe parterretribunes maken met de toiletten en kiosken hieronder maar dit had al veel eerder gedaan kunnen worden. Nu ontstaat er dynamiek, is er opeens geld etc. dus dan gaan er heel veel dingen tegelijk gebeuren. Toch altijd frappant om te zien. Deze relatief kleine ingrepen hadden al veel eerder kunnen plaatsvinden en had de comfort van supporters erg versterkt.

D De literatuur stelt dat bijzonder architectonisch iconisch design positieve effecten kan hebben op een lokale bevolking, maar er wordt ook gewaarschuwd voor de extra kosten hiervan + de visuele vervuiling.. Wat vindt u hiervan, kan het een meerwaarde vormen?

A Een meerwaarde is het stadion al.. zoals koolhaas zei vanwege de aanwezigheid is het alleen al een monument. Dus feitelijk hoeven we er niet veel aan te doen. De Kuip is al een icoon van Rotterdam, iedereen kent het en wil erbij horen zoals ik al eerder zei. Ik bedoel, als je de Brienenoord komt over rijden zie je het stadion al liggen, zeker s ’avonds als de lichten aanstaan is dit een machtig mooi gezicht. Ik denk alleen wel dat het stadion beter kan communiceren met de naaste omgeving zodat het gebouw veel meer leeft in de stad en de wijk. De interactie met de omgeving ontbreekt er nu wel een beetje aan eerlijk gezegd.. dit is een gemiste kans.. Dus zeker kan architectuur een meerwaarde vormen, dat lijkt me duidelijk. We proberen dit te versterken doormiddel van de LED lichten aan de buitenkant van het stadion. De Kuip bestaat sinds oudsher uit staal en glas, dit behouden wij in ons ontwerp. De hele buitenkant bestaat uit glas, en de bovenkant komt een hele streek aan LED belichting. Niet zoals de Allianz Arena waar alleen kleuren kunnen worden getoond, maar meer á la Ziggodome. Dit kunnen plaatjes zijn, reclame-uitingen, tussenstanden, sociale media, maar ook gewoon warme kleuren zodat het niet teveel blits is en mensen zoals die bezorgde vrouw afschrikt.

D Het nieuwe ontwerp werd in het Rijnmond programma waar u zat bekritiseerd vanwege haar kilheid aan de buitenkant..

A Ja ach, daar kan ik niks mee. Ik vind het een beetje onzin dat heb je wel gemerkt denk ik.. Ziet het er kil aan de buitenkant uit?

D Nou, slechter dan het nu is kan niet. En de LED lichten vind ik positief. Zo is de Allianz Arena ook een icoon geworden.

A Precies, ik vind het meer een journalistenpraatje. Het gaat negens over en er is alleen maar positief nieuws. Dan moeten ze even het vuurtje opstoken.

Pagina | 100

D Hoe kan De Kuip, of een stadion in het algemeen, het best een functie vervullen in de lokale omgeving? Aan welke condities moet een stadion volgens u voldoen om als katalysator voor stedelijke vernieuwing in de nabije omgeving te dienen?

A Ik vind dat het een stedelijk stadion moet zijn, een plintstadion. Dus op het niveau van de straat allerlei faciliteiten voor de club en de nabije omgeving. Een stadion moet ontworpen worden zodat er een prettige omgeving ontstaat.. het moet echt een vriendelijk en welkom stadion worden. Het oude plan ging over een geheel nieuw te bouwen stadion op Varkenoord op een soort talud.. Dit vind ik echt niks, het stadion moet juist onderdeel zijn van stad en het moet niet lijken dat het zo’n beetje buiten de stad staat. Bijvoorbeeld, het Allianzstadion staat wel mooi in de omgeving, maar Allianzstadion is wel een introvert stadion... een Donutstadion.. Een stadion moet juist extrovert worden ontworpen, om zo een verblijfskwaliteit te realiseren en een relatie met de omgeving te houden en te verbeteren. Zo komen er mensen in en uit en komen mensen er vaker.. dus meer dan alleen op wedstrijddagen. Dat is de bedoeling, extrovert ontwerp. Heel belangrijk tegenwoordig hoor. Verder is de Kuip geen prestigeproject van de overheid zoals veel WK stadions. Dus ik ben zeker niet bang voor het beroemde white elephant scenario.. Er moet een micro-economie gegenereerd worden, maar hier heb ik alle vertrouwen in. De Kuip heeft zijn wortels hier. Kijk, het is iets anders als je ergens een heel ander nieuw stadion gaat bouwen. Het is natuurlijk geen nieuw stadion zoals in Zuid Afrika, Azië of Midden Oosten wordt gedaan. Maar wij hebben hier alles al, de infrastructuur bijvoorbeeld is er al voor een groot deel. Feyenoord hoort hier thuis en zit er al zolang, dus de verbetering van de interactie met de omgeving kijk ik positief tegemoet. Het stadion wordt straks ook gebruikt voor maatschappelijke doeleinden.. Er komen ook zalen in stadion die daarvoor bestemd zijn, dus daar wordt wel aan gedacht. Er wordt aan gedacht om een opleiding in het stadion te vestigen. Maar wat vooral belangrijk is voor Feyenoord is dat er veel en veel meer commerciële ruimten in het stadion komen. Business suits, zalen maar ook de kiosken etc. voor supporters wordt verbeterd. Dit is belangrijk in het hedendaagse voetbal. Anders zeggen mensen ik kijk wel liever thuis. Ik heb geen zin om zo lang in de rij voor een biertje te gaan staan. Dus het stadion is goed maar kan alleen maar beter en het stadion staan in de wijk dus het kan alleen maar positief worden. Het enige spanningsveld wat ik kan bedenken is dat wij proberen mensen naar het stadion te lokken en te houden met faciliteiten. .er zit nu bijvoorbeeld een brasserie op de eerste verdieping maar niemand weet dat die er werkelijk zit.. dit kan niet de bedoeling zijn de faciliteiten moeten juist ook voor de omgeving zijn en gebruikt worden. dit kan misschien nadelig uitpakken voor de omgeving.. voor lokale cafés en dergelijke. Maar goed ik weet dat niet precies dat is vast allemaal berekend. Het business model blijft het belangrijkste, het moet simpelweg geld opleveren.. kijk het Icedome is bijvoorbeeld een heel ander business model, dit ligt ook in de periferie. Hier doen wij ook het business model maar kijk hier is geen vaste huurder en ook al worden er faciliteiten bijgebouwd er zijn meer sportclubs en scholen die zo’n baan huren. Bij de Kuip is Feyenoord de vaste huurder en moeten er alleen evenementen tussendoor komen dat is heel wat anders.

D Zou ik misschien een weekje mogen meelopen hier ?

Je zou is met AM moeten praten, die weet meer over dit soort planologische dingen. AM Jan ruitenberg Hier zijn we toch meer met de technische kant van het verhaal bezig, hoeveel toiletten

Pagina | 101 hoeveel stoeltjes in het nieuwe stadion etc. Kijk even voor AM Jan ruitenberg of Frank Vonk die is daar ook mee bezig. Ook Hypercube zou je kunnen proberen, Pieter Nieuwenhuis. Die is van de concurrent, Red de Kuip maar daar werken we ook gewoon mee samen.

D Bedankt voor het interview.

Pagina | 102

Appendix 8. Summary Interviews residents neighbourhoods the Kuip

Datum: 13/14/15/20/21-05-2014

Locatie: Sportdorp, Vreewijk, de Veranda, Bloemhof, Afrikaanderwijk in Rotterdam

Kort introductie onderzoek en de rol van de Kuip hierin.

Mening over het huidige stadion

De mensen uit alle wijken zijn eigenlijk wel eensgezind over dit onderwerp. Ze vinden het stadion bij de wijk, hun cultuur, hun leven passen. De trots overheerst. Ook al liggen de gloriejaren een beetje in het verleden, is men vooral trots dat de trots van Rotterdam in hun wijk staat. Het wordt als een icoon van Rotterdam en in het bijzonder Rotterdam-Zuid gezien. Er is maar een enkeling die zegt dat het stadion hem niks boeit. Er is hier een onderscheid te maken tussen allochtonen en Nederlanders. Opvallend is dat de Nederlanders over het algemeen meer binding voelen met het stadion en de club dan de allochtonen. Het lijkt dat de allochtonen meer bezig zijn met de verslechterde financiële situatie dan met voetbal en dergelijke activiteiten. Desondanks zijn er weinig negatieve verhalen te horen over Feyenoord en het stadion. Niet heel veel geïnterviewde mensen komen regelmatig in het stadion. Dit komt wel overeen met het feit dat Feyenoord supporters uit het hele land kent, en dus komen lokale mensen weinig in het stadion. Dit komt ook wel door financiële redenen geven sommige mensen aan.

Mening over de pijnpunten bij het huidige stadion

Het is geen verassing, maar bij wedstrijden van Feyenoord is het volgens veel mensen een verkeerschaos met vooral auto´s die massaal naar een plaats zoeken om te parkeren. Dit vindt men wel een probleem: de autoafhankelijkheid van de Feyenoord supporters. Dit komt mede doordat de Feyenoord supporters vanuit het hele land komen en omdat het openbaar vervoer naar het stadion door niet iedereen optimaal wordt gevonden. Irritant voor lokale bewoners is vooral dat op wedstrijddagen mensen door de wijken struinen voor plekken, wat leidt tot parkeeroverlast en chaos op de kleine straatjes. Boven leidt dit ook nog tot andere soorten overlast in de kleine straatjes: mensen die de openbare ruimte gebruiken als toilet etc. De Kuip heeft dus in de directe omgeving onvoldoende parkeerterreinen voor alle supporters. Dit is overigens ook de reden dat de KNVB geen wedstrijden van het Nederlands elftal meer in de Kuip wil organiseren. De wijk Sportdorp is wel afgesloten om parkeeroverlast voor deze woonwijk te voorkomen. Helaas heeft dit tot gevolg dat dit de overlast verplaatst naar andere wijken. Er zijn verschillende maatregelen in het verleden geprobeerd, ook bij concerten van Marco Borsato bijvoorbeeld, maar er is eigenlijk nog steeds geen goede oplossing voor gevonden.

Verschil wedstrijddagen en doordeweeks

Pagina | 103

Doordeweeks is er eigenlijk weinig op de situatie bij de Kuip aan te merken. Buiten het drukke woon- werk verkeer, wat eigenlijk door heel Nederland is, wordt er weinig tot niks negatiefs over het stadion vermeld. Op wedstrijddagen wordt er vooral over de voortdurende parkeeroverlast gepraat, zoals de vorige paragraaf al bediscussieerde. Een aantal mensen vindt de drukte op wedstrijddagen ook wel gezellig, omdat het economisch gezien veel voordelen met zich meebrengt. Die mensen, vooral lokale cafés, vinden dat mensen eigenlijk niet zoveel moeten zeiken omdat het er nou eenmaal bij hoort. Maar deze positievelingen zijn wel in de minderheid.

Mening over de waarde van het stadion voor de omgeving

Zoals al eerder vermeld, lokale bewoners uit sommige wijken (vooral allochtonen) zoals de Afrikaanderwijk hebben niks met voetbal en Feyenoord en zitten eigenlijk min of meer niet te wachten op een voetbalstadion zoals de Kuip. Die mensen maken zich vooral druk om andere dingen in het leven en niet om of Feyenoord wint of verliest of dat het stadion wordt uitgebreid. Ze hebben het te druk met zorgen dat er iedere dag eten op tafel komt. Verder is het opvallend dat de rest van de lokale mensen het stadion een icoon vinden en er dus veel waarde aan hechten. Dit geldt, niet geheel verassend, vooral voor de mensen die veel met voetbal hebben. De Feyenoord supporters vinden het geweldig dat het stadion van hun club precies in hun wijk ligt. Een gevoel van trots overheerst bij deze groep. Dus je kunt wel stellen dat het stadion over het algemeen een icoon is voor Rotterdam en de omliggende wijken. De Kuip heeft voor veel mensen dus een symbolische en emotionele waarde wat diepgeworteld zit.

Mening over de nieuwbouwplannen

Wat betreft het stadion zelf is men over het algemeen positief. Een uitbreiding om Feyenoord terug aan de top te krijgen is over het algemeen gewenst. Desondanks denkt men dat de uitbreiding van het stadion, en ook de gerelateerde doordeweekse evenementen die straks gaan plaatsvinden, straks voor nóg meer (parkeer)overlast gaat leiden. Eigenlijk wacht met angst en beven af op de verkeersinvasie, want een stadion voor 70.000 man is wel wat anders dan de huidige 45.000. Ook verwacht de lokale omgeving overlast van concerten en dergelijke, omdat die vooral ’s avonds plaatsvinden. Gekscherend werd gezegd dat de tijden van doordeweekse avonden met Europees voetbal van Feyenoord al een tijdje voorbij zijn, maar met de komst van doordeweekse concerten en dergelijke komt de “ouderwetse” doordeweekse drukte weer terug. De lokale bevolking is vooral benieuwd wat de gemeente voor hun gaat doen, om de lokale bewoners te beschermen. Dit is hen tot nu toe nog niet erg duidelijk geworden.

Mening over architectuur nieuwe stadion

De mensen waren over dit onderwerp het meest eensgezind. Eigenlijk boeide het bijna niemand wat hoe het stadion eruit kwam te zien. Vooral de normale mensen hadden nergens moeit ermee, enkele Feyenoord aanhangers vonden het ontwerp wel tegenvallen want die hadden liever het plan van de Super Kuip gehad. De Super Kuip leek in hun ogen meer op de huidige Kuip, aan de binnenkant en de

Pagina | 104 buitenkant. De LED verlichting baarde wel een enkeling zorgen, maar dat was dan ook het enige negatieve punt wat lokale bewoners konden bedenken. Architectuur is over het algemeen voor de lokale bewoners geen issue, daar zullen mensen wel “voor gestudeerd hebben”.

Afronding interview.

Bedankwoordje

Pagina | 105

Appendix 9. Overview stadia Europe

Overview location of stadia of the eight highest UEFA ranked countries. Based on own research.

Country Location Downtown Out-of-town Semi-urban Average Total working class age quarter (years) Spain 7 5 8 39 20 England 5 5 10 61 20 Germany 1 11 6 17 18 Italy 6 6 8 71 20 Portugal 5 5 6 42 16 France 5 5 10 35 20 Russia 6 4 6 25 16 The Netherlands 2 7 9 16 18 Total 37 48 63 26 148

Pagina | 106

Appendix 10. Location of stadia: Spain

Club Location 1974 Location 2014 Location Change UD Almería - * Estadio de los Juegos (2004) Semi-urban - Athletic San Mamés San Mamés (renovated in Downtown Unchanged Bilbao (1913) 2014) Atlético Estadio Vicente Estadio Vicente Calderón. Downtown Unchanged. Madrid Calderón (1966) But in 2020 they move to La But in the Peineta, on the borders of coming years Madrid outwards. Barcelona Camp Nou Camp Nou. In the coming Downtown Unchanged (1957) years going to be upgraded. Celta de Vigo Estadio de Estadio de Balaídos Semi-urban Unchanged Balaídos (1928) Elche Campo de Estadio Manuel Martínez Out-of-town Outwards Altabix (1923) Valero (1976) Espanyol Olímpico de Estadi Cornellà-El Prat Out-of-town Outwards Montjuïc (1929) (2009) Getafe -** Coliseum Alfonso Pérez Out-of-town - (1998) Grenada CF Estadio de Los Nuevo Los Cármenes (1995) Semi-urban Unchanged Cármenes (1931) Levante Estadio Ciutat de Estadio Ciutat de Valencia Semi-urban Unchanged Valencia (1969) Malaga CF Estadio La Estadio La Rosaleda Semi-urban Unchanged Rosaleda (1941) Osasuna Estadio El Sadar Estadio El Sadar Semi-urban Unchanged (1967) Rayo Estadio Teresa Campo de Fútbol de Semi-urban Unchanged Vallecano Rivero (1976) Vallecas Real Betis Estadio Benito Estadio Benito Villamarín Semi-urban Unchanged Sevilla Villamarín (1929) Real Madrid Estadio Santiago Estadio Santiago Bernabéu. Downtown Unchanged Bernabéu (1947) In the coming years it will be renovated. Real Estadio de Estadio Municipal de Out-of-town Outwards Sociedad Atotxa (1909) Anoeta (1993) Real Estadio Estadio Nuevo Municipal Out-of-town Outwards Valladolid Municipal José José Zorrilla (1982) Zorrilla (1928) Sevilla Estadio Ramón Estadio Ramón Sánchez Downtown Unchanged Sánchez Pizjuán Pizjuán (1958) Valencia CF Estadio de Estadio de Mestalla. New Downtown Unchanged. Mestalla (1923) stadium is being built on But next years semi-urban location. outwards Villareal Camp El Camp El Madrigal Downtown Unchanged Madrigal (1923) *UD Almería was founded in 2001. ** Getafe was founded in 1983. Pagina | 107

Appendix 11. Location of stadia: England

Club Location 1974 Location 2014 Location Change Arsenal Highbury Emirates Stadium(2005) Semi-urban Unchanged (1913) Aston Villa Villa Park (1897) Villa Park Semi-urban Unchanged Cardiff City Ninian Park Cardiff City Stadium (2009) Downtown Unchanged (1910)

Chelsea Stamford Bridge Stamford Bridge Semi-urban Unchanged (1877) Crystal Palace Selhurst Park Selhurst Park Out-of-town Unchanged (1924) Everton Goodison Park Goodison Park Semi-urban Unchanged (1892) Fulham Craven Cottage Craven Cottage Semi-urban Unchanged (1896) Hull City The Boulevard Kingston Communications Semi-urban Unchanged (1895) Stadium (2002) Liverpool Anfield (1884) Anfield. In the coming Semi-urban Unchanged years renovated. Manchester Maine Road Etihad Stadium (2002) Out-of-town Outwards City (1923) Manchester Old Trafford Old Trafford Semi-urban Unchanged United (1910) Newcastle St. James’s Park St. James’s Park Downtown Unchanged United (1892) Norwich City Carrow Road Carrow Road Downtown Unchanged (1935) Southampton The Dell (1897) St. Mary’s Stadium (2001) Downtown Unchanged Stoke City Victoria Ground Britannia Stadium (1997) Out-of-town Outwards (1878) Sunderland Rover Park (1897) Stadium of Light (1997) Downtown Unchanged Swansea City Vetch Field (1912) Liberty Stadium (2005) Out-of-town Outwards Tottenham White Hart Lane White Hart Lane. The Semi-urban Unchanged Hotspur (1899) coming years New White Hart Lane. West The Hawthorns The Hawthorns Out-of-town Unchanged Bromwich (1900) Albion West Ham Boleyn Ground Boleyn Ground. Move in Semi-urban Unchanged United (1904) 2016 to Olympic Stadium.

Pagina | 108

Appendix 12. Location of stadia: Germany

Club Location 1974 Location 2014 Location Change FC Augsburg Rosenaustadion SGL Arena (2009) Out-of-town Outwards (1951) Bayer BayArena (1958) BayArena (renovated Semi-urban Unchanged Leverkusen 2009) Bayern Olympiastadion Allianz Arena (2005) Out-of-town Outwards München (1972)

Borussia Signal Iduna Park Signal Iduna Park Semi-urban Unchanged Dortmund (1974) Borussia Bökelbergstadion Borussia Park (2004) Out-of-town Outwards Mönchenglad (1919) bach Eintracht Eintracht-Stadion Eintracht-Stadion Out-of-town Unchanged Braunschweig (1923) Eintracht Waldstadion Commerzbank-Arena Out-of-town Unchanged Frankfurt (1925) (2005) SC Freiburg Mage Solar Mage Solar Stadion Out-of-town Unchanged Stadion (1953) Hamburger SV Volksparkstadion Imtech Arena (1998) Out-of-town Outwards (1963) Hannover 96 HDI-Arena (1954) HDI-Arena (renovated Out-of-town Outwards 2004) Hertha BSC Olympiastadion Olympiastadion Out-of-town Unchanged (1936) (renovated 2006) 1899 Dietmar-Hopp- Wirsol Rhein-Neckar- Out-of-town Unchanged Hoffenheim Stadion (1899) Arena (2009) FSV Mainz 05 Bruchwegstadium Coface Arena (2011) Semi-urban Outwards (1929) 1. FC Städtisches Grundig Stadion Semi-urban Unchanged Nürnberg Stadion (1928) (renovated 2002) Schalke 04 Parkstadion Veltins-Arena (2001) Out-of-town Unchanged (1973) VFB Stuttgart Adolf Hitler Mercedes-Benz-Arena Semi-urban Unchanged Kampfbahn (renovated 2008) (1933) Werder Weserstadion Weserstadion (renovated Downtown Outwards Bremen (1924) 2004) VFL Wolfsburg VFL Stadion Volkswagen Arena (2002) Semi-urban Unchanged (1945)

Pagina | 109

Appendix 13. Location of stadia: Italy

Club Location 1974 Location 2014 Location Change Atalanta Stadio Mario Stadio Atleti Azzurri Downtown Unchanged Bergamo Brumana (1928) d'Italia Bologna Stadio Littoriale Stadio Renato Dall'Ara Semi-urban Unchanged (1927) Cagliari Stadio Sant'Elia Stadio Is Arenas Out-of-town Unchanged (1970)

Catania Stadio Cibali Stadio Angelo Massimino Downtown Unchanged (1937) Chievo Stadio Marc' Stadio Marc' Antonio Downtown Unchanged Antonio Bentegodi Bentegodi (1963) Fiorentina Stadio Artemio Stadio Artemio Franchi Semi-urban Unchanged Franchi (1931) Genoa Stadio Marassi Stadio Comunale Luigi Semi-urban Unchanged (1911) Ferraris Hellas Verona Stadio Marc' Stadio Marc' Antonio Downtown Unchanged Antonio Bentegodi Bentegodi (1963) Internazionale Stadio Guiseppe Stadio Guiseppe Meazza Semi-urban Unchanged Meazza (1926) Juventus Corso Marsiglia Juventus Stadium (2011) Downtown Unchanged (1922) Lazio Roma Stadio Olimpico Stadio Olimpico Semi-urban Unchanged (1937) Livorno Stadio Armando Stadio Armando Picchi Out-of-town Unchanged Picchi (1935) AC Milan San Siro (1926) San Siro Semi-urban Unchanged Napoli Stadio San Paolo Stadio San Paolo Out-of town Unchanged (1959) Parma Stadio Ennio Stadio Ennio Tardini Downtown Unchanged Tardini (1923) AS Roma Stadio Olimpico Stadio Olimpico Semi-urban Unchanged (1937) Sampdoria Stadio Marassi Stadio Comunale Luigi Semi-urban Outwards (1911) Ferraris Sassuolo Stadio Enzo Ricci Maapei Stadium - Citta Out-of-town Unchanged (1922) Del Tricolore (1995) Torino Stadio Municipale Stadio Grande Torino Out-of-town Unchanged Benito Mussolini (1933) Udinese Stadio Moretti Stadio Communale Friuli Out-of-town Outwards (1919)

Pagina | 110

Appendix 14. Location of stadia: Portugal

Club Location 1974 Location 2014 Location Change Académica Estádio Cidade de Estádio EFAPEL (2003) Downtown Unchanged Coimbra Coimbra (1876) FC Arouca Estádio Municipal Estádio Municipal De Semi-urban Unchanged De Arouca (1951) Arouca (2006) Belenenses Estádio do Estádio do Restelo Semi-urban Unchanged Restelo (1956)

Benfica Estádio da Luz Estádio da Luz (2003) Out-of-town Unchanged (1954) Estoril Estádio António Estádio António Coimbra Downtown Unchanged Coimbra da Mota da Mota (1930) Gil Vicente Estádio Adelino Estádio Cidade de Out-of-town Outwards Ribeiro Novo Barcelos (2004) (1920) Marítimo Estádio dos Estádio dos Barreiros Semi-urban Unchanged Funchal Barreiros (1927) Nacional Estádio da Estádio da Madeira Semi-urban Unchanged Madeira Madeira (1910) Olhanense Estádio José Estádio José Arcanjo Downtown Unchanged Arcanjo (1912) Paços de Estádio da Capital Estádio da Capital do Out-of-town Unchanged Ferreira do Móvel (1973) Móvel FC Porto Estádio das Antas Estádio Do Dragão (2004) Semi-urban Unchanged (1952) Rio Ave Estádio do Rio Estádio do Rio Ave (1985) Semi-urban Unchanged Ave (1939) Sporting Estádio Municipal Estádio AXA (2003) Out-of-town Outwards Braga de Braga (1921) Sporting Estádio José Estádio José Alvalade Out-of town Unchanged Lissabon Alvalade (1906) (2003) Vitória Estádio Dom Estádio Dom Afonso Downtown Unchanged Guimarães Afonso Henriques Henriques (1965) Vitória Estádio do Estádio do Bonfim Downtown Unchanged Setubal Bonfim (1962)

Pagina | 111

Appendix 15 Location of stadia: France

Club Location 1974 Location 2014 Location Change AJ Ajaccio Stade François Stade François Coty Out-of-town Unchanged Coty (1969) SC Bastia Stade Armand Stade Armand Césari Out-of-town Unchanged Césari (1932) Girondins Stade Jacques Stade Jacques Chaban- Semi-urban Unchanged Bordeaux Chaban-Delmas Delmas. From 2015 Stade (1938) Bordeaux-Atlantique. Evian TG Parc des Sports Parc des Sports Semi-urban Unchanged (1975) EA Guingamp Stade Du Stade Du Roudourou Semi-urban Unchanged Roudourou (1912) Lille Stade Grimonprez Grand Stade Pierre Out-of-town Outwards Jooris (1974) Mauroy (2012) Lorient Stade Yves Stade Yves Allainmet - Le Downtown Unchanged Allainmet - Le Moustoir Moustoir (1959) AS Monaco Stade Louis II Stade Louis II (1985) Downtown Unchanged (1939) Montpellier Stade de la Stade de la Mosson Out-of-town Unchanged Mosson (1972) FC Nantes Stade Marcel- Stade de la Beaujoire Semi-urban Outwards Saupin (1937) Olympique Stade Municipal Allianz Riviera (2013) Out-of-town Unchanged Nice du Ray (1927) Olympique Stade de Gerland Stade de Gerland. From Downtown. Outwards Lyon (1926) 2015 Stade des Lumières. New stadium Semi-urban Olympique Stade Vélodrome Stade Vélodrome. Semi-urban Unchanged Marseille (1935) Upgraded next year. Paris Saint- Parc des Princes Parc des Princes Semi-urban Unchanged Germain (1897) (renovated 1972) Reims Stade Auguste- Stade Auguste-Delaune II Semi-urban Unchanged Delaune II (1935) Stade Rennais Stade de la Route Stade de la Route De Semi-urban Unchanged De Lorient (1912) Lorient Saint-Etienne Stade Geoffroy- Stade Geoffroy-Guichard Semi-urban Outwards Guichard (1931) (renovated 1998) FC Sochaux Stade Auguste- Stade Auguste-Bonal Downtown Unchanged Bonal (1931) Toulouse Stadium Stadium Municipal. Next Downtown Unchanged Municipal (1937) year upgraded. Valenciennes Stade Nungesser Stade Du Hainaut (2011) Semi-urban Unchanged (1929)

Pagina | 112

Appendix 16. Location of stadia: Russia

Club Location 1974 Location 2014 Location Change Amkar Perm Stadion Zvezda Stadion Zvezda Semi-urban Unchanged (1969) Anzhi -* Anzhi-Arena (2003) Out-of-town - CSKA Moskou Light-Athletic CSKA Moscow Stadium Out-of-town Outwards Football Complex (from 2015) CSKA (1974) Dinamo Dinamostadion Arena Khimki (2008) Semi-urban Unchanged Moskou (1928) FK Krasnodar -** Stadion Kuban’ (1960) Downtown - Krylia Sovetov Stadion Metallurg Stadion Metallurg. Semi-urban Unchanged Samara (1957) Samarena from 2017. Kuban Stadion Kuban’ Stadion Kuban’ Downtown Unchanged Krasnodar (1960) Lokomotiv Stadion Stadion Lokomotiv Out-of-town Unchanged Moskou Lokomotiv (1923) FK Rostov Stadion Olimp 2 Stadion Olimp 2. Downtown Unchanged (1930) Levberdon Arena from 2016. Rubin Kazan Central'Nyj Kazan Arena (2014) Semi-urban Outwards Stadion Kazan' (1960) Spartak Loezjniki (1922) Otkrytie Arena (2014) Out-of-town Outwards Moskou FC Terek Sultan Akhmad Arena (2011) Semi-urban Unchanged Grozny Bilimkhanov Stadium (1958) Tom Tomsk Stadion Trud Stadion Trud Downtown Unchanged (1929) FK Ural Zentralstadion Zentralstadion Downtown Unchanged (1957) Volga Stadion Stadion Lokomotiv. Downtown Unchanged Lokomotiv (1932) Nizhny Novgorod from 2016. Zenit Sint- Stadion Petrovskij New Zenit Stadium (from Semi-urban Outwards Petersburg (1925) 2015)

*Anzhi was founded in 1991

** FK Krasnodar was founded in 2008

Pagina | 113

Appendix 17. Location of stadia: The Netherlands

Club Location 1974 Location 2014 Location Change ADO Den Zuiderpark (1925) Kyocera Stadion (2007) Out-of-town Outwards Haag Ajax De Meer (1934) Amsterdam ArenA (1996) Out-of-town Outwards AZ Alkmaarderhout AFAS Stadion (2006) Out-of-town Outwards (1948)

SC Cambuur Cambuurstadion Cambuurstadion Downtown Unchanged Leeuwarden (1936) Feyenoord De Kuip (1937) De Kuip (renovated Semi-urban Unchanged 1994). Coming years renovated again. Go Ahead Adelaarshorst Adelaarshorst Semi-urban Unchanged Eagles (1920) FC Groningen Stadion Euroborg (2006) Out-of-town Outwards Oosterpark (1935) SC Sportpark Noord Abe Lenstra Stadion Semi-urban Unchanged Heerenveen (1920) (1993) Heracles Bornsestraat Polman stadion (1999). In Semi-urban Unchanged Almelo (1909) the coming years renovation. NAC Breda NAC-stadion Rat Verlegh Stadion Semi-urban Outwards (1940) (1996) NEC Goffertstadion Goffertstadion Semi-urban Unchanged (1939) (renovated 2000) PEC Zwolle Oosterenkstadion IJsseldeltastadion (2007) Out-of-town Unchanged (1934) PSV Philips Stadion Philips Stadion Downtown Unchanged (1913) (renovated 2000) RKC Waalwijk Sportpark Mandemakers Stadion Semi-urban Unchanged Olympia (1940) (1996) Roda JC Gemeentelijk Parkstad Limburg Stadion Out-of-town Unchanged Sportpark (2000) Kaalheide (1950) FC Twente Stadion Het Grolsch Veste (renovated Out-of-town Outwards Diekman (1956) 2011) FC Utrecht Stadion Stadion Galgenwaard Semi-urban Unchanged Galgenwaard (renovated 2004) (1970) Vitesse Nieuw- Gelredome (1998) Semi-urban Unchanged Monnikenhuize (1950)

Pagina | 114