What Comes First Conditions What Comes Later?
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
University of Amsterdam – GSSS, Graduate School of Social Sciences MSc Urban & Regional Planning (2017–2018) URP Master Thesis 2018 (736410200W.AJ) Planning, Innovation and Transformation: Questioning the Actual Meaning of 'Change' What Comes First Conditions What Comes Later? Path Dependence and Urban Waterfront Developments in Rotterdam and Hamburg. 15 August 2018 Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Pieter Tordoir Submitting student: Andreas Künzi (11430001) Word count: 19,161 (Excl. table of content, lists, acknowledgment, figures, references, appendix) Table of Content xi. Figures, Images and Tables i xii. Abbreviations ii xiii. Acknowledgement iii 1. Introduction 1 2. Theoretical Framework 4 2.1 Historical Institutionalism 4 2.2 Path Analysis 5 3. Research and Analytical Methods 11 3.1 Comparative Historical Research 11 3.2 Case Studies 13 3.3 Analysis 16 4. Urban Port Development in Rotterdam and Hamburg 17 4.1 A Close Relationship – Port and City in Rotterdam 17 4.2 Displacement and Exceptionalism – Port and City in Hamburg 24 4.3 Similarities, Disparities and Patterns I 26 5. Politics, Culture and Planning 28 5.1 Rotterdam, The Netherlands 28 5.2 Hamburg, Germany 32 5.3 Similarities, Disparities and Patterns II 33 6. Urban Waterfront Developments in Rotterdam and Hamburg 35 6.1 Kop van Zuid 35 6.2 HafenCity 41 6.3 Similarities, Disparities, Patterns III 42 7. Path Analysis – History and Waterfront Developments 43 7.1 Rotterdam: Historical Pathway of Urban Port Development 43 7.2 Rotterdam: Historical Pathway of Politics and Planning 45 7.3 Kop van Zuid and Path Dependence 46 7.4 Historical Path Dependence? 47 8. Conclusion and Further Research 49 9. References 52 10. Appendix 58 xi. Figures, Images and Tables Figure 1: Constitution of an organizational path 6 Figure 2: Formation of a path-dependent trajectory 7 Figure 3: Long-term path establishment and on short-term disruptions 9 Image 1: Kop van Zuid 15 Image 2: Expansion Plan 1884 18 Image 3: Waterstad and Urban Facade 19 Image 4: Window to the River 24 Table 1: Path shaping and disrupting events in urban port development 44 Table 2: Conditioning Moment: Political and public opposition 46 Table 3: Conditioning Moment: New development paradigm 46 Table 4: Conditioning Moment: Privatisation, shits in property rights 47 i xii. Abbreviations CBD Central Business District CHR Comparative Historical Research HC HafenCity HI Historical Institutionalism HH Expert Interviewees Hamburg HHLA Hamburg Port and Logistics AG KvZ Kop van Zuid PDT Path Dependence Theory PPP Public-Private Partnerships RTM Expert Interviewees Rotterdam StaRTM Stadsarchief Rotterdam (City Archive Rotterdam) ii xiii. Acknowledgement I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Pieter Tordoir for his valuable knowledge, critical capacities, creative inputs and overall patience in supervising my thesis. I thank my family, my father Klaus, my mother Regina and my brother Manuel for their general support of my idea of going back to studying in my late thirties. I thank Werner Tosoni, my boss over the last years, whose willingness and patience to let me work mobile for his civil engineering company in Sissach, Switzerland allowed me to be securely employed and simultaneously follow my studies. Further thanks go to Prof. Dr. Siegfried Weichlein and Prof. Juri Auderset from the University of Fribourg, whose vigour and dedication for the study of history lead me to recognise the discipline’s significance not only for a better understanding of the past but also for a critical and constructive outlook on the present. I am furthermore thankful for my interviewee's willingness to give me their valuable time and expertise. My thanks also go to Matthias, to my fellow students James, Kaspar and Miriam for their inspiration, to Joel and Britta Bisang whom embraced me shortly after my arrival in Amsterdam and made my stay in the city a social pleasure. And last but not least, thank you, Eefje, for your loving strength, loyalty, patience and understanding. iii 1. Introduction “What comes first conditions what comes later” (Putnam, 1994: 8). Albeit not explicitly, Robert Putnam’s statement in his work Making Democracy Work. Civic Traditions in Modern Italy on the performance of institutions suggests that our world is not only shaped but also constricted by its historical past. This is a daring assumption. And one that can perhaps best be tested by linking the critical examination of historical sequences to current circumstances. The investigation of historical pathways illustrates how and under what conditions particular pathways have evolved. The assembly of these pathways with contemporary settings explains to what extent they mould or even confine the present. Ideally, any such approach succeeds in an improved comprehension of today’s societies and, to that effect, of the barriers that tend to occur when attempting to change or overcome them. The idea that historically developed pathways restrict options in the present complements with the concept of path dependence theory. According to the theory, history not only remains apparent but moreover is cumulative. Choices made at an earlier stage are significant in the sense that they limit later options and thereby shape the direction actors, businesses or institutions may take (Pierson, 2004). Consequently, path dependence theory can serve as an instrument to illustrate how historical pathways have emerged and, by extension, to what extent these pathways affect practices today. With this in mind, the study attempts to unveil historical trajectories in planning in an effort to link them to current urban developments. The methodical examination of the emergence of historical trajectories potentially allows for a better understanding why planning presumably manoeuvres on a specific path. By putting some emphasis on overarching political-cultural settings as well as on relevant prevailing planning theories, the research takes a macro-historical look at the evolution and establishment of planning trajectories. The thesis thereby appoints historical developments in relation to planning, highlighting a particular pathway. This pathway, in turn, eventually builds the foundation for its association with topical case studies. At length, the thesis revolves around the principal hypothesis that although urban development is affected by spatial and institutional path dependence, metropolitan governance and urban planning are evidently capable of breaking-away from given constraints under specific circumstances. In order to test this hypothesis, the study looks at a city experiencing a moment of shock. The focus thereby lays on the city's reaction to said shock and whether it marks a continuation or break with a specific pathway in planning. By aligning the inquiry of recent planning practices with historical findings under the umbrella of path analysis, the thesis ultimately aims to comprehend if and to what extent urban planning is path dependent. 1 In light of the above stated hypothesis the study approaches the two following main research questions: 1) To what extent can the historical inquiry of a specific urban space unveil spatial and/or institutional path dependence in planning? 2) To what extent can events in the further development of said space be determined that enabled a deviation from spatial and/or institutional path dependence? In order to answer these questions, the thesis examines the waterfront developments of the Kop van Zuid and the HafenCity in Rotterdam and Hamburg, respectively. The examination of each city’s institutional planning history takes a historical-comparative approach. Some emphasis is thereby being laid on the consideration of the different political settings of the cities and, by extension, how they relate to planning; a municipality in a unitary governmental system in Rotterdam (Gemeente Rotterdam, n.d.) as opposed to a city state embedded in federalism in Hamburg (Stadtportal hamburg.de, n.d.). The cities of Rotterdam and Hamburg were selected on the basis of these varying local- political structures and history, on the one hand. On the other, and most importantly, both cities, to a large extent, revolve around the political, economic, cultural and social importance of their ports. Moreover, the harbour areas in both cities were affected by the process of containerisation and the consequent partial retreat of the ports from their urban environments. The withdrawal of the ports from the city centres and the ensuing abandonment of sites formerly used for operational harbour activities due to containerisation thus serves as the aforementioned moment of shock. Accordingly, the study links the waterfront developments of Rotterdam and Hamburg to the respective historical spatial and institutional development of the port areas. The case studies of the Kop van Zuid and the HafenCity thereby allow the comparison of waterfront developments in two cities across two slightly contrasting political, but reasonably similar economic and cultural contexts. By analysing historical and recent similarities, disparities and patterns of two comparable cases that share a common focus, i.e. the development of their waterfronts, the research ultimately attempts to prove that the developments deviate from historically established spatial and institutional planning pathways. By focussing on the Kop van Zuid and the HafenCity the study generally hypothesises, that both waterfront developments account for a spatial and institutional break-away from each city’s historical planning pathway. Naturally,