What Comes First Conditions What Comes Later?

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'

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

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)

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.

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, the given time scope and extent of this thesis does not allow an in-depth, meticulous study of such a complex and wide-ranging assumption. At length, the research therefore attempts to create a basis for a more comprehensive investigation of

recent and current planning systems and the consequent strategies in urban developments against the backdrop of historical research. The research thereby builds on existing frameworks of path dependence theory and modifies them for the purpose of this thesis. Ultimately, the study means to contribute to the general discourse on path dependence in planning by combining and building up on existing frameworks and research methods.

2. Theoretical Framework

History is often said to be the result of long-term developments (Braudel, 1977; Brenner, 2001; Mahoney, 2004). This raises the question of how and to what extent historically established paths affect or even constrain the present. Consequently, when approaching such a question in urban planning, the focus lays on the historical emergence of specific planning pathways, on the one hand. On the other, when attempting to relate historical findings to the present, the connection of these pathways to recent and current planning practices is self-evident. For the purpose of this thesis, the historiographical query revolves around the method of historical institutionalism. The employment of the method thereby aims at a broad macro- historical observation of the emergence of planning pathways and their underlying spatial and institutional settings. In an effort to link the historical outlook to the present, the thesis engages in a more up-close, in-depth and detailed examination of planning trajectories by the means of two contemporary case studies. For both approaches, the macro-historical outlook and the 'zoom-in' on the case studies, path dependence theory functions as the central theoretical framework. Accordingly, the method of historical institutionalism becomes an integral part of the theoretical framework.

2.1 Historical Institutionalism

As a method historical institutionalism (HI) aims at a comprehensive understanding of the emergence of institutional structures. HI thereby is not limited to the examination of formal institutions. Rather it attempts to include sociocultural settings outside governmental bodies and their influence of formal institutions. Formal and informal institutions affect a wide range of issues directly or indirectly related to planning. As structures or mechanisms of social and political order, formal institutions set-up systems and govern strategies of decision making. As mechanisms of social interaction, informal institutions manifest in unwritten rules, norms and traditions of social order and behaviour (North, 1990: 6). Consequently, HI examines institutions in order to find sequences of cultural, social, economic and political behaviour and change across time. The embracement of numerous aspects of human institutions and organisations thereby focusses on “big structures, large processes, [and] huge comparisons” (Tilly, 1984). Under HI the concept of institutions is thus not limited to formal public organisations. By incorporating behavioural aspects that root in factors such as ideology or informal customs, HI claims to give agency to a broad scope of social dynamics, groups and behaviours.

The idea that social configurations and state authorities interact and influence each other is thus a central mean in the method of HI. By emphasising the political and social participation of elites and the state as well as groups outside of it, the method offers explanations beyond distinct historical events (Tilly, 1984). Consequently, HI attempts to cohesively focus on the conditions under which a particular trajectory was followed and not others. Specifying why particular paths were not taken is therefore as important as specifying why certain paths indeed were taken (Martin, 2012). In light of the given extent of the thesis, however, a meticulous scrutinization of both formal and informal institutional settings is not possible. Neither is it conceivable to give detailed attention to why and under what circumstances specific pathways were not taken. The study thus approaches a broad macro-historical outlook to examine the history of a) urban port development in Rotterdam and Hamburg and b) of planning systems and strategies and how they relate to their overarching political-cultural settings. The research thereby attempts to highlight particular development paths in search of regularities and patterns. At length, this approach results in the production of a wide-ranging historical overview without claims of empirical validation, which are necessarily restricted under the method (Galtung & Inayatullah, 1997: 1-10).

2.2 Path Analysis

As an analytical concept, path dependence theory (PDT) illustrates how practices tend to become established through temporal processes. At its core the theory states that actors, businesses and institutions are significantly influenced by decisions that date back to earlier stages in history. PDT states that following a certain path will constitute a specific trajectory to the effect that any attempt to change path becomes more difficult over time. Consequently, institutions, in particular, tend to continually follow a given direction, regardless of the fact that other options might offer better alternatives (Pierson, 2004: 17-18). This dynamic is enforced by the idea that converting to a new system would exceed the immediate gains of continuing to operate on the existing one (Veenstra, 2015). PDT thus goes beyond the mere notion that history matters and remains apparent. Rather than just pointing out historical legacies, the concept attempts to unveil a kind of a deterministic chain, which, at its core, states that steps in a particular direction, taken at an earlier stage, prompt further steps into the same direction (252). The alleged tenaciousness of this fundamental chain anchors in the notion of positive feedback. The internal logic of positive feedback can be captured via a simple mathematical model: Imagine an opaque container with two balls in it, one black, one red. One ball is removed randomly, say a black one, and then returned to the container accompanied by an additional ball

of the same colour. With the repeating of this process chances steadily increase that a black ball will be drawn, while the chances for change, i.e. the drawing of a red ball, more and more diminish. Ultimately, this process supposedly leads to a lock-in on the established path that gradually but persistently weakens the ability to change (Pierson, 2004: 253). According to models of PDT, the establishment of a particular path has a tendency to ultimately result in a rigid position, a so-called lock-in. Sydow et al. (2009) provide a theoretical framework that explains how organisations tend to become path dependent (see Figure 1). The framework divides processes that lead to path dependence into three distinct phases. Phase I (the preformation phase) illustrates the intersection where one path from a myriad of options is chosen. In phase II (the formation phase) decisions made in the former phase being to establish, leading to the formation of a new regime. Finally, phase III (the lock-in phase) fixes the decisions made in phase I and established in phase II. They are now “locked-in”, impeding the ability to react and/or adapt to changing circumstances. Following this framework, outcomes at a critical juncture trigger feedback mechanism that reinforce the recurrence of a particular pattern in the future. Each step taken thereby limits future options. At first glance, this seems to result in the assertion that organisational pathways are necessarily determined by previous causes, whereby a 'narrowing' path into one particular direction gradually establishes. Furthermore, and more crucially, it seems to suggest that particular conditions will be locked-in indefinitely. Sydow et al. (2009) emphasise, however, that “[p]ath dissolution may occur through unforeseen exogenous forces, such as shocks, catastrophes, or crises; these are likely to shake the system, thereby causing the organization to break away from the path” (701).

Figure 1: Constitution of an organizational path (Source: Sydow et al., 2009)

Consequently, pathways can develop in more than one particular direction. When affected by disruptions, options at critical junctures may actually enable deviation from a path and overcome assumed lock-ins (Peck et al., 2009; Tasan-Kok, 2015). Although not explicitly, Tasan-Kok's framework of PDT (2015) translates what Sydow et al. call options into creative (positive) and destructive (negative) events. The framework thereby attempts to “explain differences in urban transformation in terms of planning and territorial governance” by assigning “exogeneous and contingent events” (2184-2185), the corresponding to the exogenous forces mentioned by Sydow et al. Path analysis with the employment of Tasan-Kok's framework ultimately unveils changes in trajectory from a given path through a particular contingent event. Moreover, the framework specifically assigns moments that lead to these contingent events.

Figure 2: Formation of a path-dependent trajectory (Source: Tasan-Kok, 2015)

The framework by Tasan-Kok enables a more detailed explanation of events that disrupt and thereby potentially change the direction of a path. Pathways are thus seen to be the result of contingent events prompted by numerous creative (positive) and destructive (negative) moments, which, in turn, are affected by institutional and organisational processes. The terms “positive” and “negative” thereby do not refer to an assessment or judgement of the events, their “character”, but to their concrete and visible implications for planning. Tasan-Kok links her framework to the prominence of neoliberalism in planning over the last decades. Accordingly, an example for a destructive (negative) moment would be the “destruction” of established institutional settings by neoliberal politics, whereas a creative (positive) moment would be the consequent “creation” of new institutional formations under the influence of

neoliberalism (2187). Hence the framework allows to point out particular moments and how they affect or even lead to subsequent path shaping events. The study at hand takes a two-tiered methodological research approach. A macro-historical outlook for the examination of historical planning trajectories and a more detailed advancement for the case studies (see chapter 3). Consequently, the two above illustrated frameworks by Sydow et al. (2009) and Tasan-Kok (2015) are being combined and altered. The macro-historical research of planning pathways employs an adapted version of the fundamental PDT framework by Sydow et al. The examination of planning trajectories in respect to the waterfront developments of the Kop van Zuid and the HafenCity, in turn, uses a modified version of the more detailed framework by Tasan-Kok. The altered PDT framework of Sydow et al. is put against the backdrop of a historical timeline. This allows for the temporal allocation of moments that conceivably shaped planning trajectories and consequently established a specific pathway. 'Options' are thereby divided into two categories: 'events in history' and 'path shaping events in history'. This should demonstrate an event's effect on shaping a historical pathway (or its lack of it, respectively). The concept of increasingly limited options and the consequent supposed lock-in is illustrated by a narrowing scope of influence that historical moments are able take on an ever-establishing pathway. Based on the macro-historical outlook, the allocation of these events in the respective formation phases, as proposed by Sydow et al., does not seem reasonable and is thus omitted. The employment of the framework by Tasan-Kok results in a zoom-in on the implicit lock-in phase. The structure thereby serves as an inspiration to create a framework of PDT that fits the purpose of this thesis. Following the outline, the study looks at two distinct contingent events, namely the shock of ports withdrawing from the city centre and the subsequent waterfront developments. In accordance with the macro-historical framework they are furthermore termed 'conditioned path shaping events'. Conditioned paths shaping events are triggered by one or more moments, meaning they depend on external factors and conditions. Tasan-Kok for her framework calls these 'creative' and 'destructive moments', respectively. The Schumpeterian notion of the “creative destruction”1 of cities under capitalism (2187) is renounced for the purpose of this thesis. They are instead termed 'conditional moments', thereby underlining their role in conditioning path shaping events. Conditioning moments are influenced and affected by numerous indicators, each driven by distinct motions. In consistency with the overarching aim of the thesis, the exposing of spatial

1 In his 1942 work Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy Schumpeter argues that “[a] process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, [is] incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one” (82-83).

and/or institutional pathways, as well as with the term used by Tasan-Kok for her framework (institutional and organizational processes) these indicators are termed 'spatial/institutional processes' (Figure 3).

Shaping and establishment of a path (macro-historical)

(Preformation Phase) (Formation Phase) (Lock-in Phase)

✱

✱ ✱ ✱ ✱ ✴ ✱ ✱ ✱

Zoom-in

Event in history Scope of influence ✱ Path shaping event in history Emerging path

Zoom-in (break-away/new path)

New Path

✱ Established Path ✴

Spatial/institutional processes (triggered by motions) ✴ Conditioned path shaping event l Conditioning moment New path

Figure 3: Long-term path establishment (macro-historical) and on short-term disruptions (zoom-in) (Source: Author, 2018)

The zoom-in on the macro-historical outlook comes with two overlapping benefits. Firstly, the zoom enables to better understand conditioning moments, i.e. conditions that eventually set-up path shaping events. Provided that there is a fitting overarching frame, conditioning moments can furthermore be positioned and explained within their circumstantial and temporal contexts.

Secondly, the conditioning moments themselves can be associated with numerous spatial and/or institutional processes and their driving motions, by extension. This provides an improved perception of how and to what extent spatial and/or institutional processes contribute to the moulding of a specific moment that subsequently sets-up the conditions for a path shaping event. The framework thus allows for a nuanced assemblage and potential categorisation of processes as opposed to the rather simple approach of linking historical moments to forma a quasi-causal chain. At length, the above describes framework of PDT results in the hypothesis that spatial and/or institutional processes affect particular moments, which in turn support and induce path shaping events that ultimately enable a break-away from an established pathway. The involved forces (spatial/institutional processes, conditioning moments, conditioned path shaping events) can thereby offer a contextualised explanation of their occurrence. When looking at the conditioned path shaping event of port withdrawal, for example, tracing the hypothesis along the framework leads to the hypothesis that the withdrawal was set-up by containerisation (the condoning event), which again was induced by numerous spatial and/or institutional processes and the respective driving motions. Eventually, the combination of two differing theoretical frameworks of PDT, to a large extent, also rests on the two-tiered investigative method of the thesis. Firstly, the historical outlines of urban port development and political-cultural landscapes in planning with the aim of determining characteristic trajectories and pathways in planning. Secondly, the short-term and more detailed path analysis of recent waterfront developments against the backdrop of the shock of ports withdrawing from the city centres with the aim of linking these developments to pathways highlighted through the macro-historical research.

3. Research and Analytical Methods

The research is divided into three parts. The first part is devoted to the macro-historical study of spatial and social port developments in Rotterdam and Hamburg. The outlook thereby relies on the study of literature in compliance with the methods of HI. The method is equally applied for the following research part, albeit by looking through a different lens. In contrast to the emphasis put on spatial aspects for the macro-historical look on urban port developments, the second research part glances over the relationships between politics and planning traditions in both cities and countries, by extension. Finally, the third research part looks at the waterfront developments of the Kop van Zuid and the HafenCity in order to align them with the preceding historical findings. The macro-historical view of HI and CHR together with a zoom-in on the examination of a specific recent planning approach, enables to trace reciprocal effects between long-term historical pathways and more contemporary developments. The results from the first and second research parts thus set the stage for the alignment of the case studies by use of the above elaborated framework of PDT in the analytical part of the thesis (chapter 7).

3.1 Comparative Historical Research

Following Tilly (1984), social processes are to be scrutinised on four distinct historical levels: the world-historical, the world-systemic, the macro-historical, and the micro-historical level. For the purpose of this thesis the research engages in macro-historical research and analysis, in which “we seek to account for particular big structures and large processes and to chart their alternate forms within given world systems” (61). At the macro-historical level, Tilly argues, such large processes as proletarianization, urbanisation, capital accumulation, state making, and bureaucratisation lend themselves to effective analysis (74). In accordance with the sense that processes of industrialisation disrupted existing spatial and social patterns of port-city connections (Schubert, 2001: 56), the starting point for the historical research is put to roughly the mid 19th century. The employment of HI for the purpose of this thesis largely rests on the quest and analysis of pertinent research literature in accordance with the macro-historical core of the method. Building up on HI, the study approaches techniques that follow the method of comparative historical research (CHR). CHR uses systematic comparison and analysis of processes over time in order to explain large-scale outcomes (Mahoney, 2004: 81). The idea of 'systematic comparison' thereby suggests the juxtaposition of both different data types as well as designated case studies.

Commonly, the collection of comparative historical data distinguishes between four central schemes (Schutt 2012): archival data, secondary sources, running records and recollections. Typically, when approaching CHR most emphasis is being laid on archival data, or primary sources, such as official documents. Secondary sources refer to the works of other people, usually academics or, more precisely, historians, whom have written scholarly historiographical pieces. Running records refer to (ongoing) series of statistical data. Finally, recollections include sources such as autobiographies, memoirs or diaries (387-408). For the purposes of the macro-historical research of this thesis, the data collection methods of running records (quantitative data) and recollecting records (oral history) were abdicated. This seems legitimate since the extent of the thesis demands for a reasonable limitation of data collection and analysis. The disregard of the two methods furthermore rests on the premise that both approaches are sufficiently reflected in the employed research literature. Furthermore, the detailed assessment of oral history runs the risk of digressing too far from the topic, whereas the limited number of case studies cannot permit the benefits of direct quantitative research. The historical research for both approaches – the urban port developments as well as the political- cultural environments and their relation to overarching planning traditions – thus focusses on the use of secondary sources. Under the umbrella of HI, the methods of CHR allows the comparison of a variety of data types and techniques, ranging from “narrative histories [that have] much in common with qualitative methods to analyses of secondary data that are in many respects like traditional [quantitative] survey research” (Schutt, 2012: 408). Complementary to secondary sources and in line with qualitative research as practiced in social sciences, the study employs a number of expert interviews. These interviews predominantly serve the research purpose of the case studies. However, in addition to scholars and professionals of urban planning, for both cases historians with relevant expertise have been interviewed. Consequently, insights from these individual talks serve as a corresponding data type under the methods of HI and CHR. For the case of the Kop van Zuid, Paul van der Laar, associate professor with the Department of History, Culture and Communication at the Erasmus University, provided insights on the political, cultural and institutional history of Rotterdam in respect to urban planning. Additionally, Len de Klerk from the Planning Department of the University of Amsterdam and author of numerous historical publications on urban development in the Netherlands, gives account on planning traditions and how they relate to the development of the Kop van Zuid. For the case of the HafenCity, Lisa Kosok Professor for Urban and Cultural History at HafenCity University Hamburg and expert on the institutional history of European port and industrial cities, engaged

in an extensive interview about the political-cultural setting of Hamburg and its relationship to the spatial and institutional development of the port. At length, the historical research results in a focus on 1) the spatial and social development of the port areas and 2) the relationship between political settings and planning practices. Both focusses are methodologically approached through macro-history. Naturally, the first research part focusses on spatial developments. However, following the idea that social processes are largely influenced by spatial developments (Braudel, 1977), the research emphasises the interdependencies and reciprocal effects between port and liveable city. The second research part puts some emphasis on the different national and local political systems of Rotterdam and Hamburg and how they relate to or potentially affect planning practices. The research thereby attempts to approximate the political climate under which planning evolved and developed. The historical abstract of each city's political-cultural characteristics and planning approaches associates overarching planning systems, i.e. the political landscape, with planning strategies, on the one hand. On the other, the political setting will ultimately help to contextualise specific processes in the planning and development of the respective cases and to place them in the framework of PDT. Naturally, both approaches to some extent overlap. The historical observation of spatial and social developments in a specific area necessarily glances politics and planning institutions. Vis- à-vis, the examination of historical political-cultural settings in relation to planning automatically meets with spatial and social aspects. The division of the research into two parts is triggered predominantly by the aim of looking through different lenses (spatial/social vs. political/institutional). In accordance with the supposed alignment of historical pathways with recent circumstances, the historical research parts ultimately determine the focus for the ensuing case studies.

3.2 Case Studies

In order to test the above elaborated framework of PDT the thesis assumes a moment of shock that lead to an event resulting in a break-away from an established pathway in planning. The shock is defined as the ports withdrawing from the city centres in the course of globalised trade in the second half of the 20th century, a course commonly referred to as containerisation. For the purpose of this thesis, this event is not further researched but treated as preconditioned. The subsequent event is represented by the subsequent waterfront developments in areas formerly used for port activities.

Containerisation is a system of freight transport that uses containers as its central logistical mean. The system became widely applied after World War II. It dramatically reduced the costs of transport, thereby supporting global economic restructuring over the course of the second half of the 20th century. Containerisation furthermore made the manual sorting of shipments and the need for warehousing more and more redundant. Consequently, it displaced large numbers of dock workers, reduced congestion in ports, shortened shipping time and reduced losses from damage and theft. As a result of this transformation urban port areas underwent significant spatial and social change (Levinson, 2006). With increasing containerisation ports began moving away from their original locations, usually further towards the river mouths into the sea, where topographical circumstances would allow for harbour activities using larger scale vessels with the need for wider and longer quays and deeper water-ways. Containerisation also lead to the need for additional and specified storage space as automatized port operations increased the movement of goods (Romeyke, 1975: 193). Consequently, the harbour areas in many industrial cities became more and more abandoned, leaving behind redundant harbour facilities, docks and large industrial buildings. In the course of this process, cities began to plan the redevelopment of former port sites with large and long-term urban revitalisation programs. The waterfront developments of the Kop van Zuid (Rotterdam, Netherlands) and the HafenCity (Hamburg, Germany) represent such characteristic waterfront regeneration projects. The Kop van Zuid is a neighbourhood in Rotterdam located on the south bank of the Nieuwe Maas river opposite the northern original centre of town (see image 1). The development was built on abandoned sites formerly used for port operations. The vacant spaces were thereby turned into urban areas. The Erasmus Bridge built in the course of the project connects the south with the north of the city, whereby it arguably determines a new city centre. First concrete plans for the transformation of the area surfaced in the late 1970s. In the mid/late 1980s a comprehensive masterplan for the development came into action, focussing on retail, office and residential buildings (Christiaanse, 2012). In 1991, city and municipality voted in favour of the new zoning regulations for the area, followed by the approval on governmental level in 1994 (Making Connections, 2006). The Hamburg HafenCity is a quarter in the district Hamburg-Mitte (see image 2). It is located on the Elbe river island Großer Grasbrook, a former free-trade port area. Similar to the development of the Kop van Zuid, the development of the HafenCity focussed on mixed use with hotels, shops, office buildings, and residential housing, whereby the new Elbphilharmonie concert hall arguably serves as the architectural icon of the HafenCity (Bruns-Berentelg, 2010). Like in Rotterdam, the decreased logistic and economic importance and the spatial and societal

changes appearing due to the dynamics containerisation lead to new zoning regulations, relieving the area from its restrictions and allowing its redevelopment (Landesnorm Hamburg, 2006).

Image 1: Location of the Kop van Zuid (Source: De Kop van Zuid. Uitvoerbaarheidsrapportage)

For the purpose of this study, the case of the Kop van Zuid in Rotterdam serves as the 'piece de résistance'. Utmost research efforts are put in said case. The three research parts for the Kop van Zuid are therefore significantly longer than those for the HafenCity, whereby they also employ a more in-depth investigative approach. Consequently, the analysis of the Kop van Zuid can hark back on a much larger research body than the evaluation of the HafenCity can. Nonetheless, the (case) comparative approach of the study bares significant weight for both analysis and conclusion. The abridged observation of Hamburg and the HafenCity will serve as a pointer to test the suitability of the case for a future more thorough comparison. Incidentally, this contrast between the meticulous research for one case and a much more broad-stroked approach for the other is also applied for the macro-historical research. The emphasis on the Kop van Zuid is reflected in the number of expert interviews produced for each case (five for KvZ, three for HH). The interviews for both cases thereby approached scholars and professionals in urban research and planning. For the Kop van Zuid, three professional planners have been interviewed, two of them directly involved in the development

of the project. The talk with Len de Klerk about traditional and recent planning practices in Rotterdam complements these interviews. For the case of the HH, the interviews engaged with a scholar of human and economic geography as well as the current representative 'Oberbaudirektor' (head/director of planning) in Hamburg. As director of Urban Development of the City of Rotterdam from 1986 to 1991 and director of the Rotterdam Urban Planning and Housing Department from 1991 to 1993, Riek Bakker is often seen as one of the central and pivotal figures in the realisation of the initial development steps for the Kop van Zuid. Her fairly personal account of the development provides vital insights on the processes of policy- and decision-making. Barbara van den Broek, in turn, is the current co- project leader of the ongoing development. She discusses her view on the recent and current planning processes for the area, prominently considering the roles of private investors and design aspects in the development. Complementary to the planners directly associated with the project, Joost Schrijnen was interviewed, member of the Directorate of Urban Planning and Housing Rotterdam from 1992-2001. His account largely revolves around issues of privatisation and shifts in property rights in the area.

3.3 Analysis

The macro-historical overview on urban port developments and political-cultural landscapes founds a basis for the alignment of the case studies. Both historical research parts have a specific focus: spatial and social changes in urban port development as opposed to the institutional and organisational shifts in politics and adjacent planning systems. The research of the case study will form the body to test whether or not a waterfront development accounts for a break-away from either of the unveiled pathways. In accordance with the preceding research, where the priority is put on the case of the Kop van Zuid, the analytical part focusses on the waterfront development in Rotterdam. The central path shaping events from the historical research of urban port development will be listed in a table, assigning their time of occurrence, their nature (spatial, social, institutional) and their effect on the moulding of the pathway. Following the historical analysis, the case study of the Kop van Zuid will be summarised in individual tables for conditioning moments and aligned with spatial/social or institutional/organisational processes and their respective motions. Ultimately, the conditioning moments will present a gathering of happenings and instants that enabled the development of the waterfront and consequently account for the assumed break- away from path dependence.

4. Urban Port Development in Rotterdam and Hamburg

The following chapter presents an overview of the history of urban port developments in Rotterdam and Hamburg, respectively. As elaborated in the research methods, the examination of historical trajectories does not raise claims of completeness nor of empirical evidence. Rather it accounts for a condensed narrative of urban development in respect to the port areas in both cities. In accordance with PDT emphasis is being laid on crucial moments and events that presumably account for the shaping of specific planning trajectories and resulting path dependence. The focus thereby lays on spatial and social changes and consequent shifts in planning policy. Together with the second research part – the short summary of each city's political-cultural environment and planning tradition (chapter 5) – this chapter will build the body for the analytical aligning of the case studies (chapter 7).

4.1 A Close Relationship – Port and City in Rotterdam

The development of a clearly defined waterfront along the port of Rotterdam dates back to the 17th century and followed three main factors. Firstly, the geographical situation of the city, which allowed for the mooring of large ships on the deep berths along the quays. Secondly, the allegiance of Amsterdam with the Spanish crown made Rotterdam the only port alternative in the Eighty Years' War of the United Provinces against Spain from 1568-1648. And thirdly, the city’s bourgeoise discovered the port area as an urban-cultural hub early on, an occurrence that carried into the twentieth century. Harbour operations experienced vast growth and dominated the character of the port over most of the 17th century. In the late 1600s, however, the exclusive use of the area for shipyard activities faded into the background. The Rotterdam Chamber of Commerce and the United East India Company agreed to build their new headquarters on the main quay. For this purpose, the companies relocated ongoing harbour operations (Meyer, 1999: 292) thereby arguably marking the beginning of the transformation of the waterfront area into a liveable urban space. This coined the nature and image of the waterfront and its consequent mixed usage. In the mid/late 1800s, the urban boundaries of the city became more and more problematic. The heavy increase in port activities lead to shortages in mooring space, high population density due to growing number of immigrant workers, and difficulties in water management. The problems of insufficient water management thereby had a concrete effect on the physical connection of city and port in Rotterdam. In an effort to solve said problems the construction of ring of canals around the port was initiated in the 1840s. This freed Rotterdam from the authority

of the Schieland Polder Board and allowed the city to take water management in its own hands. The canals thereby strengthened the connection of port function and liveable urban space. Rotterdam developed further south and west, partly relieving the city of the problems of increasingly large-scale harbour operations and the accompanying population growth (Meyer: 299). The canal belt around the city was initiated in 1839. The approach introduced a new planning strategy to Rotterdam by combining necessity with preference. Albeit that the canals were constructed as sewage systems, the planning purposed their function as urban living space. Landscape architects were hired to lay emphasis on the design of the canals for their additional function as promenades. The canals established a typology that combined the waterways needed for the future expansion of the port with spaces for housing and other urban functions (Meyer: 299). Under the lead of Rose, the city started to expand both towards west (Cool Polder) and south (Feijenord) with the aim of defining the stretches as new urban expansion areas. A plan issued in 1864 stipulated the connection of the Waterstad with the south bank. Land fillings thereby would narrow the riverways between the north and south bank while the dismantling of landmasses on the south bank would redirect transit ship traffic south of the new island system, thereby closing ranks between the separated regions (Image 2).

Image 2: The expansion plan from 1864 would create a system of islands connecting the north to the south bank (Source: Meyer, 1999)

Plans to develop the port and city to the west appeared simultaneously. In the mid 19th century the city bought the adjoining land from the neighbouring Delftshaven, a municipality that fell under the political administration of Rotterdam in 1886. At the time of the purchase, however, Delftshaven still held political power over the area, stipulating that the land was not to be used for industrial purposes (Meyer: 300). Both plans to expand the city, west and south, aimed at identifying the region as a mix of port functions and liveable urban area, emphasising the connection of otherwise separated areas. Against the backdrop of this planning approach, a “policy […] gradually evolved that combined exigency and enjoyment” (300). This lead to the design of the area under the principles of creating extra space, i.e. more space than actually needed for the industrial functions, and of differentiation. The latter thereby focussed on materialisation and design of new public areas, often pushing the perception of the sites as mainly industrial into the background (Image 3).

Image 3: The urban facade to the river with the port laying to the rear. (Source: Meyer, 1999)

Trees lined along the quays separating shipping zones and urban space helped to identify the quay as a spatially coherent unit, as exemplified by the Boompjes, a promenade along the waterfront. The recreational function of the Boompjes remained central until the late 19th century. The opening of the Willemsbrug in 1878 marked the beginning of the promenade being more

and more dominated by traffic functions, a dynamic that was ultimately established with the reconstruction of the area after the bombing of Rotterdam in World War II (StaRTM IX-E-6'). In 1872, the member of council and businessman Lodewijk Pincoffs founded the Rotterdamsche Handelsvereeniging, a private trade organisation that aimed at using the island of Feijenoord for setting-up harbour facilities. For this purpose, the association received a land lease from the municipality of Rotterdam, thereby pooling public with private interests (Roo’s oude Effecten, n.d.). After the company’s bankruptcy in 1879 due to the embezzlement of trusts, politicians and the public called for more autonomous decision-making processes in planning on the municipal level. The new director of the Department of Public Work G. J. de Jongh would further establish this policy by a re-emphasising the development of port and city westwards (301-302). Under the leadership of de Jongh, the planning of the city and its connection to the harbour became increasingly centralised. The Department of Public Work, the municipality’s planning department, stretched its scope of influence by expanding activities from the design and organisation of plans for street and quays to the realisation and management of warehouses, entrepots, harbour cranes, and ferries. In the dynamic of this newly concentrated “complete arsenal of port facilities” (302), Rotterdam annexed further Charlois and IJsselmonde on the south-west laying on the left bank of the Maas. The focus for port development, however, remained on the south bank. In 1898, De Jongh positioned two new port basins on the left bank of the Mass, running parallel to the river stream in order to allow large for large ships to easily manoeuvre in and out (Meyer: 302). De Jongh continually pushed the development of the port under an umbrella of increasingly centralised planning. He attempted to establish Rotterdam as a residential city in connection with the port. His plans focussed on shifting the city centre westwards to the Cool Polder, which by now had been annexed from Delfshaven. The establishment of the Cool Polder as a mixed port and urban area as not supported by the city council, however. For the advancement of mixed development of the south bank, on the other hand, the same council acted as an authority when purchasing private property. As a result of this, the development of the Cool Polder was largely left to private investors. Ultimately, the expansion of the city both over the Maas to the south as well as to the west represented the prominence of connecting residential useage with port functions in Rotterdam (Meyer: 303-304). In 1872 the Nieuwe Waterweg opened, a canal that kept the port accessible to large vessels, an answer to the ongoing increase in shipping traffic and port operations. The canal provided easier connection of Rotterdam to the sea, whereby it changed the function of the port: from storing processing and trading of incoming goods to transhipping them as quickly as possible.

Simultaneously, Rotterdam vastly increased in population, pushing the city to expand its territory by seizing neighbouring municipalities (Buursnik, 1997). By the end of the 19th century, public anxiety in respect to that rapid growth of Rotterdam increased. Between 1890 and 1910 the population grew by an average of 10,000 people a year (Fassbinder, 1992: 81). The concerns mostly focussed on poverty and social decay amongst the working classes that streamed into the city. In the course of this the harbour was more and more perceived as losing its merits for of a liveable urban space with cultural qualities. De Jongh, however, saw in exactly this dynamic the city's greatest potential, namely the combination of port economy and civil society, which he understood as the characteristic culture of Rotterdam. In the spirit of this, Rotterdam entrepreneurs, intellectuals and public authorities began to enter a close cooperation concerned with the future development of Rotterdam. Tied together by informal networks, this new “civic culture” (Meyer: 305) advanced the spatial development of the city with the intention of merging economic, social and cultural developments into a sound entity (308-309). The duality of city and port in Rotterdam was strengthened by the connection of the Waterstad with the south bank via the Wilhelmsburg bridge, completed in 1878 (Holland.com, n.d.). However, the emphasis laid on this duality by informal networks and further enforced by the infrastructural interference of the bridge was also met with opposition. Concerns revolved around the socio-cultural effects that came with the constant stressing of the connection of port and city in times of vast growth of harbour activities. Additionally, concerns were brought up that if the city follows the development of the port 2, that Rotterdam would turn into a linear city and thereby loose cohesion, both spatially and socially. In an effort to emphasise social aspects of urban development under the premise of an ever-growing harbour industry, a new division was created within the administration for public works in 1926, the Department of Urban Development, which turned into an independent agency in 1931 (Meyer: 309). The Department of Urban Development followingly was responsible for both the planning of the spatial expansion of the port as well as the advancement of Rotterdam as a liveable city. This changed over the course of the 1930s. The fast and complex technological changes in port and harbour activities demanded for more specialised know-how in handling questions of port development. Consequently, J. Ph. Backx, chairman of the Shipping Association South, argued that port management should be outsourced from the Department of Urban Development and centralised in a new independent body. In 1932, the autonomous Municipal Port Authority was

2 Although the concrete physical withdrawal of the port from the city centre only came with containerisation in the 1950s and 1960s, the course was already predicted in the early 20th century (Meyer: 309).

founded. This marked a shift in policy responsibilities and a break in the relation of port and city. Although Backs argued for an ongoing mental connection of the urban population with their harbour, the port began to develop as a separate spatial entity. As a result of this, the development of the harbour areas on the south-eastern side of the Mass was increasingly neglected (Meyer: 312). The Department of Urban Development advanced the further development of urban areas in an attempt to create an organic city. The approach grew out of the English garden city movement and revolved around the idea of creating a city that would concentrically develop from the centre outwards, on both sides of the Maas. This approach was largely in accordance with a functional planning approach under Fordism, which aimed at a more or less strict separation of work, residency and recreation (Hall, 2014: 242-243; RTM4). Transport infrastructure thereby took a central role in development, a tendency strengthened by the creation of a cross-river connection west of the centre with the new Maastunnel at its heart. The approach further took away focus of the areas south-east of the river, leaving the Kop van Zuid in a position where the site “no longer held an important function in urban plans or in the development of the port” (Meyer, 1999: 316). The German bombing of Rotterdam in 1940 in World War II, in which almost the entire historic city centre was destroyed, marks a severe break in urban development with both spatial and social consequences. Due to the vast extent of the damage the decision was taken to demolish the remaining structures and rebuild the city centre as a whole.3 To some extent, the destruction and consequent reconstruction allowed the city to re-invent itself. Broad-scale, modernising changes in the urban structure were initiated that before would likely have accounted for too radical changes (Diefendorf, 1990: 1-16). The first plan for reconstruction was submitted by the director of Port Authority Willem Gerrit Witteveen in 1941 (Stadsontwikkeling Rotterdam, 1981). With the integration of wide streets and sidewalks into the old landscape of the city the plan adumbrates reconstruction under the premise of modernism. Together with the idea of moving the main dike alongside the riverbank in order to protect the Waterstad area from flooding, the modernist paradigm manifested to most radical spatial changes (Meyer: 311). The relocation of the dike was met with criticism from the Inner Circle of Rotterdam Club, a group that designated itself to promote the connection of the city with the Maas. Their opposition revolved around the concern that the relocated dike would create a spatial segregation between city and river. In the years to come, the south bank of the river would indeed be neglected for

3 With the exception of iconic landmarks such as the Laurenskerk, the trade centre, the post office or the town hall, which were kept and/or rebuilt (Christiaanse, 2012).

approaches in urban development. The regions were continually held at arm's length in terms of spatial expansion and the progression of policies needed for urban development. Ultimately, this neglection paved the way for the south bank to become both a transit area and one for the development of cheap housing for “groups of residents […] who were regarded as a bad influence on the social and cultural well-being of the city's population” (316). In 1946 the city council adopted the Basisplan voor de Herbouw van den Binnenstad (Basic Plan for the Reconstruction of the City) propounded by Cornelis van Traa, Witteveen's successor. The efforts of reconstruction thereby focussed on the north bank of the Maas (Interview RTM3; Stadsontwikkeing Rotterdam, 1981: 11-12). Large emphasis was continually being put on the representative character of the Waterstad with the Boompjes as its urban façade. However, with Backx as their spearhead several groups and initiatives were formed in the 1940s that stressed the connection of port and city in the process of reconstruction, the aforementioned Inner Circle of Rotterdam Club being one of them (317-318). With his 1946 plan for reconstruction van Traa consequently stressed the connection of port and city. In contrast to earlier focal points in reconstruction, however, under van Traa matters of social coherence were treaded with increasing importance. Social issues that had already occurred at the brink of the century began to regain momentum in the immediate post-war period. Building up on these concerns, the reconstruction now gave great importance to the creation of public space in relation to the connection of port and city. With this, van Traa hoped to achieve a collective identity under what he called 'openness'. Out of the desire to create an entity of port and city through the mean of public space, the Window to the River developed, a passageway stretching from the north down to the waterfront. Ultimately, the corridor connected to the new Maas Boulevard, a traffic axis the occupied the former area of the dike with a wide tree-lined street (Meyer: 318-321). Despite these efforts, the link between port and liveable city continually decreased. On the one hand, this was owed to the fact, that harbour operations kept moving westwards, away from the city centre, due to the shift in port logistics that came with the rise of containerisation, a process that became a major element in the imminent economic globalisation (Stadsontwikkeing Rotterdam, 1981: 140-141). Simultaneously, in 1953, the Netherlands experienced heavy flooding, which lead to the introduction of the Delta Act, a law that would introduce a new minimum height for dikes surrounding populated areas, thereby 'closing the window to the city' and thus weakening its attempt to physically connect port and city. Consequently, the focus for reconstruction on the north and northwest was strengthened, neglecting the connection of the Waterstad area as a liveable part of the city and, by extension, the Kop van Zuid, which by the end of the 1960s had become an “urban enclave” (Meyer: 322-325).

Image 4: The 'Window to the River' from the inner city connecting to the Maas Boulevard (Source: Meyer, 1999)

4.2 Displacement and Exceptionalism – Port and City in Hamburg

By the end of the 17th century the port of Hamburg port demanded for expansion to satisfy the surge in harbour activities. Over the course of the 18th century, expansion of the port steadily increased within the political boundaries of the city. In the 1770s numerous additional marine structures were introduced, eventually establishing the port of Hamburg as a main spot for colonial trade (Teuteberg, 1972: 265). The site of the former Großer Grasbrook island, on which HafenCity is built, was located at the gates of the city. Within the city walls, where eventually the Speicherstad would be built, laid the residential neighbourhoods of Kehrwieder and Wandrahm (279). The great fire of 1842 destroyed a quarter of the city centre. About 4,000 residential dwellings burned down, making approximately 10% of the population homeless. In the course of the reconstruction new for housings as well as dwellings for port administration were constructed and connected to a newly built central water supply and control system (280). In the course of the 19th century, again problems of capacity arose. The size of the port was no longer sufficient and called for further enlargement. The sites on Großer Grasbrook thereby offered an obvious location for the expansion of the port. In 1868, territories were quarried to establish the first artificial harbour basin, followed by the Grasbrookhafen in 1881. Numerous harbour basins followed until the entire island was occupied with port facilities (286).

With the Proclamation of the German Empire in 1871, Hamburg became part of the Deutsches Reich. At the time, the national territory of Hamburg was a free-trade area, a privilege the city faced to lose with the annexation. The Customs Connection Agreement of 1881, however, managed to evade this problem. In an effort not to burden the Hamburg trade and commerce, which also came with economic benefits for the Deutsches Reich, the creation of a specific free- trade zone was suggested. In this future enclave the traditional privileges of the Hamburg merchants should continue. This marked the beginning of the construction of the Speicherstadt (Interview HH2, HH3; Kähler, 2009: 10-13). Around 106 million Reichsmark were invested for the construction of new port areas in the Speicherstadt, 40 of which came from the Reich itself. The creation of the free-trade zone furthermore came with the displacement of approximately 20,000 people. Many of the residents moved to the new working-class neighbourhoods of Barmbek and Hammerbrook. The Speicherstadt officially opened in 1888 whereby about one third of the overall construction was completed (Michalski, 2010: 213). Ultimately, the construction of the Speichersstadt came siultanious with the expansion of the port over the river Elbe. The expansion was driven by the decision to develop the port as a tidal basin. Ultimately, the ongoing economic importance of the port of Hamburg rests on this very decision. In the course of containerisation ports based oock basins, like for example the port of London, could not adapt to the necessary spatial changes for continuing port activities (Preuß, 2016: 31-32) In 1885, the Hamburger Freihafen-Lagerhaus-Gesellschaft (HFLG) took control of the further realisation and administration of the Speicherstadt. This resulted in the creation of a public company: the city contributed the land holdings of 30,000 m2 and the Norddeutsche Bank came up with the necessary share capital. In the years to come a fund was built from the dividend, which enabled the city to buy back the shares from the bank. From 1927 on, the city of Hamburg was the sole shareholder. The headquarters were completed in 1902, where the Hamburg Port and Logistics AG (HHLA) resided, which emerged from the HFLG in 1885 (Teuteberg, 1972: 290- 291). In the early 20th century Hamburg was ruled by a conservative government sceptical of all things new in the political sphere unless they related to the modernisation of port logistics and infrastructure. The city was struggling with the 'social issue'. In addition to the common urban problems of industrialising cities – air pollution, deficient or no sanitation, lack of light, cramped spaces, poor hygiene – the city was hit by a vast cholera epidemic in 1892. In light of the ongoing decay of social focal points city authorities began to act and consequently started to put large efforts for the renovation and new construction of problematic neighbourhoods (Kähler, 2009: 13-19).

In the course of World War II approximately half of the built volumes were destroyed. The reconstruction of the Speicherstadt followed a true-to-original approach and was completed in 1967. The reconstruction ultimately profited from the expansion of the city boundaries under Nazi Germany. The city surface had enlarged from 415 to 745 km2, an expansion that was mainly owed to the annexation of municipalities of Alton, Wandsbeck and Wilhelmsburg-Harburg, all in more or less close proximity of the port. Hamburg could thus approach its reconstruction with the former conflicts with surrounding communities (Preuß, 2016: 31-32). In the course of the second half of the 20th century the port of Hamburg began to relocate. This became evident already during the reconstruction era. The island of the Großer Grasbrook, which had been developed into a harbour area less than one hundred years before, was only partly used for port operations. The area west of the Magdeburger Hafen was abandoned until the mid 1950s, when the site was chosen for the construction of a heating plantFurther abandoned was the Strandkai until the site was turned into an area storage tank in 1964. With the emergence of new transhipment systems came the construction of the first container terminal westwards along the river Elbe, marking the beginning of the withdrawal of the port from the city centre (Bebauungsplan HafenCity 6, 2012).

4.3 Similarities, Disparities and Patterns I

The spatial and social urban development around the port of Rotterdam over the last approximately two hundred years had one common denominator, namely the continuous attempt to connect port functions with liveable space. In a first stage, covering most of the 19th and the early 20th century, city and port gradually kept interweaving, both spatially and socially. In a second stage, stretching from the early 20th century up to 1940, the city attempted to prevent the loss of attraction of the port as a public space by approaching the creation of an organic entity of port and city under the paradigm of functional planning. The third stage was marked by the reconstruction in the immediate the post-war period, which focussed on establishing a new wide-ranging city centre on the north bank. This third stage is furthermore characterised by the vast expansion of riverways as a reaction to new large-scale operational demands in harbour operations, resulting in the explicit withdrawal of the port from the city centre (see also Meyer: 298). Based on the short historical research of urban port development in Hamburg, it can be assumed, that the connection of port and liveable city was given less significance than in Rotterdam. The spatial expansion of the port developed under a strong paradigm of the economic importance of harbour activities. Albeit that the port areas were mixed in usage and demographic, not dissimilar to the case of Rotterdam, urban development around the harbour

seems to have largely followed the city's special constitutional setting. This becomes especially evident with the decreed displacement of residents for the construction of the Speicherstadt. At length, the status of a city-state and the consequent foundation of a free-trade zone in Hamburg also came with a specific characteristic difference as opposed to the case of Rotterdam. In Rotterdam, the port areas were always accessible, for the most part, public sphere, whereas the free-trade zone in Hamburg established a quasi-enclave within the city states boards that as physically separated not only politically but also physically through walls and fences (Interview HH2).

5. Politics, Culture and Planning

The following chapter serves to embed the preceding historical research in a political-cultural context. The focus thereby lays on structures of governance and politics of the Netherlands and Germany in general, and on the two different local-political systems of Rotterdam and Hamburg in specific, on the one hand. On the other, the research attempts to uncover prevailing planning theories and practices and divide them into periods. It seems crucial to mention, that the political structures and adjacent planning policies reflect the situation as valid up to the late 20th century. This results in a somewhat conjectured historical narrative of each city's planning tradition against the backdrop of their political-cultural settings. Nonetheless, the approach is methodical. The overarching political-cultural settings are linked to arrangements in governance, policy- and decision-making processes in urban renewal and the evolution of planning systems and strategies, by extension. At length, this approach results in a historical account of what could be called an outline of each city's planning traditions against the backdrop of is political settings over the last approximately 150 years.

5.1 Rotterdam, The Netherlands

The country of the Netherlands surfaces over approximately 41,5 km2. It is a densely-populated nation of approximately 17,2 million people, resulting in a population density of 415 inhabitants per km2 (CBS, n.d.). The Netherlands are often regarded as being successful both in advancing the development of sustainable urban areas as well as in promoting economic and social equality. For example, income taxes go to the central government, which then tries to even out disparities among municipalities (see RTM1). Furthermore, Dutch policies for social integration, including integrated area approaches and strategic neighbourhood management, are said to have helped improving liveability in areas known as social focal points (URBED, 2008: 4). In spite of changing governments, the Netherlands can look back on a history of a solid social democratic organism (Interview RTM4). The political system features three overarching layers of government: the national, the provincial and the municipal. The twelve provinces represent the administrative layer between the national government and the local municipalities. Their responsibilities are thus limited to matters of subnational and/or regional importance, among which is the handling of spatial and economic planning of rural and interurban areas. The spatial, economic and social development of the urban areas falls under the responsibility of the local municipalities. The political organisation of proportional representation leads to broad coalition amongst parties. Consequently, large efforts are being put into consensus building and mediating between the political layers as well as between different groups of interest (Andeweg & Galen,

2009: 169-170, OECD, 2007: 40). This translates to a predominantly corporatist, pragmatic and managerial planning approach, contrasting with the more liberal and entrepreneurial approaches in many other European countries (URBED, 2008: 5-6). The inclusive approach of the Dutch political system is reflected in the country's planning tradition. Development on the basis of consensus building between the main political levers of governance ultimately lays at the heart of Dutch planning (Van Traa, 1957: 14). Historically, the most central roles are thereby played by the participation and involvement of all levels of administration and management, the building of synergies between planning and implementation in land use or the close connection of land use planning and zoning with property policies. In the late 20th century further facets gained importance such as the creation of a more dynamic urban planning system and an increasingly coupling planning advancements to their respective environment, both spatially and in terms of program scenarios (Fassbinder, 1995: 23- 24). Spatial planning in the Netherlands furthermore has a tradition of collaboration in order to discourage urban sprawl. For example, the four largest Dutch cities (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Den Haag, Utrecht) voluntarily collaborate in order to preserve the Groene Heart (Dutch for “green heart”), a lightly populated area in the Randstad, a megalopolis in the central west of the country consisting primarily of said four cities and their surrounding areas (URBED, 2008: 5-6). However, the central government plays an important part in the Dutch planning system as it continually pursues a path in land use planning in an effort to encourage the subordinated administrative levels to realise projects accordingly. The state finances vital developments such as overarching infrastructural projects or land rehabilitation in exchange for the collaboration of the provinces and municipalities. The financial risks for additional regional or urban development projects like local infrastructure, housing, creation and maintenance of landscapes or the establishment of sites commerce lays with the province or municipality, respectively (Fassbinder, 1995: 24). The above described three-layered political system of the Netherlands – state, province, municipality – provides a somewhat constricted view of reality, however. This becomes particularly evident in the case of metropolitan areas and planning related issues. Large cities are usually surrounded by smaller municipalities. These smaller municipalities can potentially hinder or block development initiatives from the city's municipality. In the mid 1980s, Dutch cities furthermore got divided into boroughs with their own administration. Consequently, there are five political and administrative layers that play into planning: state, province, municipality, urban agglomeration (the smaller municipalities surrounding a city), and borough (urban districts with

spearate administration). Decision-making processes therefore have a tendency to be long- winded and ambiguous (Fassbinder, 1995: 25). The Dutch planning system traditionally assigns an official authority to be responsible for urban design. This authority thus not only creates integral plans for the spatial development but furthermore actively designs individual sites as a basis for further development plans. Additionally, the assigned authority is accountable for the assistance and supervision during the implementation of projects based on its plans. The financial risks on the public sector's side are thereby partly carried by the city. Together with private investors, public development associations share financial risks for urban development projects (Fassbinder, 1995: 27). This aligns with to the definition of public-private-partnerships (PPP). i.e. the cooperative arrangements between public and private sectors (Hodge & Greve, 2007). The public sector, to some extent, is thereby represented by the city board of mayor and aldermen, usually in coalition between different political parties (Rotterdam.nl, n.d.). The collaboration between the public and the private sector in the Dutch planning has a much longer tradition, however. In 1901, the country introduced the Housing Act, a law that regulated public subsidies for private housing corporations. In Rotterdam, the private enterprise in general, and members of the urban elite in specific, took many initiatives for the betterment of housing and urban planning between the mid 19th and mid 20th century. This usually started with the foundation of typical housing associations by idealistic liberal members of the elite. The private sector thereby played the dominant role for the advancement of housing, a constellation that lasted until World War II, albeit with some discontinuities (De Klerk, 1998; Interview RTM4). World War I caused a vast economic crisis. In the aftermath of this the role of the role public sector in housing significantly increased. The city government subsidised housing corporations and advanced direct initiatives for social housing. With a largely recovered economy in the early/mid 1920s, the more common trace of the private sector dominating housing development returned. In the 1930s, against the backdrop of the Great Depression, however, the public sector again functioned as the helping hand by subsidising the private housing sector. Nonetheless, in light of the severe situation, in which of local and global economies were at the time, the private sector was startlingly strong, as Len de Klerk stresses (Interview RTM4). After World War II the private sector regained its strong momentum. In the post-war decades of the 1950s and 1960s housing was again dominated by private corporations. De Klerk furthermore accounts the period from the 1920s up to the late 1960s as the root for the housing crisis in the 1970s, where poor quality of new and the lack of maintenance of old dwellings became increasingly problematic (Interview RTM4). However, the overall planning approach of Rotterdam from the 1940s to the 1970s was also marked by an increasingly visible public discourse around

and participation in planning. The paradigm of modernism and inspiration from past and present planning theories thereby played a central role (Rooijendijk, 2006). In 1974, a socialist government was elected in Rotterdam (Interview RTM4; De Kleijn, 1986). Under their political umbrella, the advancement of public housing gained greater importance. At length, this was a reaction to the housing crisis as well as to the ongoing physical and social decay of many parts of the city (Interview RTM3, RTM4). In the course of this political change in course, the city government started the acquisition of dwellings in 11 areas in an effort to renew them. In the course of this, owners were required to sell their property to the authorities in order to renew them. A characteristic feature thereby was the fact, that the acquisition did not follow a particular scheme. Resulting in a scattered plot for renewal approaches somewhat arbitrarily distributed over the city, thereby impeding the notion of spatial contraction (Schuiling, 1982: 5-6; Zonneveld, 1989: 44-45). Generally, the 1970s marked in important moment in the Rotterdam planning system and strategy. The concept of the welfare state manifested itself with a government that was increasingly concerned about the redistribution of income and power. However, the system was disrupted with the global economic recession hitting countries over the course of the decade (Zonneveld: 45). In the early 1980s, he centre-right composition of the national government abandoned much of welfare state practices, leaving matters of redistribution largely behind and focussing on economic growth. In planning, this resulted in the strengthening of PPPs, which had somewhat faded into the background in the post-war decades. Citizen groups and bottom-up initiatives, which had a stable place in the Dutch planning tradition, had less impact, leading to a change in participative planning, to some extent (46). The national political settings arguably contributed to a shift from the public to the private sector in urban renewal. The subsidised improvement of public housing as approached by the city council in 1974 fell increasingly short under the centre-right leadership. In spite of Rotterdam having a predominantly socialist local government, the shift came with consequences for the city. Foremost magnitudes thereby were increasing social fragmentation, the stagnation of urban renewal schemes and the neglection of demands of lower-income groups (Van den Ham & Stouten, 1988: 254). This dynamic can also be seen against the backdrop of an increasing economic crisis in the city that climaxed in 1984. Collective funds for urban renewal projects slowed down and the focus on urban renewal under a social paradigm was increasingly questioned (Engebrink & Miedema, 2001: 117). Generally, the collaboration between governments (national and local) and the private sector somewhat tapered over the course of the 20th century. Although the public and private sector have a long-standing tradition of cooperating, the role of private associations and investors in

planning was enforced, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s. Nonetheless, the planning system and strategy in Rotterdam kept a strong centralised focus. Urban development projects usually originate from and are controlled by municipal authorities. This is also reflected in social planning approaches, in which, although predominantly a public affair, private organisations increasingly took initiative for development projects with pointcast unions with municipal authorities. As a consequence of this more network-oriented approach, planning practice acquired a kind of ad hoc attitude, “adapting to the problems encountered, building upon past experience and being path bound by the projects underway” (Engebrink & Miedema: 123-124).

5.2 Hamburg, Germany

The country of Germany stretches over approximately 357,5 km2 with a populace of 82,800,000 and a population density of 232 inhabitants per km2 (Statistikportal, n.d.). Germany is organised as a political federation. In this particular system political entity is characterised through the union of partially self-governing provinces, states, or other regions under a central federal government. Germany features sixteen provinces (German: Bundesländer), which, based on the federalist political structure, each have their own executive, legislative and judiciary organs. The thereby established second subnational layer of governance significantly influences decision- making processes on the national level. The majority of legislative processes happen on the layer of the national government. However, the provinces are largely independent in administration and to some extent even in the dispensation of justice. The second layer of the separation of powers, namely the layer on the level of the provinces, thus becomes a significant lever for the function of the federal state. Within this system, city-states constitute a political and administrative anomaly. In addition to the common ministries of municipalities and provinces, city-states are reliable for certain tasks usually falling into the responsibility of the national government. With this comes the so-called 'city-state privilege', the betterment within the stately distributed equalisation payments (BMJV, n.d.). The outliner case of Hamburg as a city-state is also reflected by its tradition in commerce. In the 16th century the Association of the Honourable Merchant of Hamburg was founded (German: Vereinigung des Ehrbaren Kaufmanns zu Hamburg, VEEK). The association was to steer the trade activities of the city and gain influence on the political level. Furthermore, it represented the honours of merchants, a somewhat elitist group that was to take significant influence on the decision-making processes for the development of the port (Interview HH2). However, this self- conception could not entirely dominate planning system and strategies. The wide-spread

advances of social housing advancements under Oberbaudirektor4 Fritz Schumacher in the first half of the 20th century accounts for a balance in urban development (Interview HH2, HH3; Schumacher, 1984: 11-12). Although planning under social premises was habitually present in Hamburg over the last 150 years, to some extent, the planning system and strategy was always significantly influenced and steered by market mechanisms. This dynamic dates back to the mid 19th century. The dilemma of Hamburg's planning approach thus laid in having to plan and implement urban development in a society that functions according to market rules. The possibilities of steering and controlling planning approaches in the public sector are consequently limited (Rodriguez-Lores & Fehl, 1985: 91-100; Schubert, 1981: 240-241). Under Nazi Germany a radical cut in urban planning was announced. The idea of drastically reshaping planning and design of urban and regional areas, however, lacked implementation. Although numerous compulsory acquisitions of private property came into play, planning largely followed the imprints of earlier trajectories. After the fall of the Third Reich and the subsequent remodelling of the political landscape, policies installed by the regime became irrelevant. Urban development approaches of the Nazi regime generally did not get far, resulting in a vast incongruity between aims set by the regime and their realisation (Häußermann et al. 2008: 66- 72). In the aftermath of the reconstruction of the city after World War II, the 1950s and 1960s were marked by urban expansion to the periphery as the dominant planning approach. For example, in 1965 the group Freie Planungsgruppe Berlin was founded. Organised as a co-operative the collective aimed at planning approaches under socialist premises (Sieverts, 2013: 198). The group suggested the concept of a satellite town to be built in Billwerder-Allermöhe, at the periphery of Hamburg. Initially planned to house 80,000 people, the plans were brought to a near halt and the number of future inhabitants reduced to 9,000 (Kähler, 2009: 166-169). Hamburg, too, shifted its planning focus from spatial expansion to inner-city development.

5.3 Similarities, Disparities and Patterns II

In the last quarter of the 19th century politics and planning attempted to control urban explosion in the course of industrialisation. Planning focussed on the development of necessary housing with adjacent infrastructure, an approach that stretched into the early 20th century. From roughly the 1920s onwards, planning became more concerned with the distribution of human activities,

4 Official title of the Hamburg director for urban development (public authority).

whereby zones for specialised functions ruled policy-making. In the 1950s, the Dutch planning system began to gradually dissolve the dichotomy between the city and the countryside, setting the stage for the focus on inner-city development. In the early/mid 1970s planning was largely dominated by attempts of urban renewal under the umbrella of social housing. The paradigm of urban renewal continued to play a central role in urban development in the 1980s and 1990s. However, the renewal approach more and more followed aims of economic growth and privatisation. The dissolution of the 1901 Housing Act in 1995 on the national level, which stopped all subsidies for social housing, stands exemplary for this (Interview RTM4; Wagenaar, 2015: 568- 569). At length, it can be assumed that the Netherlands has a largely consensus-oriented and inclusive political system. This is echoed in the planning system, not least in a national policy layer of port related politics. In Hamburg, on the other hand, planning has a tradition of following the necessity of port development embedded in the political system of a city-sate in federalism (Interview HH1).

6. Urban Waterfront Developments in Rotterdam and Hamburg

The process of transforming waterfronts in western cities is connected with two interwoven global dynamics. Firstly, the shift to containerisation due to economic changes, accompanied by the restructuring of shipping and cargo handling facilities and the consequent withdrawal of ports from the city centres, usually towards the sea. Secondly, the demise of state control against in the course of the financial crises of the 1970s, a backdrop that ultimately lead cities to compete in a global economic hierarchy. Over the 1950s and 1960s containerisation and other major technological innovations began to take hold, resulting in ports moving away from the city centres. This enabled new land-uses on territory formerly exclusively used for harbour operations. Against this backdrop many western cities began to transform abandoned brown lands into urban space (Schubert, 2001: 74).

6.1 Kop van Zuid

In the course of the harbour increasingly withdrawing from the city centre west towards the sea, the area of the Kop van Zuid decayed continually and noticeably. By the 1980s the area was known as one of the poorest in all of the Netherlands (Interview RTM3). In the 1960s, several dwellings for social housings were created in the areas south of the Kop van Zuid, mainly in Charlois and Feijenord. The Nederlandse Spoorwegen (the Dutch state-owned railway company) used parts of the areas for marshalling yard activities, adding railway tracks to the existing warehouses and thereby further supporting the separation of the area from the adjoining river (URBED, 2008: 17). In the late 1970s, first plans were issued to invest in planning efforts in the area. In the early and mid 1980s, approximately 750 dwellings for social housing were constructed, amongst them the now famous De Peperklip house, an elongated social housing- complex with a foot print resembling the shape of a paperclip. However, the main focus for the urban development programmes was still on smaller-scaled areas north of the Maas river (Interview RTM3). In 1969, the Plan 2000+ was presented, a development approach that emphasised the port moving westwards of the city on both sides of the river. The following Structuurnota 1972 plan proposed spatial expansion of the city through the creation of concentric traffic routes and public-transport lines that would connect the centre to the periphery. Development plans at that time typically came with the premise of social reorganisation. They usually proposed the demolition of existing residential dwellings in an effort to either replace them with new housing structures or to introduce new functions altogether. Most plans remained unimplemented, however, resulting in decreasing investments from both the public and the private sector. This

supported the neglection of the urban fringe, manifesting itself in the further decay of the periphery as well as the regions on the south bank, both on sites abandoned by harbour operations and existing residential areas. Consequently, initiatives sprouted that advocated a shift in development policy, taking away focus from the spatial expansion of the city to a new emphasis in the preservation of existing and development of new housing on the south bank (Meyer, 1999: 328-329). The overall calls for stressing the development of housing came with the refocussing on inner-city development. The demands were institutionally manifested in 1974 with the instalment of a new leftist city council under the PdvA (Partij van de Arbeid, the Dutch Labour Party). Under the socialist government the dominating approach over the last three decades of creating a city centre for commercial and business and developing residential areas on the periphery faded into the background in favour of housing developments in regions closer to the centre. This shift in policy marked a break in urban development, from the reconstruction era with its attempts to create a 'Central Business District' (CBD) and expand the city outskirts residentially, to the revival of inner-city development under the premise of public housing. Consequently, cultural and social aspects were emphasised in favour of previously dominating economic factors (Interview RTM1, RTM4; Meyer: 329). In the following years the idea of urban renewal with a focus on social and cultural aspects intensified. In order to solve the simultaneously rising conflict of setting preference to social or cultural aspects, the city was roughly divided into two territories: the city centre for cultural renewal and the existing residential districts for social renewal. This policy had broad support on the social as well as on the political level, not only from the municipality but also from the national government, which had moved to a more social democratic drift with the instalment of the Den Uyl cabinet in 1973 (Rijksoverheid, n.d.). Furthermore, the new policy approached some financial restructuring in urban development. Proceeds of the municipal Port Authority were released to subsidise the purchase of sites in selected urban renewal districts. Although the shift was supported by broad consensus in society and politics, the new emphasis in policy struggled with issues of implementation against the backdrop of three main themes dominating the discourse: the culturally vital city, the socially balanced city, the economically sound city (330-331). The one-sided emphasis of developing the inner-city as a cultural hub was soon renounced due to disagreements between city council and private harbour companies around the land-use of the Oude Haven area, the first site to be redeveloped under the premise. The ideal of a socially balanced city meant to achieve a balance between lower and higher incomes as well as between locals and new settlers. Decisions were thereby often left to individual neighbourhood associations, housing corporations or architects (StaRTM VI-E-77/1; StaRTM VI-E-77/2). The

lack of cohesive spatial and functional development lead to efforts of including 19th-century harbour areas into the redevelopment schemes. This marked break in urban development tradition of Rotterdam. Planning policies for harbour areas had focussed on the growth of port and port related commerce over the at least last 150 years (331-335). The rezoning of harbour areas for the development of housing equalled a small revolution. Its implementation, however, sturdily relied on the same land division that was dominant over the last decades and chiefly applied in suburban regions. This reinforced the voices of experts that criticised the lack of a coherent planning approach in the harbour. Simultaneously, the local opposition began to rise that saw the risk of further decay through the 'salami-slice strategy' that was now being approached for development of port areas largely abandoned by harbour operations (Interview RTM3). Consequently, in the early 1980s first cracks in the planning consensus of a social-democratic political base began to appear. In addition to the condemnation of a scattered planning approach, criticism was increasingly directed at a lack of economic focus in planning (Meyer 1999: 335). Spurred by the Port Authority and the Shipping Association South, amongst other institutions, the weight of developing the city not only socially but also an economically began to pour into official planning departments. This was largely based on the precarious economic situation of Rotterdam at the time. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the city faced growing unemployment rates (Engberink & Miedema, 2001; Fassbinder, 1993: 81; Interview RTM2, RTM3). The predicament of unemployment was accompanied by the ports necessity to transform itself in accordance with the ongoing shifts in global economic structures. In an effort to make the port of Rotterdam the Europe's main port, emphasis was put on converting from transhipment to distribution. In order to achieve this goal, the port had to be transformed from a workspace into a logistic hub. This called for the revitalisation of numerous port areas in an effort to attract businesses involved in advanced port operations (Interview RTM3; Meyer, 199: 336; StaRTM XXXIII-C-63). Consequently, existing policies concerned with a myriad of urban issues had to be adapted in order to fit the aims of a timely economic development of the port. The group Rotterdam Tomorrow, a collaboration between the Erasmus University, the Dutch Economic Institute and the Chamber of Commerce, thereby functioned as the spearhead of these approaches. In the course of this the previously abandoned focus on cultural development gained new momentum. In the mid 1980s, a new masterplan for inner-city development was adopted, the Binnenstadsplan, which largely focussed on the renewal of the Waterstad (StaRTM IX-E-6'). The plan was officially presented in 1985 and provided a blueprint for further collaboration between the planning departments of the municipality and private investors following economic interests.

Ultimately, it triggered the idea of developing waterfront sites formerly used for port activities into urban liveable areas, whereby it took large inspiration from Baltimore's renewed inner harbour (Interview RTM3; Meyer: 336-337). The shift in focus from scattered housing projects divided over the inner-city to the redevelopment of former port regions into a liveable urban area with a mix in use of business, culture and social life first cumulated in the 1985 plan for the Waterstad. In the course of more concrete planning approaches, however, it was soon discovered, that the area of the Waterstad was not ideal for the projected development. Experts agreed that a site for any such undertaking would have to offer a 'carte blanche' for urbanists and planners, i.e. it should be freed of as many limiting constrictions as possible. Based on the neglection of the Waterstad for the further advancement of the 1985 masterplan, the largely abandoned area of the Kop van Zuid across the river suggested itself for urban renewal (Interview RTM3; Meyer: 340; StaRTM XVI-F-39). At length, the decision to make Rotterdam a city on both sides of the river by connecting the north bank to the south bank and thereby creating a new city centre in the middle of the Maas was taken in the mid 1980s. After having largely neglected the area for the past decades, planning authorities now actively attempted to develop the Kop van Zuid. The starting point was thereby marked by Kees Christiaanse, whom, as part of his graduation in 1979, came up with a first study for the Kop van Zuid. In 1982, the Rotterdamse Kunststichting (RKS, Rotterdam Art Foundation), chose the Kop van Zuid as the area for the Architecture International Rotterdam (AIR) manifestation. World famous architects and planners, amongst them Aldo Rossi and Derek Walker, were commissioned to formulate developing plans for the area. This marked a new approach for urban renewal planning, idealistically echoing the revitalisation of abandoned harbour sites in other cities, such as Baltimore in the USA (Interview RTM3). Christiaanse argues (2010), that this specific approach not only was a logical development growing from the continuous physical and social decay of the area, but furthermore played a key role in putting the renewal Kop van Zuid on the local and national political map. Situated in a bend of the river the Kop van Zuid was the ideal location to connect the waning south bank of the city with the centre by creating a new and liveable urban region. Christiaanse furthermore attributes a large part to the success of the project to the “box of tricks of liberal social- democracy” (16). By inserting numerous public and cultural functions into the programme of the area such as the Court of Law, the Tax Office, the headquarters of the Post Service, the Luxor Theatre or the Photographic Museum, the development plans managed to accomplish wide acceptance in politics and amongst the population. By withdrawing central public functions from the inner-city north of the river and settling them on the Kop van Zuid as well as by adding

cultural hotspots, the development of the area thus not only physically but also politically, culturally and, ultimately, mentally attempted to form and establish a new city centre (16-17). Corresponding with the public functions the headquarters of the Port Authority were also located on the prominent Wilhelminapier. Accounts on the development of the Kop van Zuid from experts imply, that the city had great interests in keeping close relations to the operational organisation of the harbour (Interview RTM1, RTM3, RTM5). This eagerness to stay close together may partly be owed to the historical and cultural importance of the port for the city, which can be seen as a main trigger for the motivation of port cities to give focus on the development of their waterfronts (Interview RTM5). Both the local economy as well as the mentalities of the population largely depend on the continuous enterprise and image of a port city. The relationship of the city council and the operational authorities in the ports thus becomes a central lever in order to enable development in the respective areas. By extension, this close mental tie between local politics and port authority plays a central role in the shifts toward the privatisation of port operations with the aim of setting up new planning approaches. In the course of the planning of the project, state and the city came to a joint venture to semi- privatise the operational branches of the harbour. The overlaying governmental company, owned by the city and the state, with the municipality of Rotterdam holding approximately 70% and the Dutch national government approximately 30% in shares (Port of Rotterdam, n.d.). The privatisation under a governmental and municipal umbrella significantly affected processes and financing of the extensions of the harbour. The privatisation of companies operating in the harbour lead to the creation of a more or less independent board with the authority of decision making in respect to the further expansion of port operations (Interview RTM1). The privatisation of port operations marked a break to earlier planning approaches, specifically in terms of financing. When the harbour was still under the authority of the director of urban planning of Rotterdam, every decision to invest in the harbour was a decision made on municipal level. Although the city of Rotterdam is represented as shareholder in the board through one of the aldermen and can thus yield the interests of the city council, to some extent, the decision to invest financially now predominantly laid in the private sector (Interview RTM1). Ultimately, the privatisation of the financial decision-making level also marked a shift in the contractual relations between principal and agent. Since spending capacities newly fell into the responsibility of a private body, the companies operating in the harbour now payed the municipality of Rotterdam for their planning efforts (Interview RTM1). The privatisation resulted from the economic significance and consequent political power of the Port Authority (Interview RTM1). This happened in the late 1970s and early 1980s, a period known today for the increasing privatisation of matters formerly under governmental and/or municipal authority.

In accordance with ongoing processes of privatisation, the development of the Kop van Zuid heavily relied on multi-actor governance. Numerous actors from the public as well as from the private sector were included. These actors can roughly be divided into local and national groups (for the public sector) and profit and non-profit groups (for the private sector). The implementation of the project thereby relied heavily on the interaction and collaboration between public and private actors. As a result of the inclusion of a myriad of stakeholders, decision- making became fragmented, ultimately leading to the “redistribution of policy-making powers, competencies, and responsibilities” (Tasan-Kok, 2009: 132). At the core of the project, however, laid a traditionally central controlling authority from the municipality steering the processes of policy-making, program scenarios, design and concrete implementation (Interview RTM2). The link between the public and private sector thereby was somewhat centralised also. Riek Bakker accounts that it was largely owed to her close friendship to the mayor of Rotterdam at the time, that the project could ultimately become reality. Out of this close relationship also grew the approach to divide the aldermen of Rotterdam into three sub groups, each given a specific scope of action. The tasks thereby revolved around spatial, social and financial aspects of the development (Interview RTM3). The grouping of the elderman furthermore lead to the approach, that development projects would have to be clustered. Riek Bakker accounts that she met a myriad of scattered development projects when she started working in Rotterdam.5 Out of these individual projects she formed clusters, combining several development attempts, which at times were basically single construction projects, in order to make the approachable through the alderman groups in the city council. This was furthermore important to gain the support from both the region as well as the national government, a crucial point since the success of the newly summarised development approaches, amongst them, most prominently, the Kop van Zuid, heavily relied on adjacent infrastructure, which was financed publicly (Interview RTM3). The policy- and decision-making processes in the early phase of the project were semi- transparent. Although the development process was evident in large parts, the project was announced to the public and presented in exhibitions already in early stages, the setting-up of the initial steps somewhat happened behind closed doors. Bakker argues this was necessity as the idea of investing in the development of the south bank was a radical step at the time. The south had been neglected in terms of social renewal, even under the socialist city council. As an

5 Len de Klerk disputes Riek Bakker's account, to some extent, albeit that he agrees with the notion that there were divided individual projects, which, in the course of the urban renewal program that came with Het Nieuwe Rotterdam, were gathered (Interview RTM4).

example of how much persuasiveness was necessary to set up investments, Bakker accounts, that before private investors for the renewal project could be approached, investors for port operations had to be convinced first (Interview RTM3; Leong, 2013: 141-142). This reflects the closely reciprocal powers that were part of the development of the project. On the one hand, the sites were to be transformed with new usages due to the physical and social decay of the area. On the other hand, this renewal was furthermore pushed by requests of potential international investors for port activities. In order to convince these potential investors, the city had to offer an attractive liveable environment. The waterfront development of the Kop van Zuid could offer that, albeit only if private investors for public buildings, commerce and housing could be found (Interview RTM3). Balancing and aligning the interests from the port operations with those of the Department for Urban Development was thus a core challenge of the project (Interview RTM2, RTM3).

6.2 HafenCity

After the reconstruction in the course of the massive destruction of the city in World War II container transhipping gradually increased from the mid 1950s onwards. The old harbour basins soon came to a capacity limit. Like in Rotterdam, the operational activities of the port kept moving out of the city, further west towards the sea. The sites on the Großer Grasbrook along the north bank of the river Elbe more and more became reduced to industrial waste land. Up until 2001 two port operating companies still used parts of the area for sporadic cargo containers transhipment between different transport vehicles and for storage space, respectively. In 2002 both companies relocated leaving the area disposed for development. The sale of the respective sites from the city to the Gesellschaft für Hafen und Standortentwicklung, the private body created for the urban development of the area, which turned into the HafenCity GmbH in 2004 (Bürgerschaft der Freien und Hansestadt Hamburg, 1997; Interview HH2, HH3). In the course of containerisation, the harbour area in Hamburg underwent shifts not only in respect to spatial changes but also in terms of usage. In the 1980s building volumes were initiated that introduced a new use and consequently demographic in the area. For example, the Building constructed in Hamburg-Neustadt, a neighbourhood within the perimeters of the port, was to become the new headquarters for the magazine Stern. This somewhat symbolised that the harbour not only withdrew physically but also in terms of occupying the areas mentally. In the coming development of the HafenCity, this dynamic would further be supported by placing cultural venues on harbour territory, such as the musical theatre. Processes like these basically worked as a wake-up call for the port economy. The port authorities consequently increasingly

mobilised their power to prevent new usages on ground formerly used for port operations (Interview HH2). Consequently, the port authorities started to be engaged more closely in decision- and policy- making processes. The secretive approach under which the project was approached arguably stands exemplary for a planning tradition under the premise of elitist decision-making. The earliest planning approaches for the HafenCity were accordingly kept in a secretive inner circle. The project was initiated by three people – masterplan architect Volkwin Marg, mayor Henning Voscherau and Peter Dietrich, CEO of the HHLA – that managed to maintain their plan a secret for several years before presenting the project to the public in 1997 (Kähler, 2016; Leong, 2013). The secretive approach roots in the concern, that the project would likely have been disputed on the political levels of Senat and Bürgerschaft. The ultimate success of this approach may also be owed to the fact, that the former free-trade area, where the HafenCity project would be implemented, was largely absent from the public perception (Interview HH2). Furthermore, the close tied between architect/planner, politics and the port resulted conditioned the approach of the city council buying property from the harbour in order to gather territory, which could then be re-sold to private investors to bankroll large parts of the development (Interview HH2, HH3).

6.3 Similarities, Disparities, Patterns III

The obvious similarity between both waterfront developments is the spatial situation of abandoned sites formerly used for harbour operations. When looking closer at the spatial aspects, however, a significant difference becomes evident. The spatial expansion of the Kop van Zuid into port territory created a new city centre for Rotterdam (or attempted to do so). In Hamburg, on the contrary, the HafenCity did not establish a new city centre. This is largely owed to the differing topographical situations of the waterfront developments. The Kop van Zuid could connect the north with the south by laying its spatial and programmatic focus on the Wilhelmina Pier. The adjoining Erasmus Bridge thereby marks the iconic nature of a (seemingly) relocated city centre. The distance between the north bank in Hamburg, where the HafenCity is situated, is significantly larger than the distance between the river sides in Rotterdam. More importantly, the HafenCity was not developed on a site inside or over the river Elbe, like the Kop van Zuid, but adjacent to the spatial city limits on the northside. A difference can be made out in the way the development of the projects was approached. Although also depending from personal relationships and close ties on official levels, the Kop van Zuid exemplified a largely inclusive approach in its developments. The HafenCity Hamburg, in turn, was set-up by an almost mysterious enclosed group that only presented its plans publicly at a late stage in the development process.

7. Path Analysis – History and Waterfront Developments

The following chapter links the planning pathways as unveiled through the historical research to the examination of the waterfront developments. The historical research had two main focuses. The first focus laid on the examination of urban port development in respect to shifts and changes of spatial and socio-demographic nature. The second focus was concerned with the creation of a sketch of each city's political and planning history. The pathway of urban port development is put in the macro-historical framework and recapped in a table, summarising the path shaping events in history. In accordance with the research part, the case of the Kop van Zuid in Rotterdam also dominates the ensuing analytical steps. The case of the HafenCity in Hamburg ultimately serves as a rough outline to test its aptness for a similar research and analytical approach.

7.1 Rotterdam: Historical Pathway of Urban Port Development

Since the mid 19th century spatial and social shifts in urban port development in Rotterdam were dominated by the attempt of connecting city and port, to some extent. The connection of port functions with urban liveable space is the central thread woven throughout the researched history of port development. However, the research also showed that the pathway of port-city connection experienced disruptions. For the following schematic representation, a new category is thus introduced (Table 1). Complementary to 'path shaping events' in history, 'path disrupting events' are listed, marking a disruption from the attempt to spatially and socially connect port and city. The connection of the Waterstad with the south bank in the mid 19th century was a direct advance in spatial planning to connect port and city. The quays offered a scenic view of the Nieuwe Maas river, making the site attractive for residential use. This enhanced the city's development towards the water, growing from north to south, ultimately leading to the Landstad (area within the dikes) to merge with the Waterstad (area outside the dikes). The southern waterfront of Rotterdam towards the river thereby more and more turned into an “urban façade” (Meyer: 292), where residential and office buildings dominated the front elevation of the city. The spatial and cultural connection of port and city in Rotterdam largely roots in this early combination of port infrastructure and public space. The disruptions of this path mainly occurred in the early/mid 20th century. Due to the rapid population growth in in the course of industrialisation, on the one hand, and due to institutional shifts in port administration and the paradigm of functional planning, on the other.

Year/period Path shaping event Path disrupting event Nature Effect

1840 Construction of a Spatial; social Approximation port and Canal Belt liveable city 1864 Expansion plan south Spatial Forecasted the link of the north-south bank

1872 Foundation of the Spatial; institutional Linked the north to the Rotterdamsche south bank; set up Handelsvereeniging business on the south bank 1878 Construction of the Spatial Linked the north to the Wilhelmsburg Bridge south bank

1878 Opening of the Spatial, social Expanded city territory Niewue Waterweg (annexations); new port functions supported population growth 1879 Bankrupcy of the Institutional Calls for more Rotterdamsche centralised planning Handelsvereeniging

1898 Harbour basins along Spatial Expanded port area to the river the south Late 19th/ “Civic culture” Spatial; institutional Advanced unitary early 20th cent. spatial development; merged economic, social and cultural developments 1926 Foundation of the Spatial; social; Controlling of port Department of Urban institutional expansion; emphasis Development on social aspects; new planning institution 1930s onwards Planning under the Spatial; social Transport infrastructure paradigm of the (Maastunnel 1942); functional city neglection of the areas (Fordism) south-east (Kop van Zuid) 1932 Autonomy of the Institutional; spatial; Shift in policy Municipal Port social responsibilities; port Authority developed as a separate spatial entity; neglection of the south bank in urban development 1940 Destruction of inner- Spatial; social New planning city paradigm (wide spaces); re-focus on port-city connection 1950s Relocation of dike Spatial Set a barrier to the link north-south bank 1953 Flooding of Rotterdam Institutional; spatial; Delta Act; weakening social connect port and city; focus on north bank

Table 1: Path shaping and disrupting events in urban port development (macro-historical)

7.2 Rotterdam: Historical Pathway of Politics and Planning

The Netherlands are often credited with being relatively classless. This is usually attributed to the ‘polder mentality’, a term that was coined by the notion of people collaborating to uphold the dikes in an effort to keep the sea away from populated areas (Interview RTM2; van Traa, 1957: 9-13). This mentality of cooperation is reflected in the political system of the Netherlands. Consensus building and the inclusion of different groups and stakeholder takes a prominent stand in Dutch politics. This ultimately rubs off on planning system and strategy, by extension. This consensus- leaning planning approach forms a rather consistent pathway since the late 19th/early 20th century. Albeit largely inclusive, the pathway is accompanied by a rather centralist planning system. Collaboration in planning between municipalities has a long tradition, as exemplified by the voluntary partnership of the Randstad to preserve the Green Belt. The collaborative approach is furthermore reflected by the overarching national government, which carries significant parts of the financial risks posed by planning implementation. At length, the collective nature of the Dutch urban planning tradition, in particular, is furthermore owed to the fact, that in the 1980s, cities in the Netherlands were divided into boroughs with individual administrations. Although not sometimes problematic, the co-operation between the municipality and its boroughs can largely be seen as successful (Interview RTM1). Complementary to the pathway of consensus building, the historical research has highlighted a path of public-private collaboration in the Dutch planning tradition. From the mid 19th century on, possibly earlier, housing was mostly developed by private investors. With the introduction of the Housing Act in 1901, triggered by the 'social issue', the public sector increasingly channelled the private sector in an effort to achieve better living conditions for the population. This possibly marks the start of a public-private partnership in housing. The partnership basically prevailed over the course of the 20th century. However, similar to the trajectory in urban port development, the pathway experienced regular disruptions. Interestingly, these disruptions tended to happen in a moment of crisis, manifesting themselves in the partial demise of the private sector and the simultaneous strengthening of the public sector. In the late 20th century this path fairly softened. The impact of shifts on the global economic landscape arguably helped strengthening the private sector. This resulted a planning system that increasingly emphasised economic interests. Although still mainly centralised and consensus oriented, urban planning gradually took a network-oriented direction with an attitude of reacting to market forces.

7.3 Kop van Zuid and Path Dependence

The following tables collect conditioning moment that lead to the conditioned path shaping events, which ultimately enabled the waterfront development of the Kop van Zuid. Based on the research, three striking conditioning moments have crystallised. Firstly, the political and public opposition to the advance of developing the area with social housing lead to the renouncement of the approach. Secondly, the area came into the focus of a new development paradigm under the premise of urban regeneration and mixed usage. Thirdly, privatisation and shifting property rights in the harbour area set the terrain for the further development of the project. Each conditioning moment as summarised in a table thereby gathers the spatial/institutional processes and their respective motions.

Conditioning Moment: Political and public opposition to social housing development

Conditioned by:

Spatial/Institutional Process Motion: Plan 2000+ (1969) (unimplemented) Continuous physical decay of the area; continuous social focal point Structuurnota (1972) (unimplemented) Continuous physical decay of the area; continuous social focal point Den Uyl Cabinet (national) (1973) National overarching social policies influencing local municipalities Socialist City Council (1974) Re-focussing on social development; economic factors in the background

Table 2: Conditioning moment of political and public opposition to social housing development (as conditioned by spatial/institutional processes) (zoom-in)

Conditioning Moment: New redevelopment paradigm

Conditioned by:

Spatial/Institutional Process Motion: Architecture International Rotterdam (1982) Developing the area with mixed use; establishing a new city centre Focus on economic development of the port (early/mid Critical economic situation of Rotterdam; high 1980s) unemployment rates Binnenstadplan (1985) Adapting existing policies in accordance with the aim of economic port development Masterplan Kop van Zuid (1986) The Waterstad proved not to be suitable for the aim of urban renewal (1985)

Table 3: Conditioning moment of new redevelopment paradigm (as conditioned by spatial/institutional processes) (zoom-in)

Conditioning Moment: Privatisation, shifts in property rights

Conditioned by:

Spatial/Institutional Process Motion: Privatisation of financial decision-making Global economic restructuring New contractual relations between principal and agent Semi-privatisation of the Port Authority Establishment of Port Authority as a separate corporate Need for outsourced administration of port territories body

Table 4: Conditioning moment of privatisation and shifts in property rights (as conditioned by spatial/institutional processes) (zoom-in)

7.4 Historical Path Dependence?

The analysis results in an overarching pathway of urban port development with the aim of connecting port and city as the path shaping force. The spatial port development and its connection to the liveable city thereby poses a dominant, all-encompassing trajectory. Consequently, the research pathways unveiled through the historical research are subordinate to the trajectory of spatial port development. Since the port bears significant economic and cultural importance, developments other than those aiming at functional aspects for port activities follow the principal of the respective economically and culturally shaped pathway. Since the late 19th and early 20th century a path of housing development in Rotterdam can be observed. The path sets in with the population growth due to industrialisation and manifests itself in the interwar period, ultimately “locking-in” in the post war period with its focus on urban expansion to the outskirts. The path is arguably broken by the waterfront development of the Kop van Zuid. The renouncement of social development policies and the large emphasis on mixed usage. Furthermore, the shifts in property rights in the harbour area and the weight given to private investors in the development accounts for a further change in planning trajectory. At length, the waterfront development of the Kop van Zuid seems to partially break-away from the established planning pathway. However, the break-away is not as radical as initially assumed when approaching this study. Rather it is presented by light shifts in planning approaches in terms of programme scenarios, the division of controlling authorities for the planning processes and matters of financing and property rights. When setting the case study of the Kop van Zuid against the backdrop of the shock of ports withdrawing from the centres, the crucial position given to private stakeholders in the development of the projects arguably marks the most significant break-away from the previous path. The private sector pushed the city government into a role of a warrantor, i.e. the city guaranteed the development by a) setting spatial conditions for planning/construction and b) by

confirming to move public services to the area. Although the public sector steered the development, decision-making was closely linked to the economic interests of private investors, which accounts for a break with the over the one hundred years before, where in moments of crisis the public sector dominated.

8. Conclusion and Further Research

The thesis at hand examined to what extent the historical inquiry of a specific urban space can unveil path dependence in planning. Simultaneously, the thesis attempted to find events in the further development of said space that enabled a deviation from alleged path dependence. The research approached the subject under the overarching hypothesis that the waterfront development of the Kop van Zuid accounts for a break with a historically established planning pathway in Rotterdam. Along the way, the research meant to explore the suitability of the HafenCity case for a meticulous comparison to the Kop van Zuid. Path dependence in planning in port areas comes into play in different facets. Different paths can be unveiled when looking at the historical development of the urban development in port areas. A rather obvious path is that port cities have a quasi-obligation or liability to develop port areas as part of their cultural heritage as well as out of the economic importance of the port. An additional path, emerging out of this one and basically setting the premise for the thesis, is the spatial necessity of ports developing away from the city centre. Consequently, this results in a kind of hierarchy in planning paths. At length, path dependence as a concept and term seems somewhat too rigid in respect to urban development. As the research has shown, the waterfront development of the Kop van Zuid marked a break with a given path but not with another. It could be argued that the two-tiered method approached for this thesis results in a mismatch. There seems to be a bump in linking the findings from the meticulous research for the case studies with the roughly outlined historical research. However, connecting the two research levels unveils first conclusions in respect to the relation of historical planning trajectories to current planning regimes. Furthermore, the approach provides a theoretical and methodological basis for future more in-depth research. Ultimately, it seems crucial to mention that the research with the employment of PDT does not unveil causalities, in spite of the fact, that the notion of positive feedback, as elaborated by Sydow et al. (2009), evidently presumes a causal chain. The two cases of the Kop van Zuid and the HafenCity have shown to be suitable for comparison. The development of both projects rests on initiatives from and collaboration between actors in the public and private sector. The central common denominator thereby is the fact that these initiatives entail processes of rethinking in respect to the use of the respective spaces. Furthermore, both developments largely depended on a close relationship between port authorities and local municipalities. This is moreover reflected in the financing of the projects,

which in both cases to a large extent were carried by public-private partnerships. as well as in the decision-making and networking of the developments. Further research could generally approach a more thorough and detailed look on developments along the historical timeline. From the macro-level to the meso-level in the historical research and from the meso-level to the micro-level in the case studies. In addition to literature study, an extended archive search thereby would potentially provide more in-depth insights (records, meeting minutes, oral history, etc.). Ultimately, this might result in an examination on the micro-level for the historical part as well. To what extent looking through the lens of micro-history is compatible with the long-term approach of macro-history as represented by HI would have to be investigated. A more detailed focus on the evolution of planning institutions would allow for a more precise alignment of the macro-historical overview with the case studies. For example, a more thorough illustration/chronology of mentalities and their effect on politics, formal and informal institutions and, by extension, planning systems and strategies could be approched. This could be further supported by a more careful illustration and chronology of political periods, i.e. aligning the interdependencies and reciprocal effects between national, regional and local governments with the emergence of planning systems and strategies. In the spirit of HI this would result in looking into the political history of the countries before 1800 (absolutism, feudalism) and how the development of more centralised nation state structures was perceived in what was formerly a cluster of independent or semi-dependent cities and regions. An additional focus could furthermore be laid on the development of international planning movements and theories and how they relate to the development of port-city connections. At length, the study at hand has shown that PDT works as a tool to unveil historical pathways in planning and to relate these pathways to more recent urban development practices. However, there are shortcomings in the framework in terms of empirical findings. For example, the idea of a narrowing scope of influence (in respect to historical events) is basically asserted for now. An in-depth research is necessary in order to verify the idea, that the more path shaping events affect a trajectory, the smaller the scope of potential event influencing said trajectory becomes. Furthermore, the framework of PDT as created for the purpose of this thesis lacks presumably central aspects such as 'opportunity' and 'cycle'. Including such factors would potentially allow to better understand how conditioned events relate to opportunism and periodics in decision making. Ultimately, this also underlines the dilemma of the historian of having to restrict and limit their research scope. This also reflected in the quasi-juxtaposition of the second research part (political landscapes and planning traditions). The collocation results in a categorisation of

planning systems and planning strategies, which arguably is more theoretical than methodological, thereby raising the question of how interdependencies between structure and strategy could be examined (Alfred Chandler, 1962). Although helpful, the framework of PDT is thus also somewhat constraint, reflecting the spirit of an utterance allegedly coined by statistician George Box: “All models are wrong, however, some are useful.”

9. References

Sources

• Bürgerschaft der Freien und Hansestadt Hamburg (1997). Mitteilung des Senats an die Bürgerschaft. Finanzierung der Zukunftsinvestition "Hafenerweiterung Altenwerder" [online]. Available at: https://www.landtag.nrw.de/portal/WWW/dokumentenarchiv/Dokument/GGD15-7461.pdf (Accessed 22 July 2018).

• StaRTM VI-E-77/1. Legloop en toeloop, volgnummer 332. Gemeentebestuur van Rotterdam (1979).

• StaRTM VI-E-77/2. Legloop en toeloop, volgnummer 330. Gemeentebestuur van Rotterdam (1980).

• StaRTM IX-E-6'. Binnenstadsplan Rotterdam 1985. Bijstelling von het Basisplan 1946. Stadsontwikkeling, Grondbedrijf en Verkeersdienst Rotterdam (1984).

• StaRTM XXXIII-C-63. Hoog en laag op de Kop van Zuid. Ontwerpstudies bebouwingsmogelijkheden van de Landtong. Dienst Stadsontwikkeling en Volkshuisvesting de Rotterdam (1987).

• StaRTM XVI-F-39. De Kop van Zuid. Een stedebouwkundig ontwerp.BV ontwerpbureau ir. Teun Koolhaas Associates (1987).

• StaRTM I-A-39. De Kop van Zuid, uitvourbaarheidsrapportage. Tripartite Werkgroep Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu, Provincie Zuid-Holland, Gemeente Rotterdam (1988).

• StaRTM I-A-34. Bestemmingsplan De Kop van Zuid. Projectgroep Kop van Zuid, Dienst Stedebouw & Volkshuisvesting (1991).

• StaRTM XXXVIII-A-737. Project Rotterdam De Kop van Zuid. Historische Structuuranalyse, TU-Delft, werkgroep Restauratie (Van Voorden, F.) (1991).

• StaRTM IV-B-20/2. Stadsplan Rotterdam. Een visie op de ruimtelijke ontwikkeling van Rotterdam tot 2005. Dienst Stedebouw & Volkshuisvesting, Gemeentebestuur Rotterdam (1992).

• StaRTM XVII-A-64. De Kop van Zuid, Programmascenari. Projectgroep Kop van Zuid (Van den Bout, J., Van Teeffelen, J.), Dienst Stedebouw & Volkshuisvesting (1993).

Numbers and Statistics

• BMJV, Bundesministerium für Justiz und Verbraucherschutz (n.d.). Gesetz über den Finanzausgleich zwischen Bund und Ländern (Finanzausgleichsgesetz - FAG) § 9 Einwohnerzahl [online]. Available at: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/finausglg_2005/__9.html (Accessed 07 August 2018).

• CBS, Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (n.d.). Population Counter [online]. Available at: https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/visualisaties/population-counter (Accessed 12 July 2018).

• Gemeinsames Statistikportal (n.d.). Fläche und Bevölkerung nach Ländern [online]. Available at: https://www.statistikportal.de/de/bevoelkerung/flaeche-und-bevoelkerung (Accessed 12 July 2018).

• Port of Rotterdam (n.d.). About the Port Authority Counter [online]. Available at: https://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/port-authority/about-the-port-authority (Accessed 26 June 2018).

• Rotterdam.nl (n.d.). City Government [online]. Available at: https://www.rotterdam.nl/english/city- government/. (Accessed 12 July 2018).

Literature (Theory)

• Braudel, F. (1977). 'Geschichte und Sozialwissenschaften. Die longue durée'. In Honegger, C. (ed.) Schrift und Materie der Geschichte. Vorschläge zu einer systematischen Aneignung historischer Prozesse. Frankfurt am Main 1977, pp. 47-85.

• Brenner, N. (2001). World City Theory, Globalization and the Comparative-Historical Method. Reflections on Janet Abu-Lughod’s Interpretation of Contemporary Urban Restructuring. In Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 37, pp. 124-137.

• Bulkeley, H., Schroeder, H., Janda, K., Zhao, J., Armstrong, A., Chu, SY., Ghosh, S. (2011). ‘The Role of Institutions, Governance, and Urban Planning for Mitigation and Adaptation’. In Hoornweg, D. et al. (eds.) Cities and Climate Change. Responding to an Urgent Agenda. Washington: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank.

• Galtung, J., Inayatullah, S., eds. (1997) Macrohistory and Macrohistorians. Perspectives on Individual, Social, and Civilizational Change. Connecticut: Praeger Westport.

• Hall P. (2014). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design in the Twentieth Century. 4th ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwel.

• Hodge, G. A., Greve, C. (2007). 'Public–Private Partnerships: An International Performance Review'. In Public Administration Review, Vol. 67(3), pp. 545-558.

• Mahoney, J. (2004). ‘Comparative Historical Methodology’. In Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 30, pp. 81-101.

• Martin, R. (2012). ‘(Re)Placing path dependence: a response to the debate’. In International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol. 36(1), pp. 179-192.

• North, D.C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Peck, J., Theodore, N., Brenner, N. (2009). Neoliberal Urbanism: Models, Moments, Mutations. In SAIS Review, Vol. XXIX, No. 1, pp. 49-66.

• Pierson, P. (2000). ‘Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics’. In American Political Science Review, Vol. 94(2), pp. 251-267.

• Putnam, R. (1994). Making Democracy Work. Civic Traditions in Modern Italy.

• Salet, W., Thornely, A., Kreukels, A., (eds.) (2003). Metropolitan Governance and Spatial Planning. Comparative Case Studies of European City-Regions. London/New York: Spon Press (Taylor & Francis Group).

• Schumpeter, J. A. (1994/1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London: Routledge.

• Schutt, R. K. (2012). Investigating the Social World. The Process and Practice of Research. 7th Ed. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

• Simandan, D. (2010). Beware of contingency. In Environment and planning D: Society and Space, Vol. 28(3), pp.388-396.

• Springer, S., Birch, K., MacLeavy, J., eds. (2016). The Handbook of Neoliberalism. New York: Routledge.

• Stouten, P. (2010). Changing Contexts in Urban Regeneration. 30 Years of Modernism in Rotterdam. Amsterdam: Techne Press.

• Sydow, J., Schreyögg, G., Koch, J. (2009). ‘Organizational Path Dependence: Opening the Black Box’. In Academy of Management Review, Vol. 34(4), pp. 689-709.

• Tasan-Kok, Tuna (2015). ‘Analysing Path Dependence to Understand Divergence: Investigating Hybrid Neo-liberal Urban Transformation Processes in Turkey’. In European Planning Studies, Vol. 23(11), pp. 2184-2209.

• Tilly, C. (1984). Big structures, Large Processes, and Huge Comparisons. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.

• Veenstra, J. (2015). Uncertainty and Path Dependence [video] [online]. University of Groningen. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKfkQW7_-Pg (Accessed 24 January 2018).

Literature (Case Studies)

• Andeweg, R. B., Irwin, G. A. (2009). Governance and Politics of The Netherlands. 3rd ed. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

• Barbieri, U., Bijhouwer, R., Devolder, AM., Gall, S., Hattum, A. van, Kuiper, H. Lampe, M., Nicolas, J., Wang, W. (1981). Stedebouw in Rotterdam. Plannen en opstellen 1940-1981. Amsterdam: Van Gennep.

• Bruns-Berentleg, J., Eisinger, A., Kohler, M., Menzl, M. (eds.) (2010). HafenCity Hamburg. Neue urbane Bewgegnungsorte zwischen Metropole und Nachbarschaft. Places of Urban Encounter between Metropolis and Neighbourhood. Wien, New York: Springer.

• Buursnik, J. (1997). The cultural strategy of Rotterdam. Paper concomitant to the 1997 conference “Les problèmes culturels des grandes villes” in Paris, 8-11 December 1997 [online]. Available at: https://journals.openedition.org/cybergeo/1203 (Accessed 15 July 2018).

• Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise. Cambridge: MIT Press.

• Christiaanse, K. (2012). Rotterdam. Rotterdam: Forum/010 Publishers.

• De Goey, F. (2004). Comparative History of Rotterdam and Antwerp (1880-2000). Competition, Cargo and Costs. Amsterdam: Askant Academic Publishers.

• De Kleijn, G. (1986). 'The State of Urban Renewal'. In The Netherlands Journal of Housing and Environmental Research, Vol. 1(3), pp. 235-251.

• De Klerk, L. (1998). Particuliere plannen. Denkbeelden en initiatieven van de stedelijke elite inzake de volkswoningbouw en de stedebouw in Rotterdam, 1860-1950. Rotterdam: NAi Uitgevers.

• Diefendorf, J. M. (ed.) (1990). ‘Rebuilding Europe’s Bombed Cities’. London: The MacMillan Press Ltd.

• Diefendorf, J. M. (1993). In the Wake of War. The Reconstruction of German Cities after World War II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Engbrink, G. O., Miedema, F (2001). 'Governing Urban Regeneration: the case of Rotterdam'. In Geographische Zeitschrift, Vol. 89(2/3), pp. 114-124.

• Fassbinder H. (ed.) (1992). Strategien der Stadtentwicklung in Europäischen Metropolen. Berichte aus Barcelona, Berlin, Hamburg, Madrid, Rotterdam und Wien. Harburger Berichte zur Stadtplanung, Vol. 1. Hamburg: TUHH.

• Fassbinder H. (ed.) (1995). Rotterdam an der Elbe. Strategische Planung im Dialog zweier Behörden. Harburger Berichte zur Stadtplanung, Vol. 6. Hamburg: TUHH.

• Gemeente Rotterdam (n.d.). College van Burgemeester en Wethouders [Board of mayor and aldermen] (in Dutch) [online]. Available at: https://www.rotterdam.nl/bestuur-organisatie/college-van- benw/. (Accessed 02 March 2018)

• Hamburg.de (2012). Begründung zum Bebauungsplan HafenCity 3 [online]. Available at: https://www.hamburg.de/contentblob/1029628/c6261739377ef9a455924caa9a6f4dc9/data/begruen dung-zum-bebauungsplan-hafencity-6.pdf (Accessed 22 July 2018).

• Häußermann, H., Läpple, D., Siebel, W. (2008). Stadtpolitik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.

• Holland.com (n.d.). Willemsbrug (in Dutch) [online]. Available at: https://www.holland.com/global/tourism/destinations/rotterdam/willemsbrug.htm. (Accessed 25 July 2018).

• Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Post-Contemporary Interventions. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

• Kähler, G. (2009). Von der Speicherstadt bis zur Elbphilharmonie. Hundert Jahre Stadtgeschichte Hamburg. Hamburg: Dölling und Galitz Verlag.

• Kähler, G. (2016). Geheimprojekt HafenCity. Oder wie erfindet man einen Stadtteil. Hamburg: Dölling und Galitz Verlag.

• Landesnorm Hamburg (2006). § 2 RäumGlG, Gesetz über die räumliche Gliederung der Freien und Hansestadt Hamburg vom 6. Juli 2006 (in German) [online]. Available at: https://www.juris.de/jportal/prev/jlr-RGlGHApP2 (Accessed 04 April 2018).

• Leong, B. (2013). Durchsetzungsprozesse in der Stadtentwicklungspolitik. Eine vergleichende Netzwerkanalyse städtebaulicher Grossprojekte. Häußling, R., Stegbauer, C. (eds.), Dissertation HafenCity Universität, Hamburg. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

• Making Connections Draft Report (2006). Kop van Zuid Case Study [online]. Available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20071024124606/http://www.urbed.com/cgi- bin/get_binary_doc_object.cgi?doc_id=250&fname=extra_pdf_3.pdf. (Accessed 02 March 2018).

• Meyer, H. (1999). City and Port. Urban Planning as a Cultural Venture in London, Barcelona, New York, and Rotterdam: changing relations between public and urban space and large-scale infrastructure. Utrecht: International Books.

• Preuß, O. (2016). Hafen Hamburg. Geschichte, Zahlen, Menschen. Kiel/Hamburg: Wachholtzverlag, Murman Publishers.

• Rijksoverheid (n.d.). Kabinet-Den Uyl (1973-1977) (in Dutch) [online]. Available at: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/regering/over-de-regering/kabinetten-sinds-1945/kabinet-den-uyl (Accessed 05 August 2018).

• Rodriguez-Lores, J., Fehl, G. (1985). Städtebaureform 1865-1900, Teil 2. Von Licht, Luft und Ordnung in der Stadt der Gründerzeit. Bauordnungen, Zonenplanung und Enteignung. Hamburg: Hans Christians Verlag.

• Roo’s oude Effecten (n.d.). Effecten Rotterdam / Rotterdamsche Handelsvereeniging [online]. Available at: http://members.home.nl/roo.effecten/rhv.html. (Accessed 13 July 2018).

• Rooijendijk, C (2006). 'Urban ideal images in post-war Rotterdam'. In Planning Perspectives, Vol 20(2), pp177-209.

• Schubert, D. (1981). Stadtplanung als Ideologie. Eine theoriegeschichtliche, ideologiekritische Untersuchung der Stadt, des Städtebaus und Wohnungsbaus in Deutschland von ca. 1850 bis heute. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin.

• Schubert, D. (2011). 'Seaport cities: phases of spatial restructuring and types and dimensions of redevelopment'. In Hein, C. (ed.), Port Cities. Dynamic landscapes and global networks. New York: Routledge.

• Schuiling, D. (1982). The impact of land tenure, the leasehold system, land- and real estate acquisition on urban extension, land use and urban renewal in the Netherlands with special reference to Amsterdam and Rotterdam. Amsterdam: Planologisch en Demografisch Instituut. Universiteit van Amsterdam.

• Sieverts, T. (2013). Ein goldenes Zeitalter der Raumplanung. Das lange Jahrzehnt 1960-1975 im Rückblick aus einer Zeit der Unbestimmtheit. In Wilhelm, K., Gust, K. (eds.) Neue Städte für einen neuen Staat. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, 193-208.

• Stadtportal hamburg.de (n.d.). Politik und Verwaltung (in German) [online]. Available at: http://www.hamburg.de/stadt-staat/. (Accessed 02 March 2018).

• Stadsarchief Rotterdam (n.d.). Booms [online]. Available at: http://www.stadsarchief.rotterdam.nl/boompjes (Accessed 13 July 2018).

• Stadsontwikkeing Rotterdam (1981). Stedebouw in Rotterdam. Plannen en opstellen 1940-1981. Amsterdam: Van Gennep.

• Tasan-Kok, T (2009). 'Entrepreneurial Governance. Challenges of large-scale property-led urban regeneration projects'. In Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Vol. 101(2), pp. 126- 149.

• Teuteberg, H-J. (1972). 'Die Entstehung des modernen Hamburger Hafens '(1866-1896). In Tradition, Vol. 17(5/6), pp. 257 – 291.

• Van den Bout, J., Pasveer, E. (eds.) (1994). Kop van Zuid. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers.

• Van den Ham, C., Stouten, P (1988). Urban Renewal in Rotterdam: Changing Conditions and Persepctives. In The Netherlands Journal of Housing and Environmental Research, Vol. 3(3), pp. 241- 257.

• Van Traa, C. (1957). Rotterdam. Der Neubau einer Stadt. Rotterdam: Ad. Donker.

• UNESCO World Heritage Convention (n.d.). Speicherstadt and Kontorhaus District with Chilehaus [online]. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1467 (Accessed 04 April 2018).

• Zonneveld, W. (1989). 'Conceptual Complexes and Sifts in Post-War Urban Planning in the Netherlands'. In Built Environment (1978-), Vol. 15(1), pp. 40-48.

10. Appendix

Interviews

Joost Schrijnen (RTM1), 15 May 2018

Barbara van den Broek (RTM2), 26 June 2018

Riek Bakker (RTM3), 28 June 2018

Jürgen Oßenbrügge (HH1), 17 July 2018

Lisa Kosok (HH2), 18 July 2018

Len de Klerk (RTM4), 25 July 2018

Paul van der Laar (RTM5), 27 July 2018

Siegfried Krauß (HH3), 2 August 2018

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.

Interview with Joost Schrijnen, 15 May 2018 • Interviewer: Andreas Künzi, MSc student Urban & Regional Planning, 2017-2018, University of Amsterdam

• Interviewee: Joost Schrijnen, Urban Planner & Spatial Management Consultant, member of The Directorate of Urban Planning and Housing Rotterdam (1992–2001), former professor of urban design for city and region and professor of strategy and planning at the Faculty of Architecture, TU Delft

• Interview setting: The interview was held in a meeting at Joost Schrijnen’s house in Rotterdam • Interview language: English

• Interview referenced as: RTM1 • Affiliation with interviewee: None

• Explanation of characters: - AK = Andreas Künzi (Interviewer)

- JS = Joost Schrijnen (Interviewee) - ~ = Inaudible

- [ ] = Remark by author JS: So that means that this question of centralisation Interview and decentralisation is a question of what’s in the law AK: How many provinces does The Netherlands and what’s in the budget and is the budget also have? decentralised or not. And in planning we have huge investment funds, not only for infrastructure but also JS: Twelve. […] There’s always the question of for spatial development. Big funds, national funds for governmental power, of course. Let’s say, in relation residential areas, for Kop van Zuid, for, let’s say, new to financial aspects, it is quite important whether you central station. Those kind of things, huge project have an investment policy in planning and funds. That come all from the national government. infrastructure planning, i.e. in certain aspects of And that totally stopped. At the same time the planning. And there are big varieties. The province of legislation decentralised the responsibilities for Brabant (off.: North Brabant) is quite rich and the planning and then came the financial crisis, the province of, for example, Zeeland is really poor. So, housing crisis and everybody seemed, well … the there’s a big difference. Of course, they have the Dutch planning stopped. That’s something crazy of same legislative formal positions. But if you don’t course, naive thinking, but never mind, people are have your financial budget or potential for investment thinking that. So, now we are in a period where you you can’t do anything. see that, let’s say, building is in an uplifting phase, AK: Is there a centralised levelling of these budgets huge pressure on building. But at the same time from the government? there is something very different between the necessity of building and the way the private sector JS: They try, which is very difficult, but there’s also a works and builds. They build their plots. But that’s differentiation because of the history. The provinces something different from how we plan the city. But I that owned electric companies and sold them and see that not very much people even understand this. now they have billions of Euros on the bank. So, they try to leverage, that’s true, but not in that sense. In AK: I’m not sure if I understand it correctly. So, South Holland, where we live, the cities have a bigger basically planning is largely financed from a centralist budget than the provinces. The city of Rotterdam has viewpoint, from the government. But the policy the harbour with a huge budget. If you compare that making, the decision making in planning is then to the province of South Holland, perhaps the budget happening on a much smaller scale. So, the of South Holland is like half of that of a city like Delft. municipality of Rotterdam, for example, has a lot of So, Rotterdam says, “Well, what should we do with independence and authority. these provinces? Nothing.” They have no power to JS: Yes, in decision making. But there is not very help them. They’re linked to the state directly. much general money for planning. There is money for AK: That’s also how I understood the general political infrastructure and there’s money for the transport setting of The Netherlands. You have a central systems. Not only for the physical thing but also, let’s government at the top … say for the deficits of the transport systems. And that is centralised money. And of course, its budgeted. JS: Very central. In fact, we are financially a very So, for example, in our case we have now what we centralised country. call a metropolitan region. That is a board, the Den AK: Also, in the sense of financial distribution trickling Haag/Rotterdam board, and they have a fund of I down to the provinces? think 500 million Euros a year to finance the deficits of the metro, tram and bus systems, and to do some JS: Yes. Let’s say the, I think, I guess, perhaps, more investment on infrastructure. But that’s always a part than ninety percent of the tax income of the of, a detail, of the financing, of what infrastructure government is central. More than ninety. I don’t know costs. So, building a metro system without state exactly. It might be even ninety-four, ninety-five money is impossible, really impossible. percent, I’m not sure about the exact number, but that means that we pay taxes, some small taxes in AK: But are the transports in the Netherlands, in the local thing [sic], like housing, we pay some general or more specific in Rotterdam, public or mobility taxes on the provincial level, that’s not very private? much, well for my car, for example, it’s on a yearly JS: In fact, you could say its public. But you could basis something like 600 Euros. So that means that say, well, they try to privatise the Dutch rail, they try we pay taxes on national level and that the national to privatise the regional … let’s say they have a level funds the communities and funds provinces. system, in which, in fact, those companies have a AK: We have a similar system in Switzerland. I think kind of position where they can sign in for contracts the large part of our taxes is centralised and then the tfor longer periods to operate. And that of course is, canton asks for the “Gemeinde” taxes, which is you see the problems in the international field, with significantly less. the SNCF and the German rail and so on. And the original idea of privatisation in this field came from or differentiation. It can be a TGV or ICE or a Swiss the point that we should have European network and train. I reckon this is probably then a balancing in that we should have an open field for, let’s say, costs that is centralised. We have a half-pirvatised exploitation firms. But, let’s be honest, it doesn’t public transport sytsme. 51% percent is publicly work. It does not work. And, well, we have really an owned and 49% private. insufficient international network. You see that now JS: What are you up to, here in this. on the debates around flight, and Schipol airport and Air France etc., and a lot of people would like to have AK: Yeah, so you have received my research a better international train system than we have now. proposal? To Paris is fine, from here to Paris is three hours, to JS: Yes, some time ago. London it takes so much difficulties. This year the first direct high-speed train to London came. The […] first! If you go from Amsterdam to Berlin, you still AK: There’s an updated one but the research don’t have a highspeed train. questions and topics are the same. The overlaying AK: So, the deficits are basically in connecting the research question is to what extent planning is systems? affected or influenced by institutional traditions and structures. And I chose to look at Rotterdam and JS: Yes. And the prices are too high in relation to Hamburg as my two case studies, with particular flights. So, it doesn’t work. And compared to, let’s focus on the port developments. say, I like the situation in France, where you have this fantastic TGV system. And the frequencies of the JS: I said to Pieter that you should visit Dieter Läpple. lines is high but it’s also not a profitable thing. AK: We tried to contact him. His last position was at AK: I think that is one of the main problems., to make the HCU University in Hamburg. He still has an email it profitable, if you privatise. And another issue I see, I address there, but he didn’t reply to our email. find competition is limited, or difficult. You can say JS: Dieter was often in Rotterdam, so he knows the operation can have competition. But I think it Rotterdam well. makes it difficult for the user, because then, similar to airlines, you then have to a specific ticket for a […] specific train. JS: I was with him two years ago or something like JS: In Holland now, we have the chip cards. And that. Together we were visiting critics of the that’s fantastic. That’s usable for all the commuting extension of Amsterdam Almere, and I was part of and for all the commuting on every level. I think that the criticising team, and Dieter was in it. I don’t know, is a fantastic system. It’s really great. he’s quite old.

AK: For example, when I came here today I wanted […] to take an earlier train and then was told by a AK: So, maybe in an effort to pose a first concrete conductor at Amsterdam station that this train needs question, a very broad question: do you think that the a special ticket, the Thalys. two settings of the cities [Rotterdam and Hamburg] JS: The international trains, the Thalys, is so that is different, a municipality under a centralised expensive. If you want a ticket Amsterdam– government in the Netherlands, in Rotterdam, and Rotterdam. And you have another train, which is what Hamburg as a city-state embedded in federalism, do they call Intercity Direct, and that is very simple you think these systems are all that different? Since because you have an OV chipkaart, you go to the there is a certain autonomy and independence nd station, you check-in for a normal ticket, second authority that the municipality has. And secondly, do class or first class, and then at the gate you have a you think this is something generally that affects machine and you upgrade your ticket. So that’s not planning recognisably? really a problem. But the Thalys is absurd. You never JS: I have been thinking about these questions do that. I often have to go to Antwerp. And when I reading your preliminary theses [research proposal]. take the normal train it’s something like, I think, 23 And, I’m thinking where the path dependence is Euros, and then I take the Thalys, its only 35 minutes, contextual in the sense of the situation where you but its 60 Euros. That’s too much. are. Hamburg; a river, a city, a harbour. And AK: It is an alien system to me as a Swiss. Because Rotterdam, in its historical context, so I have been in Switzerland, if you have a train ticket, you can take thinking a lot in my life about this aspect of the train from Bern to Zürich with that ticket, no dependency of how the growth of the city of the matter what train it is. There’s no such thing a surplus harbour is, the point of view that you have this path,

and that you are there in this path, you have to work is, and of course one of the eldermen is of course with your territory. And of course, a very complicated responsible shareholder in that board and the question comes of who’s in charge: economy or the eldermen, of course, is influenced by the meaning of territory. And I always say of course economy is in the council, that’s true. But it's not that the charge but of course there is a territorial constraint, investment decisioned themselves. They are of the always, and that has to deal with … out of that board and not of the country. So that’s really a very comes a certain attitude. Let’s say, we are the very big change. And I’m not remembering now the harbour of Germany, because we are positioned on exact date. But in my last years when I was there, we the Rhine and of course Hamburg is the harbour of call that privatisation of the Rotterdam harbour, so for Germany, but Rotterdam is, too. And if you then take example, it meant that in the period that I was for a longer term the … the deeper question of where director of planning, the harbour authority and we the system of planning affects the way of handling it, worked intensely together about the planning of the I realised that in my mind first comes the question harbour. And of course, their power was bigger than who did finance the harbour. And the infrastructure ours. […] So, we said, if you ask us to do something that was needed and necessary to get us connected you pay us. But it was an intense relationship. And to Germany. Or who make the infrastructure to get there was also a kind of complicated, but important the vessels out and organise the, let’s say, the relationship between the harbour and the city. So, the existing situation in which we are now, already, let’s city was, let’s say, there was always a question of say, fifty, sixty, seventy years ago by digging the how we are dealing with things. The whole project of Rhine in a different way, with the Galant Canal [?] and Kop van Zuid could only take place because of the that’s in fact very interesting, because the Rhine fact that the harbour said, ok, this is the territory, wasn’t “there“, we dug the Rhine there. So even on please, city, go on … so, there was a competitive but the side of the harbour, the land side connection, the productive relation harbour-city. I think, what I main condition is that it has always been the state learned, this was also the case. A competitive but that financed that. And I think that is still the case. productive relation between city and harbour. I don’t So, the institutional framework of the harbour of know the exact position in Hamburg but that has Rotterdam, the city is another question so let’s talk changed in Rotterdam. I don’t want to say that these about the harbour, is that the Rhine is national water, is no more productive relationship now, but it is a it’s not Rotterdam water. So, the river is a national self-supporting board, comissarse, the whole staff, river. The sea is the nation sea, organised by the and that’s different from what takes place in the national government. The harbour itself was up until council. And of course, still, at this moment, the ten, fifteen years ago, a Rotterdam institution owned harbour authority asks the planning office to do by the city of Rotterdam, fully owned. And the earned something for them but out of a completely different money in the harbour was the investment capital for position. So, you can say as shareholder they still get let’s say buildings, making local infrastructure and revenues, the government still gest revenues. But profits of that came directly to the city. When the also, a part goes to the state now. Because the state second Maas ~, the last extension [from the Maas] to says, ok, we want to build these new extensions to the sea was built, the whole situation changed the sea together, you need funding from the state because the potential costs need to finance these then we are going to be one of the shareholders. And huge extensions to the sea, which was impossible that has fundamentally changed, a mental shift. without funding of the state. So, there’s a joint Because we realised, that the fact that the harbour venture from the state and the city and then they was fully owned by the council, means power, decided to privatise the harbour. Of course, it’s a unbelievable. A power of a small city, Rotterdam, governmental privatisation. So, its and overheads 600,000 people, a small city, owns one of the biggest governmental company, owned by the state and the harbours in the world. That makes also, yeah, was city. And that changed a lot. Because the financing of perhaps exactly the reason that the harbour authority the extensions of the harbour and the way the themselves said we should get rid of that council and harbour is organised is privatised, the government we a planners said, no no no!, we should stay part of privatised companies, and that meant that the it. So, well, I don’t want to say it’s not productive. I decision taking in the harbour was no longer the remember, for example, half a year ago I was in the direct decision taking in the municipality, was no council and had to do something there and the CEO longer with the city of Rotterdam. So, when I was still of the harbour did a big presentation about the director of city planning here, every big decision that economical and energetic [sic] changes that will was investing in the harbour was a decision of the come and how we’re coming from a fossil period municipality. And now it’s the board that does it. So away to an electric period and they of course, he was of course, Rotterdam is shareholder in the board, it quite open, but I was at that moment in the council,

and I really had the feeling, “do they own this if there is something to do there, a problem, the question, they feel as owner of this question.”, parliament is speaking. The budget of which road are because this is one of the biggest questions for the we going to better or to organise, the parliament future of our city. Do they understand what’s going decides, the national parliament. In the harbour its on here? Of course, the CEO is a kind man and completely different. The owners are still there but in comes there and knowing that his shareholder, the fact it’s the board of owners that decide. And of eldermen, should be served, and that, of course, in a course, you can say you are the elderman of the city public arena. So, I think, going into your central of Rotterdam and you are the minister of economic question, on the level of positioning of the harbour in affairs and you are shareholder and as parliament the spatial context: that is infrastructure, that is the you can say “Minister, you should act”. But it’s an river, that is the safety organisation to get the ships indirect call, you could say. And in between that into the harbour, all the aspects of it, they depend question is the planning authority. That’s interesting. fully on the state. On the level of exploitation, how do So, I think on the level that I described the they manage the territory, they’re fully self- international and national framework in which the supportive. And on that last level, they have to do a harbour works, as infrastructural object, it’s the lot with the city. But on the main level also, and that’s infrastructure of the national roads, it’s the interesting, because then the city has to deal with the infrastructure of the national rail system, it’s the state. If you think about the infrastructure of the A15, infrastructure of the national water authorities. It’s all the Zuidan road, which is unbelievably huge and nationally organised. And that’s always the same. It they’re constructing it now, is becoming larger and did not change. The founding did not change. And larger, a huge infrastructure, all state money, that then on the level of the harbour authority that means that the city does not deal with the harbour manages this territory and invests in it and builds authority about those things, but it deals with the roads there and build quays and gets money. That is state. So, it's really a complicated situation. a private organisation, which is still governmental. So those two levels also planning plays a role. So, AK: And this council, this board is somewhat planning plays a role on the first level, the national outsourced, i.e. external? scenery and on the second level, the local scenery. JS: Well I can’t say outsourced because of course Which is interesting. They have to make land use they will always say we are the … you mean the plan, they have to use that in a normal way. And they board of the harbour or the council of the city? go to the council. So, in a way you could say that did not change. You could even state, that the changed AK: The council, of course, sorry. formal institutional position of the harbour authority, JS: The council says, we are in charge. The board is could take place within the existing framework of the harbour, they are … if you just see the names of planning system that we in the Netherlands have. the people in the board, you see the first CEO was a That’s interesting. Say, environmental planning or guy from Philips and then from Shell, so that’s really infrastructural planning or let’s say, for example, the different. The privatisation is also, I think it’s also extensions of the harbour to the sea were declared very, has enormous effect on what it is. And it’s done national project. So, the national project was to make because of the necessary feeling of the existing a larger harbour. This meant that the national board, at that period, to be as autonomous as government had to organise a plan to build that. possible. And I understand that. It’s the same Interesting is that the harbour had to make a land use situation as in Schipol Airoprt. Schipol Airport is also plan within that framework for what kind of factories privatised but fully owned by the government. are going to be there, a container thing or electrical Rotterdam, for example, has a share in Schipol use … and then of course there’s the council again. Airport. AK: So basically, there has been a change in the AK: So, what would be called a classic public-private governance structure of the harbour. Do you think the partnership. strategy of planning was it affected by this? Or let’s assume, as a hypothetical situation, that this JS: I wouldn’t say that. It’s a public organisation, governance structure did not change … which its privatised in its functioning. We say it’s privatised, but if you see the shareholders, it’s JS: I don’t think the strategy of planning changed. publicly owned. It’s not privately owned, it’s publicly But the mentality of planning behind it changed. So, owned So the owners are the public authorities. And of course that perhaps your research question in public authorities act in a different way. Let’s depth “Did the strategy change?” I would say the compare it with the national road system. The mentality changed. So, the way of looking at the national road system is fully owned by the state. And question, not the question itself. Because it’s just a

very simple thing. A harbour is a very simple thing. JS: And the north. North also. When you draw it, you You have a quay, you have something on the quay get this reality that the river’s there and here’s the aside and the land side and trucks or trains have to Wilhelmina Pier and Katendrecht etc. And here are go in and out or the inner ships to Germany have to some harbours on the south bank and on the north go into the harbour … and the harbour authority has bank you have this harbour here, Boompjes, etc. This to deal with Mercedes, Hyundai, the big guys, all the is where on harbour territories simple things were guys that exploit their territory and that always has built and Kop van Zuid was not very interesting. The been the same, always has been the case. So that shift of scale made that the harbour grew west. And has not changed. The way the harbour works is still these territories got another value from the point of the same thing. And I would defend, in this phase of view from the harbour authority. So, the municipality, discussion, the idea that the strategy did not change, that’s interesting then started to buy the firm that because the operations still are the same. But the were left over. mentality behind it was “we are now a privatised AK: When was that approximately? company”. So, you are no longer a governmental company, your first thing is to make profit. And that is JS: That was end of 70s, beginning of 80s. They really different. But the planning system doesn’t bought huge amounts, for example, we bought all change for that. It’s the way of thinking “how are we kinds of firms in that period. So, it was interesting going to manage this harbour in the sense of who is that the “postal” [?], the buildings were bought by the going to get this parcel for his things to do”. Or more city out of the harbour. So, after some period the business-like thinking. But that’s my hypothesis at contracts with the private sectors ended and then the this moment, let’s be honest. harbour could decide, well the next phase is not for us, it’s for the city. And that was a very productive AK: I wonder to what extent something like the phase. Not only for the KvZ, because it’s not only development of the Kop van Zuid in Rotterdam can here, but also here and here and there and all over. be traced back to the privatisation of the functioning You could say all around the city territories, not the and operating of the harbour. To put it in a banal far west, but all these territories here became free. way: would that have happened even if this Because of the change in harbour necessity. Of institutional setting had not changed? Or would the course, there were debates about funding and so on development have a different focus? but there was not a negative relationship between the JS: Kop van Zuid, and it’s not only the Kop van Zuid, harbour and the city at that point. It was positive. Katentrecht and other pieces, so the twenty years Then space became free for thousands and that I worked on it, I was in the heart of that change. thousands of houses. Really unbelievable. And what happened was the following: After, and AK: So, that was also the motivation of the city to buy that’s also something interesting in the question of these lots, to develop housing etc.? the path that the city follows: the rebuilding plan after the bombing, in 1940, interesting is that the JS: Right. And of course, the whole mentality rebuilding plans were already made in 1940 and changed from purely housing to also office. The became effective after the war, they really started mentality of the city changed, and of planning. But with rebuilding the harbour on the side that already that’s another story, the story here is that the harbour were harbour before. So big sites of the inner city itself was changing. That was in the 80s and we were harbour. Kop van Zuid was harbour. So let’s made a plan for all these houses to make them say the first mentality was “lets rebuild the harbour,” housing territories and we made a plan also for a So, I always say Rotterdam was at that moment a differentiation of typologies. So, we did our work as harbour city and it took thirty years that we took on urban planners as urbanists. And interesting is that the idea that Rotterdam could be a city on the river. the state funded those buys. Because they were So, for me that’s quite an important mental shift. And quite heavy for the city. And in the same time the that shift occurred out of the changing amenities that harbour grew westwards and some of the firms that the harbour needed caused by the enlargement of came here and got the money and then restarted scale. It’s interesting that the rebuilding of the further on [west]. harbour on these inner-city parts, even on the north AK: That was a logistical and technical necessity. or on the south bank, that was of quite poor quality. The buildings were hangars, “lotsen” [?], I don’t know JS: Yes. The depth of the boats and those kinds of the word in English … things. The scale of the operation. And happily, in the same time the city grew. The population. So, this was AK: You mean south of the city? a fantastic merge of interests, of harbour and city. And I think that took something from the end of the

70s until half of 1990s, approx. 20 years. Of course, as landlord is inviting all kinds of things. Schools, it’s still going on, Katendrecht is not yet finished, KvZ offices, etc. If you go there, here’s a big pool, is not yet finished, now it’s already urban there and fantastic. And now here all kind of things are entering some plots are still under development. And in the the territory. So maybe in ten, fifteen years the whole mid 1990s we though we do it a second time, we go thing will still be urban. And that’s interesting, westwards here and here, on a very large scale. And I because that means that the mentality of the harbour think we overate ourselves as planner. It was in a authority as landlord was different from the mentality positive relation with the harbour authority, and the of the city as landlord. The harbour authority was just harbour authority was in a phase of getting more self- profit making because it was privatised. So that was supporting. But the mentality of the harbour was that not a very interesting phase in the debate. Because this change is going on and let’s cooperate with the they said, “I want this office for myself here”. So that city and its planners. But the scale was unbelievably was an unwelcome situation in which the larger than before. First it was here, KvZ, and then privatisation of the harbour authority took the offices Katenderecht and here etc. [draws on the map] But out of the city. That’s not what we want! The only then we started to debate this or this [draws a much thing is then that they could do so if land use larger sphere on the map]. Unbelievable. planning made that possible. AK: And when did these debates about such AK: So, through actions on formal institutional levels? enlargement start? JS: Yes. But nobody had realised that there are JS: In the mid 90s. already all kinds of land use plans there that said you can build what you want. Because you know its AK: At that time these territories were already barren? harbour, never mind, etc. So, nobody had realised JS: No, not yet, they were in the middle of changing, that we as city should handle up to the harbour as a that was because of the fact that this [points to the private sector thing. So that the city should say what map] was under planning, so the necessity of should be happening on this territory, if not harbour enlargement to the sea made the debate for self- activities. Well its now more balanced. The formal supporting and differently financed companies and in moment was the harbour ‘s formal positions change, the same way we were debating that. But we overate I think about 2000 or something like that. So, in the ourselves, on two levels: first level was that the beginning period there were all kinds of difficulties change of the harbour here took place but not as fast and the landlords said, “fantastic, we make money as we had foreseen. and all kind of offices come” in and the city said AK: That is the withdrawal of the operational port “whoa, stop …!”. I don’t know the situation exactly from the centre. now but its changed, it’s really changed.

JS: Yes. If you go there now it’s still fully in operation, AK: Just for my understanding as I’m not quite sure. on both sides. That’s one thing and the second thing You planned as city to buy these lots to develop is that if you see the scale of these, that is already them for urban use but in the end, you didn’t buy huge, but this is immense! So, there started an them? organisation were the debate revolved around what JS: No, we didn’t. It’s a floating process. The harbour will then urban ground/city ground/territory and what was owner, but the harbour was also the city. That’s will then be harbour territory, in these large territories. why we said, “let’s make a deal that this is going to And there was a moment that we thought that the be city”. Before the thing privatised. whole stuff would be urban. And I think we overate ourselves there. And at the end of the story was that AK: So basically, shifting ownership within the family, it was skipped, this concept. It was said “please calm almost. down, it’s too much”. And at least on the Zuidan side JS: Yes. But we realised that that meant that all the [south] there came a situation that the harbour firms, the port firms that were there, suddenly said authority continued to be landlord, but we were “do I have to deal with the landlord city?” So, the thinking the city is going to be the landlord. But no, concept was that the city in the end is going to be that’s not the case. The harbour continued to be the landlord, and we organised that before the landlord but is inviting city functions into the harbour. moment that the harbour is going to be self- Territory. So, it’s interesting to see that in the first supporting. And this whole shift did not take place in level, city is getting the land and going to be the the end. And I think that’s good. Now it’s interesting landlord for urban functions and pressing out the that it’s different. We have now here landlord harbour slowly, step by step. Mostly not pressing but harbour, and now there’s a fruitful debate between it happened through the change of functioning. And harbour and city about the functioning. And lets ay here the vice versa is taking place now. The harbour

that makes that land use planning in these territories AK: That was also when the Niewue Waterweg was is a very important thing. So here in this territory, if opened. you go there now, you see all kind of urban functions JS: Yes. And that’s also something of the 19th century coming. So, the city, I won’t say takes over, but it’s which you can wonder about, the infrastructure of rail still very mixes, e.g. here are fruit terminals but at the and harbour is unbelievable what they did. And they same time we have the most high-tech laboratories did this in all the countries in Europe. etc, science towers and offices where we worked in are now exchanged to housing. So slowly on, AK: And do you know something about the decision incremental you could say, but in fact, I don’t know to try to connect port and city so early on? now exactly the relation between harbour authorities JS: No. I don’t know. I only can see the historical and city in these territories, might be there is already framework and spatial reality. And interpret from that. a kind of fusion taking place. So there has also been But I don’t know the formal institutional things. As it a very, an intermediate entity in between city and was also of course in the period of the VOC, that we harbour that has also been one of the scenarios. had the Amsterdam and the Rotterdam admiralitaet, AK: Which is what the situation is now? so the war and the far east and far west connections and if you see the kind of buildings, which in JS: Might be, for the northern part, I think, but for the Amsterdam are much more are left over, this southern I don’t know. I don’t think for the southern. I integration of urban thing and port that was think these parts are still completely harbour. I left in everywhere, I think. Not only here. Also, in 2001, so I don’t know the exact details of nowadays Amsterdam and Vlissingen etc., all those cities. But arrangements. But it’s interesting, so, that was also I’ve never asked myself the question how this was the question in your thesis, “where is the planning in set in an institutional framework. I really don’t know. these processes, does the planning itself and the institutions influence the whole development or AK: I’m asking because I’m wondering the waterfront not?“ And my statement would be that it’s not the development in the KvZ could be seen as some kind planning that did but the institutional framework and of reclaiming space of the, a kind of a revitalisation of ownership of the things that used the planning an earlier tradition of keeping up this connection of system. And the planning system is then let’s say, city and port. But maybe that’s too far-fetched of a well, maintained or let’s say to their tools and goals. thesis. But I think the answer to that lays in the That’s what I would think. […] research of institutional structures at the time. AK: When I looked into the history of port JS: Yes. But also, this whole story is on the one side development in Rotterdam it occurred to me that institutional, on the other side the relation between Rotterdam had an almost pioneering role in shipping and infrastructure, the scale of shipping and connecting port and city. Even from the 1600s on the size of things. So, the technical thing in efforts were made to not separate urban environment combination with the ownership of the territories, for and harbour but to fuse them. And I think that the me that’s the core. And the fact that the river in the

Boompjes was a pioneering approach in that it crated beginning of the 19th century itself was the harbour, if this city façade almost, a representational façade and you go to Boijmans van Beuningen, the museum, you bourgeoisie housing and commerce and trade and can see these paintings with ships in the middle of office spaces. the river, hundreds of them. You see how the river itself was managed as the harbour. And behind that JS: Von Berning [?] one of the big chiefs lived on the there were taxing systems. There’s some interesting Boompjes. And if you read the book about his life literature but never studied it. Because I think there they’re talking about how he saw the harbour from has also been of course institutional frameworks, but his house. But I don’t know that on the institutional they were more on the level of how tax paying is framework. But the spatial framework is absolutely organised, how does the city get income from the – clear. But realise, at the end of the 19th century that so I don’t want to, in this case hypothesis these has changed. When von Berning started to dig these questions. It’s not my knowledge. But would be big harbours, the whole thing changed. And one of interesting to find out. the reasons that they did this was that the river itself that was the harbour, ships were laid in the middle of the river and little ~ did enter that etc. Also, there the enlargement of shipping made it a necessity to dig these huge harbour territories which is unbelievable if you understand the scale of working at the end of the

19th century. It’s really unbelievable.

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.

Interview with Barbara van den Broek, 26 May 2018 • Interviewer: Andreas Künzi, MSc student Urban & Regional Planning, 2017-2018, University of Amsterdam

• Interviewee: Barbara van den Broek, Urban Planner and current co-project leader of the ongoing Kop van Zuid development, amongst other neighbourhood developments in Rotterdam • Interview setting: The interview was held in a meeting at the De Rotterdam tower, Wilhelminakade 179, 3072 AP Rotterdam

• Interview language: English • Interview referenced as: RTM2 • Affiliation with interviewee: None

• Explanation of characters: - AK = Andreas Künzi (Interviewer)

- BB = Barbara van den Broek (Interviewee) - ~ = Inaudible

- [ ] = Remark by author

AK: So that was a public firm, basically. Interview BB: Yes, it was. So, when the harbour activities AK: May I ask what your current role or position is disappeared all this land was city owned. And the with the municipality of Rotterdam? city made an urban plan and decided how it was BB: I’m an urban planner for several districts in the going to be and there was Riek Bakker, the famous center of the city. For the Wilhelmina Pier, for Kop ~, godmother of KvZ […] and it was all owned by the which is an area near the south of the river, the ~ city and the city made the plan for the KvZ. It’s still all quartier, and since a month I’m also working on owned by the city. Which means we can decide a lot. Nieuw-Kralingen, a new housing area with about 800 We also work in the centre of the city and its very dwellings. different there. Because the buildings and ground are not owned by the city and its all private development. AK: Where is that located? And of course, we can steer those developments a BB: In the east of town. lot. But it’s very different when you own the land, if you can say, we have this plot and ask a developer to AK: It seems to be growing immensely, Rotterdam. build something on it and you may build this and BB: Yes, it is. We’re planning to densify a lot and that, this high, with this programme, etc. But even for create building locations inside the city a socialist city as Rotterdam was, it was decided that the KvZ should be an exclusive high-end part of the AK: You’re also partly responsible for the current, still city with more expensive dwellings offices, also the ongoing development of the Kop van Zuid? public space. There’s much more money invested BB: Yes, I am. There’s an urban plan for the KvZ. And than normally in the city. So that was decided that’s what we’re working on. I’m working on the because it’s the KvZ and some parts of the city were building projects. Together with the developer we do quite deprived, socially and economically challenged. architect selection. Architects design a building. And So, it was supposed to spread outwards, to the what you see happening is that architects always south and to improve the conditions in the southern immerse themselves inside the building and don’t parts of Rotterdam. But what has happened is that have enough focus on what’s outside the building. the difference of the people living here, working here So, I try to pull them out and make them aware of the and the people living in the quarters that already surroundings and to make the building really fit into existed is really big, socially and economically. So, the urban tissue. And have a good relationship with that’s a bit of a problem. the buildings around it. Same colour and materials AK: When you say it was decided to build the KvZ etc. And also, to have a good plinth, a good ground and to take it into the direction that it is going to now, floor. And, well parking is always difficult, to find a are you referring to the 1986 masterplan, that was good parking solution. developed under Riek Bakker? AK: Is that a similarly big issue as in Amsterdam, BB: Yes. parking? AK: Do you know if this masterplan attempted to, BB: Well for new housing it’s really hard because let’s say, level out the class differences, the social people want a place to park their car. Well, not and economic differences? Was that an aspect in the everyone because there’s more and more people in initial approach for the development of KvZ? the city who don’t own a car, who share a car or rent a car, use car sharing system. But still you have to BB: Yes, I think it was. To connect the southern part make parking systems. And this costs so much of the city to the centre, of course. Making a new space. And it’s very ugly [laughs]. Its’ quite difficult to bridge was not just for thus part of the south find good solutions. (Wilhelmin Pier) but also for the rest of Rotterdam South, to connect it to the centre. And also, to make […] the waterfront reachable for the people living on the AK: Can you tell me something about the politics in south sie of the city. Because it was all harbour area planning in Rotterdam? and closed off and you couldn’t go to the waterfront. BB: Yes. What is very specific about Rotterdam is AK: What was the connection from the south to the that it used to be a socialist city for quite a long time. north of the city before the Erasmus bridge? We had a socialist city government and we had a BB: There was the Wilhelms-bridge and the Maas way of working on the city that was very structured tunnel and the subway, which didn’t have a stop over and very, like the urban planners, they decided how it here [Wilhelminaplein], that was only made when this was going to be. The KvZ was owned by the harbour, area was developed. There was no bridge here. This the harbour company, which was owned by the city. part of the south was really isolated. So, it was one institution.

AK: And also, not used anymore for harbour became more market lead. Before that it was activities? government lead. BB: No. It started to stop in the 60s, 70s and came to AK: In terms of the Dutch political culture that is a halt in the 80s. But it took quite some time because known to be based on consensus and inclusion of I remember also Muulepier [?] and all that area, when stakeholders and different associations. Is there any I was studying end 80s beginning 90s, it was very such involvement, say of residents or businesses or derelict. There were some harbour activities but really local housing associations, happening in the ongoing low key. Just to store stuff and leave it there development generally in Rotterdam and more endlessly. specifically in the KvZ?

AK: But it all moved further west. BB: Yes. Well, there’s always talks with groups of people who live in the area. We have every two or BB: Yes. When the scale of the harbour enlarged it three months a meeting with people living and moved more and more westwards. working here on the Wilhelmina Pier. And they are AK: Before you said that parts of the inner city are being told what is going to happen and when they owned privately? Do you know when that happened, have complaints we see how we can help to solve I mean at some point, I guess, the municipality the problem etc. decided to sell these parts of the city? AK: And that is a meeting organised and held by the BB: Well, sometimes the ground is still owned by the city and open to any resident or any business owner? city and it is rented out. But all the buildings that BB: Yes. In this area yes. were built on it are owned privately. That means that a developer can buy buildings, there them down and AK: Have you attended these meetings? build something new. Although the ground is owned BB: Yes, I have, a few. I don’t attend them every by the city it doesn’t mean that we tell them that they time. I don’t know its open to everybody living and can’t buy, that they can’t build there. working here, but certainly to some business owners AK: Sort of a last resort formal way of keeping the and people living in the apartments. They come. And ground for the city but basically what happens there if other people want to come I think they would be is, of course in agreement with the municipality, welcome. decided by private investors? AK: And is there a clear process of how people can BB: Yes. But we steer those developments of course. make their voices heard? What happens with the We don’t allow everything, not at all. But it’s a inputs in these meetings, i.e. let’s say a business different way of working on the city than here [KvZ]. owner says, “I need more street lights”, is that Much less structured. something that would be addressed in these meetings? AK: What was the reason for the city to do this? Or in another way, why did the city decide not to take this BB: Could be. The meetings are also about specific approach with the harbour areas? complaints, like when parking garages are full etc. And sometimes it’s not something that we as a city BB: I think to steer the development and to control can solve. But we try to talk to the parties involved the development. And it was already owned by the and to connect them. But sometimes it’s something city. So, the grounds in the city centre are mostly where we try to see if we directly can help them and built in the 50s, after the bombing and the city fire. if we can’t we try to explain why. The typical Dutch And what happens there is that buildings are torn “polderen” approach. down and then high-rise is being built. And what happens here is that it was a harbour area and it was AK: I read that, the Dutch polder model and culture, really empty, the city made it empty and we sell the very much an approach of working together and grounds. finding unions between different levels and stakeholders and authorities. AK: I can also imagine that it was not so attractive here for private investors before anything happened BB: Yes, and that’s also what we do with developers here? and architects. Because with the developers we have architecture policies in Rotterdam. But we cannot tell BB: I don’t think there was ever talk about selling it to developers “you have to work with this architect”. We private investors. Because at the time that those wouldn’t want it either because it doesn’t work like plans were developed, the city development was very that. They have big assignments for huge buildings, government structured and steered. So that has so they have to trust their architects and vice versa. changed over the last ten, fifteen years and has

But we try to convince them to look for an architect development rights but didn’t do anything, well they together with us. Because we also have a lot of did something, but it didn’t work out. And then we knowledge of architects and which firms would be said, “now you really have to make a plan, otherwise god for this job. So, it’s very important to have we are going to ask someone else to develop this conversations about it. So, for the Havana plot”. But what we do nowadays, for other plots in Philadelphia, that’s building over there, MVRDV is the city, is that we put an open call out and we have designing it. We had talks with the developer. So, we selection criteria for what we want to do on this plot told them we want to look for an architect together and they have to make a sketch design and then we with you. And it took some time, but they said it’s a can select a developer and an architect. Because we good idea. So, we made a list of twenty architects also want to select the design, of course. Well, it with all reference images, we talked about different doesn’t always work like that. Sometimes just option etc. And we didn’t talk about just names of developers are selected but then you don’t really architects, so like you want this one or that one, but know what you get. we talked about what the developer wants from the AK: So, you would ideally select the whole package? architect, what the architect has to be able to do, what kind of building we want and what kind of BB: Oh yes. We said in our selection criteria for image we want here. And we talked about another plot, where we select the developer, that celebrating the residential, because sometimes the they would have to present a design or a vision of residential building can look like an office building. what they want, together with an architect and that But we want them to look like homes. So, we talked they have to make the plan with that architect. So, about stuff like that to make sure to share the vision developers can’t change architects afterwards. of what is wanted from the building and the AK: And when you put out a call for the development architects. And finally, we suggested five architects of a space is there a usage of the site included? for the developer to approach. But we decided together, it was really a together thing. They were BB: Yes, there is. asked to make a sketch design and present it. And AK: Can you tell me something about the decision- then there were three architects we asked to make a making processes of these uses? Who and how better worked out design and then we selected decided the usage, i.e. more office or more MVRDV. But it was something that was really done residencies or mixed use etc.? How does that together with the developers. So that’s just a lot of happen and to what extent the community talking [laughs], it was really nice, really good to … surrounding a plot is maybe even included? and now both the developer and we are really happy. It’s not just what kind of design the architects make BB: Yes. Well, the best example I can tell you about but what kind of conversation do you have with the is the land for Parkstad. It’s an urban plan for housing architect. And when you have remarks and area and urban dwellings. It’s a little more south questions, how do they react, do the react, because where the train tracks used to be […] And well it was some architects, you know … but some architects assigned mainly as a housing area. We don’t need a really reacted and listed and said “Hey, there’s an lot of new offices in the city, only just in the area near issue here and we need to make this better“, you the central station. And at the time the urban plan know, and the building became better through that. was designed we wanted to make a lot of single And afterwards it’s a really easy process. After that I family houses, like row houses, really Dutch row- [the city] spent really little time with them [MVRDV]. houses, maybe mixed with apartments of course and some shops and working spaces. So, we made an […] urban plan and it was designed with some apartment AK: Can I ask you about the process of finding blocks on the corners. So that’s how the programme developers for the sites? So, if you have a site how of these plots was decided. But over here on the does that go? Are developers approaching the city, Wilhelmina Pier, for example, we have the Havana or the other way around, is the city putting out calls Philadelphia and we said it has to be residential. But for the development? then the developer came with the idea that they wanted two towers. A smaller one with a height of 70 BB: For the KvZ the developers were already meters, and a 165-meter tower. And he wanted to selected a long time ago and it wasn’t a very make a bridge in between and this bridge should be transparent process. I actually have no idea how this a hotel. And we thought that was an amazing idea. process went. But the developers were selected and So, we said yes, let’s do that. So sometimes it’s very never lost their rights to develop a plot. We just strict. Because when you put out a call and you say presented today Chicago, a plot on the other side of this the programme, and this is the price, you can’t the Hotel New York, and developers had

change the programme afterwards. But here a BB: No. And its policy about the environment and developer was already chosen and came with a good stuff like that, the national policy the influences the idea and we said “well, great!”. planning here. Such as rules on pollution etc.

AK: So basically, you put out a usage but it’s not AK: I was actually going to ask you about that, too, to necessarily that rigid. what extent environmental concerns are included in the further development of the KvZ. So, in general, BB: When you put out a call, it is quite rigid. Because actually, as I’m not quite sure, what is the state of the it has to do with European selection criteria and when KvZ now? Is it completed? You mentioned the “last you select a developer you can’t change the big piece”, does that mean development goes further programme afterwards because then you would have south or moves to other previous harbour areas? to do the whole selection process again. BB: Well, its ongoing, on the Wilhelmina Pier we have AK: And that’s something coming from the EU, i.e. a the Chicago project and then there’s one more plot supranational authority? next to the harbour centre, but that can’t be built BB: Yes. when the cruise ships are still coming through here, because you can’t combine that. But the KvZ of AK: So, you have another deciding level on top of the course is a lot bigger, there’s also Katendrecht, national one. which has this area [points out the window], which BB: I think it has to do with competition rules and … I connects it to the main land, and that’s being built don’t’ know what it’s called … now but we just presented a plan last week for the Rijnhaven, for the creation of new land in the AK: I don’t know exactly the word you’re looking for, Rijnhaven, making a park and a beach and a but I think I know what you mean. Competition rules thousand dwellings. Have you seen it? going into laws against cartels and monopolies etc. AK: No, I haven’t. BB: Yes, exactly, stuff like that. BB: I can send it to you if you like. So that’s a new AK: In the mid 90s, from what I read, there was a … phase, as it is. And we’re also thinking about making well, let me rephrase that. What I’m aiming at is how a new access for public transport on the Wilhelms much influence and how much of a say has the bridge. Because the Wilhelms bridge has this very national government in developing the city of strange connection and it’s not really a nice thorough Rotterdam. Does the city have a lot of authority and route. And Parkstad we are really developing and of independence? I read that there was a major city course Feijenord City, which is not KvZ but its all policy, the “Grote Steden Beleid“, in the 90s, which connected to each other, of course Feijenord city is was an agreement that the national government depending on Parkstad. If Parkstad is not realised, would set-up financial commitment for the then Feijenord city will be in the middle of nowhere. development, together with agreed upon development strategies. And I think that was a five- AK: And are environmental aspects central in the year agreement initially, that was then renewed, and I development of this? was wondering, on the one hand, what such an BB: Well, what is very striking is that this part is not agreement entails and how it emerges and, on the protected by dikes. other hand, if such an agreement is active now. AK: You mean specifically the Wilhelimakade? BB: Well, there’s no such agreement active at the BB: Yes, I can show you on the map. It’s a really moment. They used to be subsidies for intensification huge area that is not protected. And that’s something of urban and the city. There were two rounds of that very little people are aware of, because, well, subsidies, the two rounds you are talking about. And here we are, and the dike is here [showing on map] I have to tell you that I don’t know exactly what the and then it goes here and here. So, this, all this area conditions were for these subsidies but at the time is outside the dikes. And of course, it’s a bit higher that was still an issue, I only just started working with than the area behind the dikes but it’s not protected the city and wasn’t really involved of planning. And it by the dikes. But it’s not something we worry about. was all plans that were already made and that are You can just buy a house and insure it, but still … the only being built now, so that’s another stage of rising sea levels, it could become a problem. And for development. the rest we have quite strict rules, becoming more AK: So, there’s no such plan ongoing at the moment. and more strict about the insulation of residential objects. And we have heat from the harbour and its obligatory to connect houses to the hot water system, for heating and hot water etc.

AK: So, that’s a recycling of otherwise lost the energy buildings? I mean there obviously must be some kind of harbour operations. And that is basically top- of zoning plan, but do you also approach a down, so architect and developers have to agree to homogenous image of the KvZ? connect to that. BB: No, they don’t have a lot of freedom, of course BB: Yes. And the latest thing is that all new [laughs]. But what we find important, especially in developments can’t be connected to the gas, high rise, and we have a high-rise policy, is that the because we have gas, and it will be forbidden to high-rise is not too thick, so we say you can make it make use of gas in new buildings. And also, the city 30x30m with a diagonal of 42m, which can never be is trying to disconnect all existing housing from gas. bigger. So, then the high-rise has to stand on a larger building because a high-rise has an entrance, AK: Amsterdam is approaching the same, I believe. garbage, parking entrance and all that stuff that isn’t So, often such environmental approaches come with very attractive. And if you want to make an attractive additional costs, for example, in Switzerland we have city you have to have other functions as well. So, you an environmental standard called “Minergie” and the always have to make a bigger building where the costs for building like this are higher. Are there high-rise stands on. This is not the case in this subsidies for that or incentives with lower taxes or building [De Rotterdam towers] and you can see it on so? the ground floor on the street side, because there’s BB: No. entrance, entrance, entrance … and this is quite boring. It’s not really lively as it could be if there were AK: So that’s a set rule, top down. some restaurants and other stuff in between. So, BB: Yes. then we say you have to make the building pedestal, the plinth, you have to make it bigger but also, AK: So, in Switzerland this is voluntary but of course especially when its being integrated in existing urban often developers try to avoid it in an effort to save tissue, you have to keep the lower part the same money. height as the surrounding tissue. And in architecture, BB: Yes. That happens here, too, because only the just when you walk the street, you shouldn’t see things you can enforce by law are being done and where the high-rise is. You should just see the city not much else is being done. and a street. So, you can’t just build a high-rise and leave space around it because then the city falls AK: Can I ask you a few questions about planning for apart. So, we really work on that. And I know city image and the importance of design? How architects understand it and developers understand important do you think such iconic infrastructure like it. They see what’s happening, we have good the Erasmus Bridge or the De Rotterdam tower is for examples, and they are like “ok, we will do that”. And successful waterfront development? of course, because most of the time they have to go BB: I think it’s very important for Rotterdam and it’s to the welstand [welstandscommissie], a committee something that Rotterdam is known about and also the judges the architecture of a building. advertises itself with. We advertise us as a city that AK: That happens in the planning phase? changes all the time, every day and as an architecture city. And we also have the possibility to BB: Yes. And they are quite afraid of the committee make very unique architecture because we don’t and want to please it because they want to go on have a historic city centre. So, we have to have this with the plan. And most of the time they need us to “other thing”. Rotterdam is becoming increasingly agree in front of the committee and we tell them what popular with tourists over the last ten years. The they need to do in order to get our agreement. So, number of tourists is really rising. We’ve had reviews we are very strict on the quality of the architecture in the Lonely Planet, saying that Rotterdam is a must- and that the lower parts of the building are becoming see city. And other travel magazines say the same, part of the urban tissue, also in materials and like the New York Times etc. But design is also a way architectural expression. But when it comes to the to make a new identity. Well, there’s always a lot of tower we said that all towers have to have their own discussion about new buildings but most people in identity. So, the developer of the Havana Philadelphia Rotterdam are really proud Because we do also developed Boston-Seattle, that’s a double tower something different, and we feel different. of 70m height that’s just finished, and they wanted to make a copy of it because they liked it so much and AK: So consequently, another important aspect when then we said, “you cannot do that”. Because it has to looking for developers and architects is the image of be an original, it has to be one building with two the town, the town scape, the city scape. How much towers, so you can’t mix different architectural authority do you insist in having on the design of

expressions, it has to be one entity and it has to be to build a high-rise on. And that money we take and unique. This took some talks. out into public space. But they find it very important that we make really beautiful public spaces. And AK: To what extent does that lead to conflict in sometimes they say, “well, we want to build a tower public-private partnerships. here but you, the city of Rotterdam, you have to BB: Yes, it does. But we have to solve them [laughs]. invest, too. You have to make a beautiful public So, we talk, and we talk … but most of the time I’m space.” And we know over here on the Wilhelmina happy with the outcome. And the developers too. Pier that the developers really appreciate the spaces Now they’re really happy that they didn’t make a we make. copy but an original. And it’s amazing and creates a AK: Do you try to create these public spaces with an lot of attention. We went to the welstand and they outlook of mixing the area, either by putting it on a said, “this is great¨”. I was totally flabbergasted certain location or even specific design approaches? because that never happens. So, that’s also how we What I mean is that not only higher income classes create trust with them [the developers and that work or live in the KvZ but also people from architects]. I can tell this story about this architectural further south, the Afrikaadnerbuurt or Feijenord selection went to new developers to choose an would also be interested in using new public space? architect together with us. Because we can really help you and make the best decision for this location, BB: I think that’s a huge problem. Because when you for you, for the city. look at the public space, especially here on the Wilhelmina Pier, and also in Katendrecht a little bit, AK: And to what extent do you include the creation of it’s not very inclusive at all. There’s people from public space when planning in the harbour areas? Afrikaanderbuurt, which is one of the lower So, in the masterplan of developing the area how economically rated areas in the city, people who live important is the creation of common public space there don’t go to the KvZ. I don’t know why exactly therein? we haven’t researched that. And you could see them, BB: It is a central aspect. It’s this story of the plinth of you would notice that. Maybe it’s not attractive for the building and it’s in our high-rise policies, that the them or they don’t feel at home here. And I’m not plinth has to be public, well, public, I always find happy about that but don’t know what to do about it. public a hard word here because when you have to AK: This is a very difficult issue. I read a paper, I think buy a drink when you go in it’s not really public. And it was issued by the University of Utrecht, from 2010, that’s something I think we should be very aware of. I can send it to you if you’re interested. It revolves Maybe for me and you it’s very easy to go in and buy around a survey in the Afrikaanderbuurt, among other a drink but that’s not the case for everyone in the neighbourhoods, about the perception of the city. So that’s especially important in the public development of the KvZ by the local population. And space we make. So, we don’t just make spaces liked the perception turned out to be surprisingly positive. to consumption but also places where you can sit The locals were very much fond of what is happening and bring your own food or just sit there where you here. don’t always have to spend money. So that’s very important. But in those buildings, of course, you have BB: Oh, interesting, yes, I would like the read that. to spend money, because they have to pay the rent AK: So maybe to conclude, I think before the and so we try to have public spaces there. But it’s masterplan came in 1986 there were ideas or even quite difficult because at the time when the building plans to use the area for social housing and then in is being developed there are no parties to rent those the masterplan it was also integrated, it aimed at a space to yet. And then it is being built and takes two, mixed demographic. Would you say that succeeded three, four years before its finished and then the or not or in parts, maybe? developers look for parties to rent the spaces. So that doesn’t’ always work well enough. BB: Well, there’s no social housing on the Wilhelmine Pier and we are hardly building any new social AK: Do private investors show an interest also to housing, that’s because of our city government that create “proper” public space, so to speak, such as a thought there was enough social housing and so it’s public square or a park? not mixed at all. On the Wilhelmine Pier it’s not in the BB: No, they don’t. But we do, we don’t want them rest of the KvZ its more mixed because it’s all to do that, we do that ourselves and design them existing areas with ne infill locations. So, it’s more ourselves. So, we give assignments to landscape mixed. architects to design public spaces. But the AK: So, in a way it’s a break with the social housing developers pay for it because they pay for the ground tradition of Rotterdam?

BB: Oh yes. Yes, and I think that sometimes the differences are really big, too big to be bridged, too big for people to connect with each other. Because if it’s really deprived areas it’s not middle income but really high income, then these people don’t have a lot in common, it only makes the poor people feel poorer, so to say. And I think that’s an issue that needs attention. Because we also want to make housing that makes it possible for people living in the Afrikaanderbuurt who earn more money to stay near their social network but to buy a house or rent a house that they can afford. So, it’s difficult, especially now with the rising housing prices in the Netherlands. In Rotterdam they have risen the hardest in all of the Netherlands … AK: Even more than in Amsterdam? BB: Yes! On the one hand this is good news, Rotterdam is becoming more and more popular and people from Amsterdam are moving here, which is really nice because we always have this Rotterdam/Amsterdam-thing [laughs], but it’s also difficult because when housing prices are rising … people from Afrikaanderbuurt can’t buy a house that’s being newly build. I can’t even buy them anymore!

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.

Interview with Riek Bakker, 28 June 2018

• Interviewer: Andreas Künzi, MSc student Urban & Regional Planning, 2017-2018, University of Amsterdam • Interviewee: Riek Bakker, Urban Planner and former project leader of the Kop van Zuid development Rotterdam

• Interview setting: The interview was held in a meeting at the New York Hotel, Koninginnenhoofd 1, 3072 AD Rotterdam • Interview language: English • Interview referenced as: RTM3

• Affiliation with interviewee: None • Explanation of characters:

- AK = Andreas Künzi (Interviewer) - RB = Riek Baker (Interviewee)

- ~ = Inaudible - [ ] = Remark by author

Interview RB: Yes. And nobody liked them. As usual. It is still like that. AK: I will briefly summarise my thesis topic and approach. I’m looking at the institutional histories of AK: Same old story. Hamburg and Rotterdam and their different political RB: Yes, same old story. Incredible. After 70 years in settings: Rotterdam as a municipality under the our country in the middle of the big mess of who is national government and Hamburg as a city-state having work, who’s not, how are we going to develop, embedded in federalism. My hypothesis is that who is going to develop. And they were people who planning is largely affected by institutional traditions, were not seen as really clever, no need to look after using path dependence as my central theoretical them etc. I think it’s a scandal. But it’s of all times! framework. Ultimately, I’m focusing on the waterfront Noting new! So that meant that that part of the city was developments of Hamburg and Rotterdam in an effort not interesting at all but only for the poor people. But to align these developments to the historical findings. still, beautiful areas were made. If you go, you’ll see […] that there’s nothing wrong with it. Good quality, nice little areas and you can live there. Of course, you can RB: The funny thing is that I was already busy here and live there and its nice and quiet and nice people. But a man, whose name I can’t say now, visited me here. that was the big problem, the difference between the And he was quite impressed by what we did. And then north bank and the south bank. And the river in he said ok, I’m going to try this in Hamburg. And they between you could say the “highway on the water”. were so fast! Why? They had a lot of money, could Because this was the way to get the stuff from the sea invest a lot. The government helped them financially, to the hinterland. And the former hinterland to the big the national government, with a large amount of ships here. So, the developing of the city was totally money. And he was very good in those fields. He tried focused on the north bank. People from there did not to do it as fast as we did it here. come here, and the other way around. AK: I think it started later in Hamburg? AK: Also, the priorities in reconstruction after the war RB: Yes, it started later but finished sooner. Well, what were focused on the north? is finished … RB: Yes. That had the priority. For years and years and […] years. And when I came to Rotterdam, in 1986 I came here, and there was a big crisis, a financial crisis. We AK: So, the government funded a lot of the HafenCity. had something like 50,000 unemployed people. We To my knowledge there was a funding plan from the had The Club of Rome who said this city and this state in the early 90s to help develop the KvZ, which harbour is so dirty you can’t live here. You have to was then renewed. Is that correct? work on climate things, too. It took until now that they RB: No. What happened was … no. What happened, are interested. we had, in the Second World War, the entire harbour AK: There were already approaches to climate proof was bombed out and the entire city centre. After the the city in the 1980s? war, the city centres were rebuilt, they’re still working on it, it took about seventy years. And the difference RB: Yes. But nobody cared. Not at all. between the south bank and the north bank was AK: Did these approaches to include about enormous. This was not a place where you could be. environmental concerns in planning, did they come People didn’t like it, it was dangerous. It was a from the municipality or private? nowhere-land and on the back, here, people lived that RB: No. Because we have the municipality and we used to work in the harbour. But they used to work have the harbour. That’s our two things. The harbour here but then used to work there and had to go far. authority is far more … they can do far more on their And that were the people who came in the city in the own than the city can do. Because a part of the early 90s [sic] as guest workers. So that were the early ownership is by the central government., they own, I guest workers. They came from all places in The think, half of the business. And that’s because they Netherlands. North, south, west, east, everywhere. build the harbours outwards to the sea. And therefore, AK: That was in the early 50s? they said “ok, if we spend such a lot of money there, it’s not only Rotterdam, it’s the entire country ~ so it RB: Yes. was not any longer in the hand of the city council. So, AK: So immediate post war period, probably under the as city council … well, of course we got 40,000,000 Marshall Plan. Gulden at the time, a year, to help develop ~ city, for the rest we did not get anything. Well, we go, of course, the businesses and everything and people got

to live here and everything, so we got the spin-offs. RB: No, it was not that easy. Because everybody And that’s important. And it was desperately needed. thought that if you invest, you invest in the north. And Because when I came in 1986 is was very poor. when I came up with that plan everybody said, “No, no way, too early, we don’t do this. This is against all our AK: And now the harbour is privatised, the operation principles, we are not going to do anything, which can and logistics of the port. But it used to be under the boarder the harbour facilities, it’s not necessary, the authority of the municipality. Did that happen in the people are happy there” etc. It was a terrible struggle. 80s, i.e. simultaneously with the development? RB: In the 90s. Well, we had to, of course. But it was AK: But initially weren’t there plans to rebuild this area also a pity because the people who were in charge at [KvZ] with social housing, in the late 70s, early 80s? the city authorities had to open their minds for the RB: Yes. But of all the housing in the south bank it was harbour and the business in the harbour. They had to already 98% social. On the north bank a little less, but think it over. And we took excursion with the not that many. And that meant that all the people who municipality leaders to Baltimore, wherever, all over the could invest, who had a lot of money went to ~, a little world to show them what it could be, what we could village near Den Haag, and all that people were doing do etc. business with the national government and said “Well, AK: So, waterfront developments in Baltimore as a kind we can live in ~and do our business and we don’t need of blueprint? to connect with the city centre and the city council RB: Yes. We went all over. can’t say anything to us any longer, so let’s leave”, that meant that there was no society of good willing rich AK: London too? people. It was all poor people. RB: London too. Very bad example. AK: So, the rich society didn’t have an interest in AK: Why is that? developing the city. RB: Because they didn’t start with the infrastructure, RB: No. So, that was very difficult. People didn’t like it they ended with the infrastructure. When all the [the prospect development of the KvZ], people didn’t buildings were already on the way the brought in the want it, people didn’t want to hear it, people didn’t infrastructure. So, they had to demolish buildings. want to look at it, people said “You are crazy! What are you doing? We will hold you from it, we don’t want you AK: That is unfortunate planning. to do this!” But since I was … I served the city, I was RB: Yes [laughs]! So, here we started with the not the ~ person I was in charge as a city developer. infrastructure, that’s why the bridge came. And I became very good friends with the mayor. And the mayor [Bram Peper] said “We have to do AK: I read that the Wilhelmsbrug from the 19th something. Think of something, I don’t care, because century … we can’t have it like this, the half of people living in RB: It’s ld. And it has a funny way, not very convenient Rotterdam very poor …” […] So, it was … whoever you asked, the politicians, the entrepreneurs, the market AK: Its route is divided. leaders … nobody. Even when I went here to the RB: Yes. people [the local communities] and asked them what AK: And then the Erasmus Bridge came. But there was they want, what their plan for the future was “No, no, no, no, no!”. a ferry connection planned in the west … RB: Yes, a lot of ferries. But nothing was left. So, the AK: Why do you think that was [the neglection of the KvZ project amongst local communities]? only thing you could do was the tunnel [points westwards], the Maas Tunnel, that was one thing, and RB: The difference between being born on the north the other thing was the Wilhems Bridge. And people and being born on the south. Being born on the back thought “Well, that’s enough, we don’t need more”. of the harbour, having worked all your live in the They really stood with their backs to the south. harbour. AK: The Dutch political city is very much revolving AK: So, the connection to the north was seen as around consensus and inclusion, with mayn strange and alien? stakeholders in the decision-making processes etc. Was that something that came into play in the RB: Yes. So, people had a problem because we had development of the KvZ? this lack of work, a lot of people without work, we had this crisis, we had The Club of Rome that aid “Dirty city, don’t go there!” and we said, “Well, we have to do

something, otherwise what can we do.” You should be dirty. I thought we were in a great hurry and can’t do it aware of the fact that in the middle of a crisis you must all together. But if we don’t have a vision of what we make plans, otherwise it’s too late. And the mayor said want to do, then were should we start. And then I to me “Whatever you plan, I’ll back it.” And we had to thought “Let’s take five of those area developments on think of something and in the meantime, he looked at which we are going to work. We are not going to work his own board of elderman. And he said “Ah, I think on all thirty.” We had thirty instead of those 9,000 little this is not a very strong man, this is not a strong ones. So, the big change was clustering, integrating to woman, etc.” And what he did was that he made sub- collect money, not only from the city council but also groups all along these eldermen. So, we had three from the entrepreneurs and the central government. groups we had to work with. One group was social, AK: So, basically you approached public-private every social thing in the city, every social renewal, partnerships. whatever you could think of. The others were moneywise and spatial. And then the combination of RB: Yes. that. So that was my sub-colleagues that I had to do AK: Was that a new approach at the time? business with. And there was a sub-group which had to work on the region. Because we knew that if we RB: It was completely new. And because of the crisis didn’t work on the region, we are all alone, on and the clustering of the elderman, I had to go to my ourselves, that won’t work. This was very special. cluster of eldermen and convince them, that my city- plan was the best way to look at it. And they agreed. AK: So, the eldermen were divided into sub-groups for Not immediately but I could convince them. And then I social, economic and spatial concerns? said “Ok, I’ll take five of them, which we are going to RB: Yes. do.” And I was director of planning and normally the directors are not doing anything. Just walking and AK: And they were all related to or concerned with talking. But now we were going to do those five urban planning? projects. And I said “Give me a sub-director who’s RB: No. I mean maybe to some extent because in this going to look after the money and the persons and the division they got assigned their own items in which administrative stuff. I don’t want to have anything to do they had to develop their plans. And not everybody with this. I don’t want to be exposed to it, but I want to crawling around and looking after somebody else. And stay the boss.” And they agreed, they agreed. And that then they said to me “Look what you can do.”. And the was because I spent to ~, my mayor, and I said “Ok, first thing I did was that I made city plan for the entire this is my plan, and there it will end. And now we have city. Because what I learned when I came here was to take this and that step.” So, finally we had five that they only did projects. Something like 9,000 things, five integral plans of which we said that they projects. If you have a map of the city, it was all … were necessary. And the five we chose, because we [knocks her knuckles all over table] had here every week … every week we had visitors from abroad, from all over the world. And most of the AK: Scattered projects. time there was also a lady’s programme. RB: Yes. And I said “Won’t work, won’t work! Let’s AK: A lady’s programme? cluster them and lets’ do everything within the cluster. The infrastructure, the economic side, the social side.” RB: Yes. The entrepreneurs came from all over, China, So that we were truly integrated and nor part projects. Russia, from all over the world they came to have Because in the former days the one who had made excursions and talk about the business in the harbour. could make something, the one who didn’t have And they brought their wives, who stayed in a hotel. money couldn’t do anything. And they won’t gather the And as directors we had to make it nice for them, help money together. It was impossible. So, I changed the them to visit the city. We had an after sales entire thing, otherwise it won’ work. And if we needed programmes [?] and I said “Give me the lady’s infrastructure we went to the central government programme. I’ll do that.” And at that time, we had a because they would subsidise it. So, I knew we had little beautiful boat. And I placed them in the boat and better chances if we could say that we do one project. went all over the place. And I took them around, Very important. And if the infrastructure is not in it, it showing them around, tell them about the city. And I won’t work. So, the first thing we did was clustering used to live way up in an old harbour tower, which was these things all together. We call this “area the radar, but not any longer. And we went up in the development”. So, we found out here the area tower and we had a beautiful view and you could see development. I came here in September 1986. And at all over the place. And then I said, “Suppose your the end of the year we had a city plan. I did it quick and husband is coming to the hotel tonight and is asking

you … suppose you are going to live here, what are we had the entrepreneurs in too early they would say, your needs then?” And they said “We want good “No, we are not going to do it like this, no.” So, I said. houses, not social houses. We want schools, because “The entrepreneurs stay at the end because otherwise our kids can’t go to those schools you have. We want a I’m dead already.” good shopping, an excellent shopping centre. AK: So, you were basically setting up a programme Otherwise we have to go to Brussels or to London or scenario emphasising the public, the local people? wherever. And we think you are not able to do that very fast, so we want a very good, simple airport. We don’t RB: Yes. I got them all in my own house. Back then I want to go to Amsterdam.” And I thought, “Ok, that’s lived in the middle of the city on 300m2, far too much, I it. We do that. Let’s take a place where we are going to came from Amsterdam and all of the sudden I was in do houses, beautiful houses. Secondly, let’s change Rotterdam and nobody cares about you [laughs] it was the land~ …” this was very famous but was over the terrible, terrible! My friends from Amsterdam never top, nobody cared for it, and we turned it around showed up … well, I thought, “I can only do one thing, underneath the call signal, because the land~ didn’t to work my head off and then see later on.” And by want it, there were too many entrepreneurs on this doing so we got it all in the minds and hearts of the spot, we couldn’t get them together. And we made a inhabitants of the city. Which was the most difficult in museum park, so the Boijmans got an extension and this part. And this was by far the biggest plan. then a beautiful park with it. So, we did those five AK: For my own clarification, when you mentioned that things. So, we said to the mayor, “We want to do this you have all these international entrepreneurs here or these plots and the possibilities to do so and someone potential investors, with their wives, that was before else has to do the other things.” And they agreed. And you started doing programme scenarios with the then I worked oin all those things and all those things I community? So, you looked for potential investors and finished. Except the airport. Because it was not in our then kept them at the end? hands. The national government was the owner and they had all the power over the airports. We couldn’t RB: No. Those were investors interested in the finish that. But we made the KvZ, the museum and the harbour, in the harbour area, not the city. schools and that I rendered in the sub-groups of AK: Ah so those were potential investors for the eldermen. So, everybody got one. So, every time they harbour, for the operations in the harbour and not the needed me, I was there. And then I asked designers, redevelopment of the area. So, their interest in good city planning designers, the best I could think of, redeveloping in the city was that if they invest here, in and I let them make plans for these areas. I said, “We operational infrastructure for the harbour etc., they … have three months. The plan does not have to be finished. It has to give an image of what it could be and RB: Then they wanted to live here. And their families what we need. And you don’t have to have it worked have to live here and so the question was what they out all.” Because if you work it out until the end, need, then. nobody can have influence on it. And what we do is the AK: So, the investors for the actual redevelopment of same thing, quick and dirty but with a great sense of the area were different people. “What do we need, what will it show, what could it be”. And then I started a large … a marketing programme, RB: Different people. And then of course you get the something like a marketing programme. So, I had money thing, there’s the … the groups that lived in the several teams in these areas and we started making areas they wanted to deal with me, what it was going little groups, having models of all our plans and we to be, what will it be, what can our goal be, and can invited little groups of people from the public, they trust me and things like that. And then I said “Ok, specialised, and we started telling them, “Look what you can trust me, but I’m an employee of the city, I’m we have, look what it could be. Look where we are not a politician. So, if you want deal making you have here. We need your help.” to go to the politicians. And whatever comes out I’ll follow that and do it. That are the rules.” Otherwise I AK: What kind of groups were those? was going to sit on the chair of the eldermen and that RB: Public. was not possible. And then I went to Bram Peper again [the mayor] and told him that they [the local population] AK: Such as housing associations, neighbourhood want to deal with the politicians. And that was an communities etc. They were all included? exciting moment. So, they came over and started RB: Yes, yes. So, the people from the street, the talking and talking and at the end of the day there was people who are living in the areas. And the an agreement: we are going to do this and how we are entrepreneurs were at the end, still at the end. Because

going to do it. “And she has to be in charge, otherwise problems. It was more diplomacy, it was more … it had we don’t do it!” nothing to do with planning. Of course, we had to have beautiful plans and we had to make showings for AK: You said you had thirty areas, clustered from the everybody. I went to America to look for people who former 9,000 projects. How were the priorities set for could make our shows. So, it was more … like, how we these areas, i.e. which areas were approached first and can show what we want to do and what our urgency is. to what extent did the inclusion of the locals affect “It must be!” because after the crisis we were further these decisions? away than ever. RB: I did this with the mayors ~. I said, “We do five. We AK: So, you basically had to justify why public money don’t want to take them all, that would be far too should be invested here. much. So, let the people in the offices work on the other ones.” They were used to work on these 9,000. RB: Yes. So, there had to be a rearrangement of the people in AK: And did the municipality have a lot of say in the public offices. Otherwise, what were they’re going to programming of the redevelopment? I’m still thinking do? So, “Place them on the other 25 clusters that were about the initial developing approach for social housing left over and try to make them work.” Very difficult, but in the KvZ. When was this dropped, i.e. was it dropped what I thought was that I don’t want to have any completely or partly and under what circumstances? enemy. So, I thought I give them all chances and said to them “You can do it, you can do it! I will not be RB: It was still a part of it. Of course, it was a big there, but you can do it! You are the greatest, the discussion. But I could explain them [the local biggest! You can do it. Do it!” population] that if you look at the entire city, it’s something like 92% social housing, too much, so I told AK: Almost like a motivational speaker. them the story of the ladies and the investors in the RB: Yes. In the office, I think, one third was not able to harbour whom wouldn’t come if it was to stay like this. do anything. And the others they did ok. And they were So that it was destroying the economy of the city if we very anxious to really get this done. And I said to the had such a big amount of the same housing and only others that stayed behind “You are in charge, you can social housing. So, we had to do this. And they could do it!” understand, so, people who lived here, too, they understood. AK: You are talking about the board of eldermen now? AK: They agreed that the area should be developed RB: Yes. other than just with social housing? AK: And when the programme was set-up with the RB: Well, it was all a fight. Piece by piece. And bringing inclusion of the community, how did investors react to in the entire … what it could be, what the effect could that? Since the project was largely funded through be. So, we also explained the effect. What it would private investors. bring the city. It was a sort of campaign, it was campaigning. RB: No, no, no. The private investors came at the end. And they didn’t want to do anything at the start. They AK: And do you think, if you look at the KvZ today, is it didn’t like it, they thought it was crazy. They though it in agreement with what was planned in 1986? wasn’t normal, what we were going to do. They wanted RB: Yes, reasonably. But of course, the programme to do social housing and that it wouldn’t be possible … changed a lot. For instance, when we started, the they were terrible, terrible people. So, what we did offices on this pier must all be on that side of the pier. was, we started on our own. And we went to the city, So, they would have a nice view of the old city, or the the central government. And we showed the minister, new old city. So that was on that side. And in the the president of The Netherlands … we had a talk with middle of it there could be all sort of development. But him and we said, “Look, we need help”, because now it’s all mixed. But at that time, it was ~. We Rotterdam was the worst of all places, of all the big couldn’t do it. And I thought, “It comes later on.” places in The Netherlands. So, in the end, after talking and talking and talking, they made a special agreement AK: I read that there was a projection, from the mid with the city. We had a special agreement. Since the 1990s, how many people would live here in the KvZ by entrepreneurs were not willing to do it … because 2010, and I think its significantly less now. financially … and that’s why the central government RB: I don’t think so. Because this pier, for instance, payed the infrastructure. But we had to look after has the highest density in the entire Netherlands. arguments so that not the entire country would come and say, “We want a bridge, too!” So, we had all sort of

AK: So, also the ratio of offices and residencies is in would say ‘Oh miss Bakker, she has all this money, agreement with what was planned. how come?’” It’s working like that. So, I went to the mayor and he said “This is brilliant. Because I can’t RB: Yes. But it took me thirty years. Everything was a give you money. I have to go through city council and fight. Noting went normal. I was standing in the middle everybody has to agree … one thing you have to do, of the city council saying, “If you go on with making you have to bring somebody on the table who is policy out of this it will never happen. So, make policy controlling this. Because it can be a disaster if you wherever you want to, but not on this place. Otherwise both can’t be very clean in what you did and so on.” [?] it [KvZ] won’t be realised. So, kick me out then!” That was very wise of him. So, we never had problems. AK: What kind of policy are you thinking that would And he kept all the eldermen. have hindered the project? AK: So that was an external person surveying, almost, RB: Well, what politicians do, rolling around, I want the different parties and tying them together. this, I want that, etc. RB: Yes. And for me that was very handy because he AK: So, you made a call for not implementing policies did also my projects, my five projects he controlled. in this area was a call to let it be dynamic and transformative and to keep the abilities to react? AK: And this person was employed by the municipality, RB: Yes. To be flexible. It was very simple, for me. I the city? had my own office in Amsterdam. I worked for the city RB: Yes. of Rotterdam a lot. They asked me to come and do this. I thought, “Wow, this is once in a lifetime, here I AK: So many layers … go.” I went here, and it was a disaster. I mean, nobody RB: Yes, incredible! there, no friends … AK: And was there any point where schemes were for AK: A broken city. the organisation of this were created? RB: A broken city. So, the only thing I could do was RB: Yes, later on. that I left my office, which at that time was a scandal, to leave an office that you started, so, I could never go AK: So, it started without such models, automatically, back. The only thing I could do was to go. And I had almost organically, so to speak? one friend, the mayor. And I thought, “Well, this is the RB: Yes. And we were going to do the next step only if model. I need friends. Not many but a few.” So, I had I was sure that I would become the city council soon. the mayor as a friend and then I went to the director of Because if there would be any quarrel of anything I the harbour authority. And of course, my colleagues would not let them go … [?] So I was very dominant. from other areas in the city became jealous. Because I And they didn’t like me at all. Ah, later on they did. But got far too much power. So, they tried to …. Ah they I had nothing to lose. And after ten years, there came tried all sort of strange things. So, I thought … thy tried an elderman and worked and said, “I’m going to do to get me less money, so that I couldn’t do the things wat you are doing” and I said, “Ok, you mean that I that I meant to do. have to leave?” and he said, “Yes.” Then I went to the AK: To limit your capacities? mayor who said that I should think of something that I could stay. And I said, “What the fuck … how do you RB: Yes. And then I went to the director of the harbour want me to do that?” And then I thought I’d start my authority and he was always in his office and I was own office again, they can hire me as a supervisor, always in my office. So, in the evening I went to him they pay me and then I can go have a new start. So, I and explained everything to him. And then he said, went back to him and proposed that. And they said, “Well, you are doing things for me, in your office, as the “You should ask the city council to make this decision city. I’m going to pay you for that, how about it. You ~ and you should go to the harbour authority and ask send me your bill and if the controllers say yes then them to pay you.” And he did. That was the reason that you get the money and you can call me to do what you I satyed here thirty years. do. Go on.” And I asked him, “Why do you do this?” and he said to me, “You know, I’m born on the south AK: So, when this change came, the elderman taking bank.” And he had a lot of money. So, all of the sudden over from you, was the KvZ already in construction? I had the full amount of money I needed. And then I RB: The infrastructure was done. It was very fast. And said to him that I would give this news to the mayor the rest, the buildings, was on the way. and he said, “No, you can’t.” and I said, “I must. We have all these division in the city council. And they

AK: How did you choose architects for the site? What AK: Do you think that influenced the masterplan and were some of the decisive aspects to choose the development for th KvZ, that it triggered it? architects? I’m thinking about the Erasmus Bridge or RB: No, but it triggered me. That I though it can’t be the De Rotterdam tower, these flagship iconic projects. that we have such great architects and don’t ~ but I Was it an aim from the start? can’t tell you this in an hour, but I mean, it was not RB: I did it already in the ten years before. easy, it was not a normal way. It never could have AK: So, you specifically wanted sort of prestige happened if we would have done it in a normal way. projects for the area. AK: So, it was really a break from the usual planning RB: Yes. I wanted to show off. The first thing was that strategies. it had to show off. Because for instance, there was a RB: Yes, it was a break. bridge planned [to Kadendrecht] but the elderman didn’t want that bridge. He said, “This is an island, it AK: Do you think that break is still significant in should stay like one and we’re not going to make planning today, that planning builds up on this break? metros.” And I said, “You can’t leave them alone RB: Oh, yes. This is a long-time thing. Now we have there!” He stayed something like six years and then he the Wilhelmine Pier, the centre of all, and not they left and then I said, “Ok, we are going to build this changed the boarder. The boarder is now on the south bridge now because otherwise it’s not fair.” So, side of the pier. So, the centre is now here. But the development is really going south. funny thing about Rotterdam is, the harbour started on AK: The development seems to be focusing on the the north bank, then it came over the river, it came here south east. [KvZ], then it went to the Waalhaaven, then it went outside. So, if you do the planning of the city it’s very RB: No, not only. Have a look there [Kadendrecht]. If easy. You follow the old pieces of the harbour. They you go over the bridge and you look back, its very are beautiful. And you have your own identity. You interesting. don’t have to create one. It’s very simple. But they AK: I have one final question: is it true that there was a don’t look at it in this way anymore. I keep on telling plan by Rem Kolhaas that preceded your masterplan? them. But I have to stop. Because they think I’m an So, the narrative would be that there was an initial plan angry old lady. to develop this as social housing, then Rem Koolhaas came and took a slightly different approach, very much oriented on the waterfront only and then, finally, your masterplan came on top of that, so to speak, almost combined the two approaches [social housing vs. high- end development].

RB: What we have is a special group in the city that have to do studies for places to develop in the future. And they’re free to do what they like. A little group of architects and town planners. It’s very nice. And they did a study with a lot of foreign architects, I think Rem Koolhaas was not in there, to develop this entire area. So, they already started the discussion. And it was of a great ~ to me not to start something and throw it on the floor and everybody looks because they would kill it. For me it was a big lesson not to look that way. But what Rem Koolhaas did was, he did a study on the waterfront. Near the Wilhelsm Bridge. And I thought, well, since we have such a great architect, whether you like him or not, but he’s world famous and used to live in this city, it would be crazy not to have something of him. Crazy! AK: So, his plan was for the development of the Noordereiland waterfront.

RB: Yes, but it was never built because nobody dared.

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.

Interview with Jürgen Oßenbrügge, 17 July 2018 • Interviewer: Andreas Künzi, MSc student Urban & Regional Planning, 2017-2018, University of Amsterdam

• Interviewee: Jürgen Oßenbrügge, Professor for Economic Geography with emphasis on regional and urban research, University Hamburg

• Interview setting: The interview was held at the Geographical Institute of the University Hamburg, Bundesstraße 55, 20146 Hamburg

• Interview language: German • Interview referenced as: HH1

• Affiliation with interviewee: None • Explanation of characters: - AK = Andreas Künzi (Interviewer)

- JO = Jürgen Oßenbrügge (Interviewee) - ~ = Inaudible

- [ ] = Remark by author

Interview könnte man auch so eine Art nationalsozialistische Phase rauslesen. Und das war natürlich, also wenn AK: Sie lehren Wirtschaftsgeographie? man zurückguckt, auch so eine Aufbruchsstimmung; JO: Ja, ach Gott. Wir nennen das Anthropogeographie jetzt wollen wir mal andere Themen, mit dem Alten uns hier in Hamburg. Wir haben verschiedene Bereiche. kritisch verhalten aber auch mal andere Themen Selber mache ich auch Wirtschaftsgeographie. Ich suchen. Und das war eigentlich meine Idee damals. würde es eher politische Ökonomie bezeichnen wollen, Und das war eigentlich meine Idee damals, mit den also das Zusammenspiel von Wirtschaft und Politik. neuen Konflikten um Raumaneignung, Raumnutzung Das ist sozusagen der Entwicklungspfad, um mal Ihre zu versuchen eine fachliche Neuorientierung zu finden. Bezüge aufzunehmen. Allerdings haben wir in den AK: Diese, ich sag jetzt mal, fast Instrumentalisierung letzten Jahren hier sehr viel zu tun mit von Geographen, hinsichtlich kolonialer Ausweitung, Kilmaforschungsfragen und da bin ich auch ziemlich meinen Sie das war typisch für Deutschland? eingestiegen. Es sind Schwerpunktsetzungen, wenn man das Fach auf einen guten Reproduktionspfad JO: Nein nicht nur. Es gibt eine deutsche Tradition. Es führen will, dann muss man mit dem Mainstream auch gibt ja immer diese Sonderwegdebatte. Also ich würde ein bisschen mitspielen. Also von daher habe ich in schon meinen, dass es sowas wie einen deutschen den letzten Jahren eigentlich sehr viel zu Stadt und Sonderweg gab in der Geographie, die sehr stark Klima geforscht. durch Friedrich Ratze, er gilt als Begründer der Anthropogeographie in Deutschland und hat sehr stark AK: Sie haben ja ursprünglich aber auch Geschichte zu Umwelt in einem geodeterministischen Kontext studiert. hineingebracht. Sehr stark auch eine Art darwinistische JO: Ja. Ich habe mich sehr mit dem Deutschen Lesart von sozialen und kulturellen Prozessen gepflegt Kaiserreich und der Weimarer Zeit beschäftigt. Das war und dies ist den auch in der Geopolitik weitergeführt auch so ein bisschen, also das muss man verstehen. worden. Von daher gab es schon einer sehr Also gerade so in den 70er war das sehr wichtig, fand naturdeterministische Phase in der deutschsprachigen ich jedenfalls. Über die Veränderungen an den Geographie und das ar in anderen Ländern, also in Universitäten, die Frage eigentlich was und wie bisher Frankreich beispielsweise nicht der Fall. In Frankreich bearbeitet worden ist. Und dann bin ich so auf einer gab die Schule der Annalen, wo die Geographen auch Welle mitgeschwommen. Das hat mir sehr geholfen. dabei waren, auch Gegenstimmen, die sich auch explizit gegen Ratze gewendet haben. Das gab es AK: Und gab es da schon einen Schwerpunkt auf auch in England. England würde ich aber so ein Stadtforschung? bisschen gemischter sehen, weil durch die imperiale JO: Nein. Ich habe ja hier in der Geographie promoviert Vergangenheit in der Politik Leute unterwegs waren die zum Thema politische Auseinandersetzung und Raum. sich auch überlegt haben, wie Weltherrschaft räumlich Das heißt, da haben wir einen stärkeren Bezug zu den zu organisieren sei. Von daher würde ich das da so ein Auseinandersetzungen um Industrialisierung, bisschen offener halten. In den USA gab es auch Atomkraftwerke, Hausbesetzungen. Diese ganzen verschiedene Lager, zum Teil auch so eine Art Fragen der neuen Konflikte haben mich sehr angeregt. deutsche Applikation. Und zum Teil aber auch eine Meine Dissertation ist auch als politische Biographie sehr kritische Haltung. Also man kann schon sagen, verankert. Und das war so eine Art Idee, jetzt in der dass da sowas wie eine besondere Situation gab, Geographie auch mal eine veränderte Sichtweise zumindest in der Geographie. Deswegen lohnt es sich einzuführen. Geographie ist sehr unbeleckt gewesen, auch, sich wissenschaftsgeschichtlich mit Geographie von den gesellschaftlichen Veränderungen der 60er, auseinanderzusetzen, weil da diese Art von 70er Jahre. Die hat sich sehr konservativ, eigentlich, gesellschaftlicher Auseinandersetzung gelesen werden gezeigt und gehalten und ist in der … also ich war kann. Man könnte auch sagen, dass Geographie in der noch ein Einzelgänger. In den 90er Jahren ist da so Schulbildung so eine Art Gegenprogramm zum eine Art Modernisierungsschub … also was in der Entstehen von linken Strömungen war. Also der Soziologie in den 70er Jahren war ist in der Geographie marxistische oder sozialistische Internationalismus zwei Jahrzehnte später erst vollzogen worden. wurde konterkariert von Leuten wie Rühe, so ein bisschen Heimatliebe, was wir ja jetzt auch wieder AK: Also das Soziale in der Geographie und … haben, so mit Heimatliebe und solchen Dingen JO: Ja und die kritischen Fragen, auch die kritische konterkariert. So eine Art Idee „Das ist eigentlich das Auseinandersetzung mit der Vergangenheit. Die Wahre und nicht der Klassenkampf“. Und das ist auch Geographie war vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg, aber auch in sehr interessant, wenn man das mehr so von der der Weimarer Zeit, ein ziemlich spannendes pädagogischen Perspektive aufrollt. Herrschaftsinstrument. Auch in der Geopolitik. Das war AK: Wissen Sie ob das in Bezug auf die Niederlande sehr ausgeprägt. Da waren hie und da immer wichtige ähnlich war? Regierungsberater Richtung Kolonialismus, Imperialismus und in der Geopolitik von Haushofen JO: Das kann ich jetzt nicht sagen. Ich würde mal gar nicht so einfach. Wir haben ja häufig Fragen aus vermuten, dass es in den Niederlanden da keinen der vergleichenden Stadtforschung. Und wir machen eigenständigen Diskurs gab in der Zit. Oder wenn denn uns immer Gedanken ob man in dieser Form überhaupt einer der sich nicht mit dem Fach der Geographie … vergleichen kann. Weil der Stadtstaat-Status von also sie hatte immer eine Art von Regionalkunde. Das Hamburg ja den jeweiligen Regierungen, oder dem war eigentlich Art traditioneller Auftrag. Vor allem Urban Regime oder wie auch immer wir das fassen, würde ich das auch in den Niederlanden sehen, als natürlich ganz andere Handlungsmöglichkeiten und grosse Handelsnation, dass Geographen da sehr viel Gestaltungsmöglichkeiten gibt, die eigentlich in jeder Macht haben [sic] zur Forschung von Afrika und Beziehung eine viel höhere Eigenständigkeit, größere Mittelamerika, Asien. Ob dieses politische, wie in Kompetenzen aber auch viel stärkere Deutschland … das kann ich mir eigentlich nicht so Steuerungsmöglichkeiten zur Verfügung stellt. vorstellen. Jedenfalls die Kollegen die ich aus den AK: Auch im Vergleich zu anderen deutschen Städten Niederlanden kenne, haben das bisher eigentlich nie die nicht stadtstaatlich organisiert sind? thematisiert. Und ich würde einfach vermuten, dass das kein Thema war. Denn die Geographie ist da ja JO: Ja. Das ist eine besondere und besonders wichtige auch sehr stark, in Utrecht, vor allen Dingen, aber auch Sache. Und man kann eher sagen, dass es eine Art in Amsterdam gibt es starke Geopraphieinstitute, stadtstaatliche Politik gibt, die man eher mit Groeningen in der Wirtschaftsgeographie … ich würde länderstaatlichen vergleichen kann. Nun ist mir die schon vermuten, dass da auch eine kritische Gruppe Kompetenzverteilung im niederländischen System das aufgenommen hätte. nicht so ganz klar, aber ich würde mal einfach sagen, dass es in den Niederlanden eine nationale Hafenpolitik AK: Meinen Sie, dass sich das in Deutschland auf die gibt, die sich in Rotterdam artikuliert und manifestiert. Ebene der Stadtentwicklung vertieft? Diese Verbindung Während wir hier [in Hamburg] zwar auch eine von Geographie und Politik? nationale Transport- und Hafenpolitik haben, ist diese JO: Naja, nein. Also die politische Geographie ist in aber sehr stark geprägt von Hamburg und Bremen als Deutschland nicht sonderlich etabliert. Aber es gibt Stadtstaaten. Und da sind es eigentlich jeweils auch sehr viel kritische Geographen, die alle möglichen die Entscheider, die die Positionen bestimmen. Die Themen bearbeiten, dieses Verräumlichte. Ich meine in nationale Politik wird hier [in Deutschland] sehr stark Hamburg, bei den Kollegen der HCU, da sehe ich auch durch die lokalen Kontexte mitgeprägt. Der Bund ein gutes Potenzial, wenn ich jetzt mal Stadtplanung würde nie eine Seehafenpolitik ohne Hamburg und und Geographie nebeneinandersetze, so die kritische Bremen machen. Die würde es gar nicht geben ohne Forschung inzwischen eigentlich eher in der Hamburg und Bremen. Von daher sehe ich da Geographie sehe. Während in der Stadtplanung mehr eigentlich eine ziemlich starke Rolle. Man sieht das ja die Macher sitzen. Aber die Stadtplanung ist auch an vielen Dingen, auch die Aktuere in der institutionell nicht so stark. Und wir [die Geographen] Hafenwirtschaft sind ja eigentlich auch staatlich. können da andere Felder besetzen. Aber es gibt ja AK: Es gibt ja diese zwei, ich sage mal, Gefässe. Die auch große Überlappungsbereiche. Also das ist Hamburg Port Auhority, die Verwaltung … eigentlich nur so eine, wie soll ich sagen, vorläufige Ansicht. JO: Die war früher in der Wirtschaftsbehörde drin. Die haben sie dann ausgelagert. Da könnte man auch […] nochmal drüber nachdenken. Sie ist zu einem AK: Kurz der Ansatz meiner Masterarbeit Zeitpunkt ausgelagert worden, wo die zusammengefasst: ich schreibe eine historisch- Hafenentwicklung eine ziemliche Dynamik hatte, wo vergleichende Studie der Hafenentwicklungen in die Containerentwicklung sehr stark anstieg, in der Rotterdam und Hamburg, Pfadabhängigkeit soll dabei ersten Dekade war das, so 2000-2010 gab es ein sehr meine theoretischen und analytischen Rahmen stellen. starkes Anwachsen an Containerverkehr. Und da Dabei lieget auch ein gewisser Fokus auf den beiden wurde das Handling so umfassend, dass es sich lokalpolitischen unterschiedlichen Systemen der lohnte, da eine Port Auhority zu bilden, als Städte. Rotterdam als Munizipalität, als Gemeinde eigenständige Behörde, wenn man so will. Gleichzeitig unter dem Dach des Nationalstaats und Hamburg als hat man denn aber den Hafen auch aus dem Stadtstaat in einer föderalistischen Struktur. Meinen politischen Alltagsgeschäft ein bisschen rausgezogen. Sie, dass dieses lokalpolitische System eines Und das ist in Hamburg auch immer ein wichtiger Stadtstaates hier in Hamburg Einfluss nimmt auf die Punkt. Es gab immer wieder Auseinandersetzungen um Stadtplanung, auf Planungsstrukturen? den Hafen, um die Hafenflächen, vor allen Dingen, und durch die Port Auhority konnte man diese JO: Ja, eindeutig, würde ich sagen. Aber von daher Hafeninteressen gewissermaßen etwas stärker finde den Vergleich von Rotterdam und Hamburg da

abkapseln von anderen Einflussgrößen, Von den kann ja ein Reeder wie Maersk dann auch nutzen, um vierjährigen Regierungswechseln oder wie auch immer. bestimmte Verkehr dann von Rotterdam in den Osten Von daher ist das vielleicht auch nochmals eine zu organisieren. Aber es scheint sich jetzt wieder zu Stärkung der institutionellen Rahmung staatlicher beruhigen. Nun ist Hamburg im Augenblich nicht in Hafenpolitik. Aber sie bleibt, auch wenn die Port einer sonderlich starken Situation, weil im Vergleich zu Auhority sich gerne als Hafenunternehmen gebiert, eine Rotterdam und Antwerpen die Wachstumsraten viel staatliche Einrichtung. Ich meine aber auch die HHLA geringer sind. Und so weichen sich dann auch die als Hafenbetreiber von Containerterminals. Haltungen etwas auf. Sie [die Hamburger Politiker] können sich gegenüber den Reedern dann nicht mehr AK: Die ist aber dann privat. so ohne weiteres alles erlauben, sondern müssen JO: Nein. Also ja, natürlich, sie ist sozusagen flexibler werden. privatwirtschaftlich organisiert, ist aber staatlich. AK: Meinen Sie, dass das zu einem gewissen Grad Hamburg kann in die HHLA hineinregieren, allerdings auch mit den Grenzen des Stadtstaats zu tun hat, dass nicht so direkt, sondern via Aufsichtsrat etc. Aber wenn sich Hamburg räumlich auch gar weiter ausdehnen die HHLA was macht, dann ist das abgestimmt mit kann? dem Bürgermeister und mit der Senatskanzlei. JO: Ja. Dieses Hoilmodell [?], von Weyn Hoil [?] der AK: Und die HHLA macht demnach Hafenmanagement dieses Modell mit dem Zur-Küste-Wandern hat. Das ist und -logistik und die Port Auhority ist die Verwaltung. ja aber in Hamburg gar nicht so. Der Containerhafen ist Und die arbeiten auch eng zusammen? jetzt zwar nicht mehr im Bereich des alten Hafens, aber JO: Nein. Also wenn dann nur informell. Aber die Port es sind ja nur anderthalb Kilometer, weiter ist der ja Auhority sieht sich auch als Hafenmanagement. Sie nicht gewandert. Das ist ja überhaupt nicht zu muss sich aber auch mit Eurogate auseinandersetzen, vergleichen mit Rotterdam. Also insofern haben wir … das sind die Bremer, die in Hamburg auch drin sind. ja, natürlich, ein Punkt ist da … ich habe ja eben Und in Eurogate ist ja Maersk drin. Da gibt es immer Wilhelmshaven genannt. Früher wollte Hamburg mal in den Konflikt. Rotterdam hat ja einen Maersk Cuxhaven so einen Container Terminal … oder es gab „dedicated“ Terminal, jetzt an der Maastakte [?] zwei mal die Planung auf zwei Inseln im Wattenmeer, und das wollten sie in Hamburg auch haben. Hamburg Neuwerk und ~, dass man eine der Inseln im will den Reedern keine Macht an den Terminals geben, Wattenmeer zum Hafen umbaut. Die Planung gab es in weil sie Angst haben, dass sie von den Reedern zu den 60er, 70er Jahren. Dann gab es lange Zeit stark abhängig werden. Und deswegen hat Maersk Überlegungen mit Cuxhaven. Dann gab es den dann auch mit den Bremern den Deal gemacht und hat Wettbewerb mit Cuxhaven und Wilhelmshaven und der auch gedroht, vieles zu verlagern, was auch passiert wurde dann für Wilhelmshaven entschieden. Und da ist ist. Aber die kehren jetzt wieder sukzessive zurück. Im Hamburg ja dann auch ausgestiegen aus der Augenblick heißt es, „Naja, vielleicht kann Maersk doch gemeinsamen Planung und hat gesagt, «Naja, wir wieder den Terminal kriegen in Hamburg, wenn wir ein bauen erstmal unseren Hafen hier in Hamburg aus». Im neues Terminal bauen können.“ Also es dreht sich jetzt Augenblick gibt es eine Art Obergrenze in Hamburg langsam wieder. Aber das ein interessanter Konflikt was Container angeht. Aber ein Wachstum von 50%- gewesen. 70% sind noch denkbar, könnten noch in Hamburg abgewickelt werden. Von daher muss jetzt Hamburg AK: Und diese Drohung zu verlagern, die sie erwähnt nicht unbedingt Standort suchen um sich neu zu haben. Wohin denn verlagern? artikulieren. Und die HHLA ist auch nicht so aktiv, als JO: Naja, Wilhelmshaven ist sehr interessant. Von da Akteur der woanders Umschlaganlagen aufbaut, lässt sich der ganze Transshipment-Verkehr zur Ostsee sozusagen Containerterminals aus dem Boden organisieren. Hamburg bleibt wichtig aber man kann stampfen. Das macht die HHLA auch nicht so. Sie sind auch über Bremerhaven gehen, vielleicht kann man sehr ortsbewusst und spiegeln eigentlich diese über Rotterdam mehr machen, da gibt es auch die traditionelle Überlegung, dass Hamburg seinen Hafen Anbindung über den Main-Donau-Kanal, über den hat, das es kontrolliert. Es hat seine Unternehmen. kann man jetzt auch in den Osten reinkommen. Das Hingegen die HHLA, die machen den Hafen. Und dann Hamburger Hinterland ist stärker nach Polen, gibt’s noch ein paar andere drum herum. Die Dominanz Weissrussland, Russland, Ukraine, Tschechien des Staatstaates ist im Hafen sehr ausgeprägt. Und orientiert. Von Rotterdam war eher auf die das war die alte Haltung. Rheinschiene fokussiert. Und Rotterdam konnte sein AK: Was glauben Sie, welche Wirkung diese Dominanz Hinterland immer stärker nach Osten ausbreiten und hatte und hat auf die Entwicklung von kommt damit ins Gebiet von Hamburg. Es gibt so einen Stadterneuerungsprogrammen wie zum Beispiel der Kampf um Hinterland, wenn man so will, und sowas HafenCIty?

JP: Ja, das ist auch eine gute Frage. Gehen Sie mal Elbtunnel eine Schranke darstellt, sonst müsste man zum Gruner + Jahr-Gebäude bei den den abreissen und das ist kaum politisch möglich. Das Landungsbrücken. Das ist architektonisch auch ganz heisst es geht gar nicht um Containerterminal oder interessant. Das ist zwischen Baumwald und sowas, sondern es geht um Logistikflächen. Es sind Landungsbrücken, das Gebäude von Gruner + Jahr, zwar schon sehr viele Verkehrszentren im Umland wo vor allen Dingen Der Stern entstanden [sic] ist, also entstanden, ein Autobahndreieck etc., also der Hafen es ist ein Medienhaus [Der Stern bezog die hat schon gewissermassen sein externes Standortnetz Baulichkeiten im Jahr 1990]. Dieses Gebäude ist in den gebaut, aber sie wollen auch weiterhin Hafen nah 1980er Jahren entstanden und zeigte, dass der Hafen Flächen in Anspruch nehmen. Von daher gab es seit für Hamburg keine grosse Rolle mehr spielt, sondern den 80er Jahren diesen Flächenkampf. Und wir sind die Medienwirtschaft. Eine Art Symbol einer damals in diesen Flächenkonflikt andersrum ökonomischen Machtverschiebung. So haben wir das eingestiegen. Der Containerterminal Altenwerde war damals jedenfalls interpretiert, «Jetzt geht die ein altes Fischerdorf. Das war einer dieser Konflikte, Medienwirtschaft an den Hafen ran.» Und auf der von denen ich vorher gesprochen habe. Die sind da anderen Seite gegenüber sieht man jetzt die alle ausgesiedelt wurde, plattgemacht worden. Die Musicaleinrichtung, da gibt es immer zwei Kirche steht noch da, als Relikt. Wird jetzt auch gerade Einrichtungen, Das Wunder von Bern war da jetzt lange diskutiert, ob man auch die Kirche noch abreissen Zeit und König der Löwen, die sind gewissermassen kann. Also seitdem besteht sozusagen ein akuter auf der anderen Seite der Elbe, wo eigentlich Flächenkonflikt und das wird im Unterschied hier Hafengebiet ist. Und beide Standorte, jedenfalls entschieden. Und die HafenCity ist gewissermassen zunächst mal dieser Standort von Gruner + Jahr war so ein Beispiel dafür, dass sich die Stadt mit ihren etwas wie «Der Hafen verliert seine Bedeutung und die Interessen durchgesetzt hat, gegen die Hafenwirtschaft Hafenflächen werden jetzt für andere Zwecke genutzt. die eigentlich mit der HafenCity sonst nicht viel am Hut Und da ist die Hafenwirtschaft natürlich extrem gehabt hätte. Es sind auch Brachflächen gewesen. mobilisiert worden, weil das Wichtigste für sie ja ist, Aber wenn sie mal, und das ist inzwischen auch gut Möglichkeitsräume zu haben, um unterschiedliche beschrieben, das hat der Voscherau, der damalige Geschichten zu realisieren. Und seitdem hat die Bürgermeister [Henning Voscherau, Erster Hamburger Hafenwirtschaft eigentlich immer versucht zu Bürgermeister 1988-1997] in einer Nacht- und verhindern, dass eine Umstrukturierung alter, Nebelaktion ohne irgendwelchen grösseren politischen ungenutzter, brachliegender Hafenflächen stattfindet. Auseinandersetzungen entschieden. Also sehr Sehr, sehr massiv. dirigistisch, wenn man so will, aber wohlwissend, dass wenn dieses Projekt in der Öffentlichkeit debattiert AK: In den 1980er war das. wird, dann könnte es auch wieder zerredet werden. JO: Ja, das fing in den 1980ern an. Und auch zum Und dann gibt es wieder diese Konfliktkonstellation Beispiel, dass wir hier sitzen ist auch ein Zufall. Es Stadt vs. Hafen, was aber im Grunde genommen hiess mal, die Universität solle auf den Kleinen eigentlich kein politischer Konflikt ist, die Stadt ist in Grasbrook kommen, dort wo später die beiden Bereichen drin. Es würde aber dennoch Olympiaplanung … Hamburg hat sich ja für möglicherweise wieder zerredet werden. Es würde in Olympische Spiele beworben und die wollten dort eine politische parlamentarische Debatte bestimmte Hafenflächen für das Olympische Dorf und hineinkommen, es würde die Hafenwirtschaft wieder das Olympiastation etc. nutzen un den sogenannten ihre Truppen mobilisieren. Von daher gibt es ständig Sprung über die Elbe zu realisieren. Also von der eine Art konfliktive [sic] Situation, die zwischen Hafen HafenCity über den Kleinen Grasbrook nach und Stadtentwicklung im Hinblick auf Flächennutzung Wilhelmsburg. Und da hat auch die Hafenwirtschaft existiert. interveniert. Die wollten keine … der Punkt ist wohl AK: Und der Widerstand hat sich vor allem auf die der … sie brauchen sie nicht unbedingt, die Flächen, HafenCity damals bezogen oder auch jetzt wieder auf aber sie haben Angst, dass wenn dort städtisches die Flächen vom Kleinen Grasbrook? Leben entsteht, dass dann eigentlich so eine Art von Widerspruchshaltung gegenüber Lärmemission, JO: Nun ja, da [auf dem kleinen Grasbrook] ist er jetzt Luftverschmutzung und weitere Einschränkungen, sag wieder sichtbar geworden. Theoretisch gäbe es auch ich mal, in den wirtschaftlichen Betrieb greift. Und sie noch andere Flächen auf die man sich konzentrieren argumentieren immer mit dem Flächenbedarf, den sie könnte, aber die liegen eben … ich drück das mal nach wie vor benötigen [würden], um effizient etwas zu anders aus. Ende der … was auch für Sie vielleicht machen. Der Flächenbedarf ist auf der einen Seite ein interessant ist, die Oberbaudirektoren der Stadt, haben Argument. Das gilt jetzt weniger für Containeranlagen, beide eine sehr intensive Auseinandersetzung mit dem die können gar nicht so weit abwärtsfahren, da der

Wasser thematisiert. Also der vorhergehende … also, verhindern, weil sie Angst haben, dass von daher ein wir haben ja schon wieder einen neuen … stärkerer Druck auf diese Bereiche kommt und sie dadurch sukzessive an Fläche verlieren. Und was ich AK: Frank-Josef Höing ist der jetzige, vorher war Jörn vorhin genannt habe war, also hier sind die Walter. Und der noch vorherige ist verstorben [Von Landungsbrücken, sozusagen das touristische 1981-1999 war Egbert Kossak Oberbaudirektor der Zentrum des Hafens, und hier ist das Gebäude von Stadt Hamburg]. Gruner + Jahr. Und hier sind die neuen Musicals. Und JO: Jedenfalls hat der so «Stadt in Fluss», solche da, das war sozusagen der Beginn, «Ah da a passiert Modelle gemacht. Und der Herr Walter, sein was, da müssen wir aufpassen». Nachfolger, hat dann den Sprung über die Elbe AK: Das steht momentan noch unter Hafenverwaltung thematisiert und gewissermassen das HafenCity und wir benutzt für Logistik und Lager etc.? Projekt, das schon existierte, als er hier anfing, genommen und gesagt, «wir müssen Wilhelmsburg JO: Ja. Also das ist auch sehr gemischt. Hier ist es anbinden, wir müssen eine Stadt in der Stadt Autoverlad … ist nach wie vor nicht richtig intensiv weiterentwickeln. Und der Sprung über die Elbe kann genutzt. nur funktionieren, wenn zwischen HafenCity und AK: Meinen Sie, dass die Verbindung, respektive die Wilhelmsburg städtebaulich etwas passiert.» Also war Entwicklung der HafenCity, motiviert war dadurch die das Bestreben immer, sozusagen diese Lücken, die Stadt weiter nach Süden zu entwickeln, eine durch Hafenwirtschaft belegt ist, zu schliessen. Diesen Verbindung zu schaffen zu Wilhelmsburg? Sprung, gewissermassen, auf den Grasbrook zu realisieren. Deshalb kam das Interesse auf am JO: Nein. HafenCity war eigentlich ein Prestigeprojekt Grasbrook irgendetwas zu machen. Es gab um eine Art Docklands in Hamburg zu machen. Ein Architektenwettbewerbe, die Living Bridge, als paar Architekten haben das dem Voscherau ins Ohr Moment … und eben, wie gesagt, immer wieder solche gesetzt, dass da eine spannende Fläche verfügbar ist. Planungen wie die Universität dahin zu siedeln, also Und dann hat er sich das sozusagen zu Gemüter sozusagen eine Masseninstitution, eine die Masse führen lassen und als Obermufti entschieden, «Das bringt. Wenn da 30,000, 40,000 Studenten sind, die machen wir.» Das war von Anfang an ein würden den Laden Wilhemsbrug natürlich aufmischen. Vorzeigeprojekt. Die Umsetzung ist dann natürlich Das wäre super aus Sicht dieser wieder interessant. Weil die Umsetzung der HafenCity Entwicklungsüberlegung. Und eben, als das mit der GmbH, das ist eine typische Hamburger Uni nicht klappte, kam die Olympiabewerbung, die Stadtstaatgeschichte. Man macht dann sozusagen auch diesen strategischen des Sprungs über die Elbe wieder ein eigenes Unternehmen, das sozusagen dem Gesichtspunkt umgesetzt hat. Staat gehört. Die HafenCity-Planung ist rechtlich sozusagen von der Stadt entfernt, aber wird von der AK: Wilhelmsburg gehört noch zum Stadtstaat Stadt … sie ist gewissermassen Eigentümer dieser Hamburg, oder? Firma. JO: Ja. Ich habe irgendwo eine Karte rumliegen … AK: Was heisst das, «Rechtlich von der Stadt […] entfernt»?

JO: Wilhelmsburg ist durch die internationale JO: Das Parlament kann die HafenCIty GmbH in ihren Bauausstellung bekannt geworden, die ging bis 2013. Entscheidungen nicht in irgendeiner Form Und hier sieht man jetzt nochmals, dass eigentlich hier beeinträchtigen oder steuern. Die sind im Grunde die HafenCity-Entwicklung ist und sozusagen der genommen autonom, gehören aber der Stadt. Das Hafen zwischen Wilhelmsburg und in diesem Bereich heisst also, sie können via Aufsichtsratstraegien nur liegt. Also müsste man hier [auf dem Kleinen das machen, was die Stadt vorgibt, aber wie sie das Grasbrook] eine Umstrukturierung hinbekommen. Und konkret umsetzen, bleibt dann wieder offen. Und von das war immer der, ich sage mal eine Art Schlüssel. daher konnte dann auch die HafenCity in der Wie kann man das hinbekommen. Insbesondere hier, Umsetzung eigentlich unterschiedliche Strategien diese Ecke hier [nordöstlicher Teil mit verfolgen …~ die Idee war da, durch den Verkauf von Schumacherwerder] zum Teil der Stadtentwicklung zu Fläche in der HafenCity auch in weitere Entwicklungen machen. Und dann hätte man eben die Anbindung an im Hafen zu finanzieren und deswegen mussten die Wilhelmsburg, Wilhelmsburg ist sozial benachteiligt, Grundstücke möglichst teuer verkauft werden. Dann das wäre sozusagen eine Aufwertung gewesen, und gab es die ersten Realisierungen, den ganzen hier gibt es natürlich irre viel Flächen, da kann man Aufschrei, Scheissarchitektur, sage ich mal, also nur ordentlich zuschlagen. Das war so die Idee und die protzig, und dann fingen sie eben an, mehr so Hafenwirtschaft hat eigentlich immer versucht dies zu Konzeptideen miteinzubinden.

AK: Wann war das etwa? beschrieben wird. Solche Umsetzungsformen will man gerne haben. Und von daher den Akuteren eine JO: Der Verkauf begann wohl so um 2001, 2002. Und Eigenständigkeit zumessen. Jeder Investor könnte ja die Wende ging so um 2005, 2006 … gab es die sonst in die Bürgerschaft ziehen. Man könnte eine Veränderung. Und seitdem verfolgt die HafenCity parlamentarische Debatte darüber führen und das GmbH mehrere Strategien parallel. Nach wie vor auch wollte man auf jeden Fall vermeiden. Weil das dann ja auf Höchstgebot aber es sind auch auch als investorenfeindlich angesehen werden kann Baugenossenschaften da, es wird konzeptorientiert und die Umsetzung erschweren würde. Also es ist eine ausgeschrieben, eine Mischung von verschiedenen Mischung. Meine Haltung ist, das ist typisch … was in Ansätzen. der Sozialdemokratie so als Dritter Weg gefasst wurde. […] Was unter Schröder Neue Mitte hiess, so ein typischer Weg, auf der einen Seite wirtschaftsfreundlich, liberal AK: Ich nenne das jetzt mal die privatisierte zu agieren, aber gleichzeitig die staatliche Institutionalisierung der HafenCity; war das von Beginn Steuerungsmöglichkeit offen zu halten und weg Teil der Planung? interventionsfähig zu bleiben. Das ist also kein JO: Ja. liberales … ist nicht neoliberal in dem Sinne. Es ist so eine Art autoritärer Liberalismus … ist etwas AK: Die HafenCity wurde von Beginn an so geplant, Besonderes, ich wiess nicht wie man das fassen soll. also ab 1990? Eine typisch Hamburgische Kiste, die man immer JO: Nein, jetzt muss ich mich korrigieren. Es gab die wieder findet. Entscheidung das zu machen. Dann wurde noch ein AK: Und Sie würden demnach sagen neoliberale Masterplan gemacht, der noch von der Stadtplanung Wirtschaftspolitik, als Treiber im Hintergrund aber … mitgesteuert wurde. Und nach der Fertigstellung des Masterplans wurde die HafenCity GmbH zur JO: Ja, eine Anpassung. Aber es ist nicht Freispiel der Umsetzung gegründet. Also der Masterplan ist Kräfte. Absolut nicht. Es bleibt staatlich gesteuert gewissermassen ein ~ wo festgelegt wird, welche und … es ist vielleicht sogar noch mehr … also ich Flächen in welcher Form sukzessive entwickelt werden. habe das mal in der Anfangsphase so interpretiert: die Das war im Masterplan, noch ohne HafenCity GmbH. Stadt bindet sich über die eine HafenCity GmbH auch Aber die HafenCity GmbH hat dann diesen Masterplan an die Privatwirtschaft, im Sinne von «Wir müssen sozusagen als Grundlage für die Umsetzung beide Erfolg haben». Das heisst also die HafenCity bekommen, konnte dann aber bei den einzelnen muss laufen, muss eine Erfolgsstory werden, von daher Flächen, in den Verhandlungen mit den Investoren, brauchen wir Investoren. Man will den Investoren aber sozusagen eigenständige Momente einbringen. Und nicht einfach sagen, ihr könnt machen was ihr wollt, das könnte mal als privatisierend beschreiben, ist es sondern ihr müsst so investieren, wie wir das wollen. aber nur zum Teil, weil die Senatskanzlei immer wusste Also sind wir [die Stadt] an die privatwirtschaftlichen wer was dort machen will. Also es ist keine … privat im Interessen gebunden, die aber … sozusagen diesen Sinne von Abschottung des Parlaments, Abschottung ideellen Gesamtkapitalismus aus der marxistischen von Opposition, gleichzeitig aber weiterhin Steuerung Staatstheorie, dass dieser ideellen Gesamtkapitalist im Sinne der Stadt Hamburg. Die Senatskanzlei die das steuert. Das ist so meine Vorstellung, warum das Hamburger Interessen definiert. Und dasselbe läuft so gemacht wird. Und ich würde sagen, dass die auch bei der Port Authority. Die kann im Grunde HafenCity lange Zeit sehr erfolgreich war. Nun ist die genommen eigenständig handeln, aber es bleibt Frage, ob aufgrund dieser besonderen institutionellen eigentlich gesteuert durch den Bürgermeister. Bedingungen so erfolgreich war, oder ob sie nicht ganz einfach auch dieser Welle der zunehmenden AK: Was meinen Sie, das ist nun vielleicht ein wenig Investitionen in dem Bereich mitgeschwommen sind, spekulativ, wo liegt denn die Motivation der es auch einfach hatten. Stadtregierung der HafenCity GmbH dieses Ausmass an Entscheidungsfreiheit zu gewähren? AK: Und wie sehr wurde die Öffentlichkeit in die Entscheidungsprozesse bei der Entwicklung der JO: Naja, also andersrum wird da, glaube ich, was HafenCity miteinbezogen? draus. Wenn man mal die Docklands ankuckt, dann hat man da ja eigentlich rein privatwirtschaftlich gehandelt. JO: Naja, es wurde einmal in der Bürgerschaft Und das will man in Hamburg nicht. Man will in diskutiert. Der Masterplan war sozusagen och ein Hamburg eigentlich steuern. Aber man will nicht Normalverfahren. Aber dann war Schluss. steuern, in einer Form wo alle Formen von Partizipation AK: Was ich interessant fand am Beispiel des Kop van und Mitmischen möglich ist. Man will eine effiziente Zuid in Rotterdam, dass die Stadt ursprünglich Struktur haben. Was so im New Public Management vorhatte, dieses Gebiet mit sozialem Wohnungsbau zu

entwickeln. Es gab aber öffentlichen Widerstand von sozusagen. Hier gibt es enorme Potentiale an … nicht der lokalen Bevölkerung, gegen weiteren sozialen nur die rechtliche Kompetenz, sondern auch grosse Wohnungsbau, quasi eine indirekte Unterstützung Behörden, Ministerien, wenn man so will, die auch in dafür, das Gebiet mit einem Stadterneuerungsprojekt der Lage sind, sowas alles für Hamburg zu übersetzen, aufzuwerten. anzupassen, zu rahmen. Von daher finden Sie das alles, alles was auf internationaler, nationaler Ebene JO: Hier war es umgekehrt. Hier war die HafenCity von diskutiert wird ist hier in der Stadtentwicklungsbehörde Anfang an ein Luxusprojekt. Es ist ja nicht nur die auch vertreten. HafenCity, sondern auch die Geldvernichtung durch die Elbphilharmonie. Also dieses beides … wenn man, AK: Gibt es denn überhaupt so etwas wie eine einen Stachel … es gab immer diesen Aufruf, man Tradition des sozialen Wohnungsbaus in Hamburg? müsse mehr für das Soziale tun. 2005 bis 2007 gab es JO: Ja. Hamburg hat, im Unterschied zu München, eine CDU-Regierung hier. Da hat selbst … hier in beispielsweise, hat Hamburg eine sehr starke … und Hamburg ist die Lokalpresse eher konservativ, die auch einen hohen Anteil … SAGA ist auch so ein Springerpresse, selbst dort … ich wurde laufen staatliches Unternehmen und hat sowas wie 150,000 interviewt zur sozialen Kälte in der Stadt. Es wurde Wohnungen, also schon ein mächtiger Player. Und gefordert, die soziale Frage viel stärker in den Blick zu Hamburg hat eigentlich immer, gerade in der nehmen. Und Leute wie ich wurden benutze von der Nachkriegszeit sehr stark auf sozialen Wohnungsbau Presse, dem Bürgermeisters sozusagen die Hinweise gesetzt. Wir hatten hier ja so einer Art sozialistische zu geben, dass er da etwas zu machen hätte. Als das Regierung, wenn man so will, wenn man die SPD so war klar ausgerichtet als neues Schaufenster des bezeichnen will. Und zwar dauerhaft. Die ist erst 2000 Erfolgs für Hamburg. einmal abgelöst worden. Aber sonst war immer SPD AK: Ein Flagship-Projekt. und die hatten immer eine gewerkschaftsorientierte … Neue Heimat war sehr stark in Hamburg, viele JO: Genau. Und die Wohnungsfrage wurde dann Grossraumsiedlungen sind von der Neuen Heimat immer brisanter und die ist erst vor drei, vier Jahren, gebaut worden, genossenschaftlicher Wohnungsbau naja, vielleicht fünf, sechs Jahre jetzt … mit der ist sehr stark in Hambiurg. Das war immer eine gorsse Übernahme der SPD, die haben dann auch ein gutes Tradition im Hamburg. Nicht so bekannt wie Wien, zum Wohnungsprogramm gemacht. Und dann wurde in der Beispiel, aber trotzdem sehr, sehr stark. Die Stadt hat letzten Phase der HafenCity-Entwicklung der soziale nach wie vor hohen sozialen Wohnungsbestand und Wohnungsbau miteingebracht. Aber man muss schon auch eine hohe öffentliche Aufmerksamkeit dafür. sagen, in einer Situation wo die Filetstücke sowieso alle weg waren … und nur noch die restlichen Flächen, AK: Aber in der Planung der HafenCity waren solche die sind jetzt sozialer Wohnungsbau geworden. Institutionen [SAGA] und soziale Anliegen aussen vor, hatten da nichts zu suchen. AK: Ich habe Zahlen gesehen von 20103. Da ist der Anteil an sozialem Wohnungsbau in der HafenCity 0%. JO: Genau.

JO: Ja das kommt aber jetzt. Der ~ wird auch in der AK: Wollten die dazu Stellung nehmen oder konnten HafenCity realisiert werden. Die Ganze … also, wenn sie nicht? man hier nach aussen geht […] Wilhelmsburg ist zwar JO: Also, die HafenCity war wie gesagt eine Projekt sehr gemischt, aber überwiegend benachteiligt. Und das in eine bestimmte Richtung weisen sollte. hier ist Kirchdorf-Süd, ein sozialer Brennpunkt, auch HafenCity war von Anfang an eben diese … Hamburg eine Grossraumsiedlung die sehr problematisch ist. muss auch … Hamburg muss sichtbar werden, AK: Es gibt ja supranationale Leitbilder für Weltstadt, Global City, das ist die HafenCity. Von daher Stadtentwicklungspolitik. Z.B. Charta des ist die HafenCity … ich würde auch nicht sagen, dass Europäischen Rats für Stadtentwicklung von 1998, da die HafenCity … oder man muss auch Platz für Reiche gab es zehn Punkte, sehr viele davon drehen sich um haben, ich will das jetzt mal so sagen. Und das war die soziale Aspekte. Wie sehr färbt so etwas direkt ab auf HafenCity. Und das war auch gar nicht so verkehrt. den Stadtstaat Hamburg? Oder bleibt das auf der Auch wenn das jetzt vielleicht etwas widersprüchlich nationalen Ebene liegen? anhört. Wir hatten in den 90er Jahren einen ziemlichen Schrumpfungsdiskurs, insbesondere hier in JO: Ja, das finden Sie alles hier. Ganz klar. Also ich Deutschland wegen der Situation in den Neuen kenne nun gerade das nicht, aber ich war 1996 bei der Ländern, also Ostdeutschland. Aber wir hatten Charta von ~ dabei zu nachhaltiger Stadtentwicklung. eigentlich auch eine wirtschaftliche … Deutschland war Und das wird hier alles zelebriert. Alle wichtigen Old Economy, war nicht stark in dem Sinne, sondern Entwicklungen werden in Hamburg auch nochmals, eher so auf dem absteigenden Ast. Die neuen Dinge sozusagen eigenständig übersetzt in Hamburgisch,

wie Dienstleistung etc. kamen vor allem aus USA, Auseinandersetzung mit der internationalen England. Und Deutschlang hing hinterher. So war der Bauausstellung wichtiger, weil die ja extra in Diskurs. Und Hamburg hat denn eigentlich … also hier Wilhelmsburg lokalisiert worden ist, um diesen Prozess in Hamburg haben sie mit … sie haben ja auch das zu pushen. Also ich glaub da nicht dran, ehrlich gesagt, Konzept der Wachsenden Stadt erfunden, haben dass da etwas passiert. Es könnte erst dann etwas versucht diesen Diskurs zu drehen und versucht passieren, wenn jetzt diese U-Bahn, die jetzt hier in der bestimmte Objekte zum Symbol einer Veränderung, HafenCity endet, die wird jetzt weiter gebaut, müsste eines neuen Wachstumsregimes zum Ausdruck zu aber eigentlich runtergeführt werden, weil dieses bringen. Und das war die HafenCity. Und d abraucht Gebiet furchtbar schlecht angebunden ist. Obwohl man natürlich auch die Belege dafür, dass das geht. innenstadtnah ist das … das ist alles schwierig. Wenn Und das ist natürlich keine soziale Integration dort. Die da so etwas passieren würde, dann vielleicht, ja. Aber kann man aber anderswo machen. Also der Voscherau derzeit sehe ich das nicht, dass da grössere hat beispielsweise gesagt, «HafenCity ist etwas für die Veränderungen kommen. Es ist ja auch interessant … Reichen», ich mach das jetzt mal ein bisschen knapp, also Hamburg hat lange Zeit den Sprung über die Elbe «und die Familien, etc. können ja nach ~ gehen. gemacht. Nun aber ist Walter nicht mehr da [Jörn Walter, Oberbaudirektor Hamburg 1999-2017] und AK: Also auch keine Bemühungen, das zu verbinden man könnte sich auch fragen, ob das ein oder zu mischen. Prestigeprojekt von Walter war. Aber am Ende ist die JO: Nein. HafenCIty war von Anfang an … das ist dann Stadtentwicklungsbehörde hier [in Wilhelmsburg], die erst später gekommen, aber … weil dieses Modell der ist verlagert worden. Wachsende Stadt ja erfolgreich war und Hamburg auch AK: Und seit wann ist die da? in der Einwohnerzahl gewachsen ist und in den Immobilien~ hineinfloss, war es plötzlich ein JO: Seit vielleicht fünf oder sechs Jahren. Die ist Erfolgsmodell. Und in diesem Prozess des erfolgreicher verlagert worden aus der Innenstadt hierher. Und das Werdens kam die Frage, «Wie gehen wir denn jetzt mit sollte eigentlich auch zeigen, dass der Staat etwas der sozialen Frage um. Überall werden macht. Luxuswohnungen gebaut, überall werden AK: Das ist ja spannende im Kop van Zuid in Luxuswohnungen gebaut, jetzt müssen wir uns mal Rotterdam, wo sehr viele öffentliche Einrichtungen wieder mit der sozialen Frage auseinandersetzen.» Und angesiedelt wurden, das Gericht, die Post, … da kam dann erst der Push, dass man vielleicht auch die HafenCity ein bisschen sozialer gestalten sollte. JO: Ja. Und hier in Hamburg haben wir auch andere Läpple [Dieter Läpple] hat dann angefangen … die Bereiche. City-Nord, da müsste man auch was haben damals so ein Projekt gehabt, erstmals soziale machen, da geht zum Beispiel ein Teil der Uni jetzt hin. Infrastruktur, also Schule, Kindergarten etc. Es gibt in Hamburg auch andere Bereiche wo man einzubringen. Und dann kam eine Baugenossenschaft, aktiv werden muss. Das heisst also Wilhelmsburg ist die eine Fläche kriegte. Die konnte da … Bergedorf- nicht der alleinige Brennpunkt. Bille konnte ein Gebäude bauen [Gemeinnützige AK: Das ist in Rotterdam ähnlich. Was ich da aber Baugenossenschaft Bergedorf-Bille eG]. spannend finde, ist, dass die Entwicklung des Kop van AK: Also im eigentlichen Bereich der HafenCity? Zuid von Anfang an auch darauf ausgerichtet war, ein JO: Ja, ja, In diesem Luxusbereich. Da kostet der neues Stadtzentrum zu etablieren und die Verbindung Quadratmeter aber auch extrem viel. Und dann kam zum vernachlässigten Südteil zu schaffen. mit der Zuspitzung der Wohnungsfrage, kam dann erst JO: Die funktioniert ja aber auch nicht richtig, oder? die Entscheidung … also es wurde entschieden für Oder finden Sie, dass das … also ich hatte immer den Hamburg, dass jedes Neubaugebiet einen Drittel Mix Eindruck, dass da Kop van Zuid ist und dann da die haben soll und das kam dann auch in die HafenCity anderen alten Stadtteile und die haben nach wie vor rein. ein schlechtes Image. AK: Abschliessende Frage: was glauben Sie wie die AK: Das stimmt schon, die gibt es kaum Mischung. Es Rezeption der HafenCity in z.B. Wilhelmsburg ist? gibt jedoch ein interessantes Papier der Uni Utrecht. Spürt man in diese Stadterneuerung in Wilhelmsburg? Die Autoren habe eine Umfrage in der Bevölkerung zur JO: Es gab mal so eine Gentrification-Debatte in Rezeption des Kop van Zuid gemacht, unter anderem Wilhelmsburg. Es gibt hier im Reiherstieg auch so ein auch in den benachteiligten Gebieten weiter südlich. Gebiet mit Altbauten, wo auch ein gewisses Und die Wahrnehmung ist grundsätzlich sehr positiv. Künstlermilieu drin ist, wo so eine Art Gentrification- Aber vielleicht liegt das effektiv auch an räumlichen Story abzulesen ist. Aber es bleibt marginal. Ist eine Faktoren, daran, dass diese Gebiete so schlicht näher spannende Frage. Da wäre jetzt die am Stadtzentrum rücken und besser verbunden sind.

JO: Ja und da ist Rotterdam natürlich viel kompakter. Also diese Distanzen [HafenCity– Wilhelmsburg] ist natürlich aufwendig. Das kostet viel Geld.

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.

Interview with Lisa Kosok, 18 July 2018 • Interviewer: Andreas Künzi, MSc student Urban & Regional Planning, 2017-2018, University of Amsterdam

• Interviewee: Lisa Kosok, Professor for Urban and Cultural History, HafenCity University Hamburg • Interview setting: The interview was held at the HafenCity University Hamburg, Überseeallee 16, 20457 Hamburg

• Interview language: German • Interview referenced as: HH2

• Affiliation with interviewee: None • Explanation of characters:

- AK = Andreas Künzi (Interviewer) - LK = Lisa Kosok (Interviewee)

- ~ = Inaudible - [ ] = Remark by author

Interview Rotterdam und Hamburg als Fallstudien ausgesucht habe. Weil die beiden Städte zwei verschiedene lokal- LK: In Ihrer Arbeit geht es vor allem darum, die politische Systeme haben, Rotterdam als Gemeinde institutionellen Vorgaben zu spezifischen unter dem Schirm der nationalen Regierung und Hafenentwicklungen herauszuarbeiten? Hamburg mit dem Status eines Stadtstaates innerhalb AK: Genau. Ganz grob gesagt; ich vergleiche die einer föderalistischen Organisation. Und da frage ich Hafenentwicklungen in Rotterdam und Hamburg mit dann auch konkret, ob und wie sich das Blick auf die Stadterneuerungsprogramme Kop van Stadtstaatsystem Hamburgs auf die Zuid und HafenCity um diese in Bezug setzen zu den Planungsstrukturen und -strategien auswirkt. historischen, institutionellen Entwicklungen. Ich möchte LK: Absolut. Absolut. Als Stadthistorikern würde ich rausfinden wie sich die institutionellen das klar verfechten. Und auch dass dieses politische Rahmenbedingungen der Städte auf die Selbstverständnis sich schon vor dem 18./19. Planungssysteme und -strategien ausgewirkt hat. Jahrhundert entwickelt hat. Diese Handelsstadt, diese LK: Meinen Sie mir Institutionen vor allen Dingen die freie Hansestadt die immer einen eigenständigen Behörden, die für die Planung des Hafens zuständig Status hatte und schon mit der Reichsgründung 1871 sind? oder mit der Gründung des Norddeutschen Bundes um 1869, wo Hamburg bestimmte Rechte und Privilegien AK: Ich sehe das ziemlich makro-historisch, in der aufgeben musste. Da gab es ganz grosse Konflikte im Tradition des historischen Institutionalismus. Das sind politischen Selbstverständnis. Hamburg konnte selber zwar schon primär mal politische Institutionen und wie Verträge schliessen. Es gibt ganz viele diese auf Planungsinstitutionen wirken. Es können aber Handelsverträge, die Hamburg direkt abgeschlossen auch informelle Institutionen miteinbezogen werden. hatte mit Partner auf der ganzen Welt, in Südamerika, Meine Arbeit wird eine Art Trichterform haben. Meine Afrika und Asien. Hamburg konnte also eigene Verträge Untersuchungen setzten grob um 1800 an mit Blick auf schliessen. Hamburg hatte eine eigene Währung, die Entwicklung der Institutionen allgemein und der Hamburg hatte ein eigenes Militär und das sind solche planerischen im Speziellen. So grob ab 1950, mit dem Privilegien, auf die Hamburg mit der Reichsgründung Anfang der Containerisierung und der Dynamik, dass verzichtet hat. die Häfen sich operativ mehr und mehr aus dem Stadtzentrum zu entfernen begannen, verenge ich AK: Eher unfreiwillig? dann meinen Fokus. Gerade in Rotterdam ist diese LK: Eher unfreiwillig, ja [lacht]. Und das Ergebnis war Dynamik ja noch viel stärker als hier in Hamburg natürlich auch die Speicherstadt, diese LK: Ja. Das hat natürlich auch mit den Grenzen des Freihandelszone, die Hamburg zugesprochen wurde. Stadtstaats zu tun. Es gab durchaus Pläne die Stadt Die sich bis zur Gründung der Speicherstadt auf das der Elbe entlang zu entwickeln. Dann hätte man aber gesamte Stadtgebiet erstreckte. Die gesamte Stadt Niedersachsen und Schleswig-Holstein miteinbeziehen war Freihandelszone und erst mit der Speicherstadt müssen. Und da diese Stadt sich ja extrem mit Ihren wurde das sozusagen eingegrenzt auf ein Terrain Status als Stadtstaat identifiziert und mit ihrer ausserhalb der zentralen Innenstadt, jedoch immer föderalen Selbstständigkeit, sind solche Entwicklungen noch ziemlich stadtnah. Und das war auch das im Grund genommen alle vereitelt worden. Das sieht Geschenk, deshalb gibt es auch von Bismarck man an vielen, vielen Beispielen, nicht nur in Bezug auf Denkmale hier, der hoch umstritten ist, trotzdem, aber die Hafenentwicklung, die sich nicht so stark nach ihm wurde trotzdem ein Denkmal gesetzt hier, das war Westen entwickelt. Auch diese ganzen sozusagen die Freiheit, die Hamburg sich noch Hochwasserschutz- und Deichschutzmassnahmen erhalten konnte in diesem System des Kaiserreichs. nach 1962. Es gab mal die Diskussion ein Sperrwerk zu Nämlich den Freihandel und die Freihandelszone usw. bauen, die dann auch verworfen wurde mit der Das hatte natürlich auch Folgen für die industrielle Argumentation in der Bürgerschaft, dass wäre das Entwicklung. Da sind Industrien entstanden, die extrem erste Mal in der Geschichte Hamburgs, dass die Stadt mit dem Handel zusammenhängen usw. und das geht nicht den Einfluss hätte darüber, was in die Stadt natürlich noch weiter mit den ganzen reinkommt und was aus der Stadt rausgeht. Weil das Eingemeindungspolitiken. Hamburg hat sich ja 1937 Sperrwerk weiter im Westen hätte liegen müssen. vergrössert indem Altona, Wandsbeck und andere eingemeindet wurden, zu Hamburg, und damit hat AK: Also ausserhalb der Stadtgrenze? diese Stadt sich nochmals flächenmässig extrem LK: Genau. Und ist im Grunde genommen mit vergrössert. Aber die Hafenareale waren im Grunde Hamburgs Selbstverständnis, politisch wie genommen definiert. Die haben sich eigentlich erst in wirtschaftlich nicht vereinbar gewesen. Und ähnlich ist den 1960er Jahren, mit der Einführung des es auch bei der Hafenentwicklung, würde ich sagen. Containerumschlags extrem verändert. Obwohl man das Hamburg ja auch immer «anlasten» muss, dass AK: Das ist spannend. Es ist auch Teil meiner alles ganz langsam ist, die Stadt bestimmte Fragestellung, respektive mit ein Grund, weshalb ich Entwicklungen gar nicht mitbekommt. Das wurde lange Bürgermeister. Die rühmen sich sozusagen heimlich ignoriert [die Veränderungen des Containerumschlags]. dieses Projekt auf dem Weg gebracht zu haben und Wenn sie auf den Kleinen Grasbrook kucken, da steht sukzessive privaten Grund aufgekauft und dann zum dieses Überseezentrum. Das ist in den 1960er Jahren Teil wieder zurück gebracht zu haben in staatliches entstanden und war, als es fertig war, schon obsolet. Vermögen, um dann die Gesellschaft für Hafen und Das war für Stückgutumschlag geplant und hat diesen Standortentwicklung zu gründen, so hiess das perfektioniert. Und genauso ist das mit dem ursprünglich, das war in den 1990er Jahren, die dann Kaispeicher A, auf dem die Elbphilharmonie jetzt sitzt. den Auftrag hatte, das gesamte Gebiet der HafenCity Der ist auch 1963 fertig geworden und sollte dazu neu zu planen. Und dann wurde aus dieser dienen, dass man Stückgutumschlag mit Schiffen, die Gesellschaft für Hafen und Standortentwicklung die in seetiefem Wasser sein müssen, bewerkstelligen HafenCity GmbH. konnte. Und das hatte sich auch erledigt, weil dann AK: Ich möchte kurz rückfragen, zu meinem eigenen kam der Container. […] 1963 ist der alte Kaispeicher Verständnis: die Grundstücke waren in staatlichem gesprengt worden, der hatte einen Kriegsschaden, Besitz, wurden privat aufgekauft und dann wieder aber gar nicht so extrem, und dann ist dieser jetzige zurück an den Staat verkauft um diese Körperschaft zu Kaispeicher gebaut worden. bilden? AK: Steht der unter Denkmalschutz? LK: Das müsste man sich tatsächlich nochmals LK: Nein. Also, ich glaube es gab Bestrebungen ich zu genauer ankucken. Das war zum Teil privat, zum Teil erhalten und was erhalten ist sind ja nur die war es staatlich, gehörte also der Stadt, und die Areale Aussenmauern, sonst ist da ja nichts mehr, nur die die privat waren, sind wieder zurückgekauft worden, so Fassade. […] Der neue Speicher erzählt eine ganze dass das gesamte Areal wieder in staatlichem Besitz Menge von der Technik es Stückgutumschlags von der war. Aber es wurde eben diese private GmbH Zeit, in der sie damals dachten, das sei noch ganz gegründet, die eigentlich eine hundertprozentige modern. Das waren solche Verladebrücken, die auf die Tochter der Stadt ist, wenn man so will. Schiffe ausgeklappt werden konnten und man konnte AK: Man kann da aber nicht eigentlich von einer Public mit Gabelstaplern auf die Schiffe fahren und in den Private Partnership reden, oder? Speicher zurück usw. Also diese Technik konnte man zu dem Zeitpunkt noch gut erkennen und es wäre mit LK: Nein. Also ich weiss jetzt nicht ob das typisch ist Sicherheit eine Überlegung wert gewesen, den unter nur für Deutschland oder für Hamburg. Es gibt ja viele Schutz zu stellen. Aber mit dieser gesamten HafenCity- stadtnahe Institutionen oder Körperschaften und Planung, der Privatisierung auch der Planung, waren Betriebe, die privat-rechtlich organisiert sind, wie zum diese historischen Gebäude mehr oder weniger der Beispiel die Hamburger Hafen und Lagerhaus AG, das Planung der HafenCity GmbH ~ geblieben. Und unter ist eine Aktiengesellschaft. Aber die Mehrheitsanteile Schutz geblieben ist der Kaispeicher B, wo jetzt das sind in den Händen der Stadt. Und bei dieser Maritime Museum drin ist, der noch älter ist als die HafenCity GmbH, oder der Gesellschaft für Hafen- und anderen, und wo auch ein altes Hafenamt wohnte, Standortentwicklung, war es auch so. Es ging darum, diese Behörde, die ganz wichtig ist für Hamburg, das eine privatwirtschaftlich geführte Einrichtung zu haben, Amt für Strom- und Hafenbau, heute HPA, die auf die der Stadtstaat jedoch grossen Einfluss hat. Das Hamburg Port Authority, da ist jetzt ein Hotel drin. Das heisst, in den Aufsichtsräten sitzen immer der ist unter Schutz gestellt worden. Ansonsten gibt es nur Bürgermeister und die Finanzbehörden und noch diesen hohen Kaispeicher, der erhalten geblieben Wirtschaftsbehörden. Das ist für Hamburg absolut ist. Und die Hafenbecken. Es gibt also schon ein paar typisch. So sind die Museen organisiert, so sind die Spuren der historischen Nutzung. […] Landesbetriebe organisiert, dass diese nicht mehr Teil der städtischen Verwaltung sind, sondern AK: Sie haben die Privatisierung erwähnt. Können Sie ausgegliedert werden und eine privatwirtschaftliche etwas sagen, zur Geschichte der privaten Trägerschaft bekommen. HPA ist so, die Grundeigentümerschaft in Hamburg? Krankenhäuser sind so, Wasser- und LK: Es gibt da eine Publikation dazu, die im Grunde Energieunternehmen sind so. Und die Museen, die genommen … hier sitzt ja jetzt die Elbphilharmonie und früher auch mal Teil der Behörden waren, sind auch hier standen diese alten Schuppen. Also das ganze ausgegliedert, sind jetzt Stiftungen geworden. Also Projekt war ja eigentlich sehr geheim, HafenCity. man sucht eigentlich seit den 1970er, 1980er Jahren, Volkwin Marg, der Architekt der den ersten Masterplan obwohl, ich meine die HHLA war immer schon eine für diese HafenCity entwickelt hat, und Peter Dietrich, Aktiengesellschaft, aber man sucht eben seit den das war der Chef von der HHLA, die Hamburger Hafen 1970er, 1980er, 1990er Jahren vermehrt staatliche und Lagerhaus AG, und Henning Voscherau, damals oder behördliche Institutionen und

Verwaltungseinrichtungen aus der Verwaltung vielleicht schon typisch für Hamburg, die herauszulösen, zu privatisieren über die Kaufmannsstadt. Aufsichtsgremien jedoch immer noch die Hoheit zu AK: Und würden Sie sagen, dass die Entwicklung der behalten. Und das ist letztlich so eine … vielleicht ist es HafenCity im Geheimen, dass dieser Startschuss, typisch Hamburg, ich weiss es gar nicht. Aber es ist dieser geheime Startschuss im kleinen Kreis … sehen natürlich so die Idee, dass diese Behörden und Sie da eine Verbindung zu dieser Halbprivatisierung staatlichen Institutionen erstens verschlankt werden des Gebiets, zu diesem "Den-Fuss-in-der-Tür- und dass der Staat sich aus bestimmten behalten" der öffentlichen Einrichtungen? Verantwortungen herausnimmt und diese anderen überträgt. LK: Ok. Also das ist … mit Sicherheit gibt es da unterschiedliche Beweggründe, das so zu machen. Es AK: Aber typischerweise in Hamburg, obwohl das gilt wird ja immer damit argumentiert, dass wenn das vielleicht auch allgemein, sitzen in den Aufsichtsräten öffentlich geworden wäre und nicht so geheim und den Gremien immer öffentliche Personen. verhandelt worden wäre, sofort Begehrlichkeiten und LK: Ja genau. Auch bei der HafenCity GmbH ist das andere Interessen wären formuliert worden und man so. Da sitzt der Bürgermeister im Senat, der das nicht so hätte entwickeln können. Also die Finanzminister etc. Man kann das bestimmt auf dem Legende ist, da waren drei Männer, die sich Transparenzportal recherchieren. Aber es ging vor allen verschworen haben und ein solches Projekt Dingen, wenn man jetzt hinsichtlich der Museen durchgezogen haben. Und dieser Gründungsmythos argumentiert, dass die Museen sich selbst verwalten wird auch immer wieder bedient, das ist ganz wichtig. können. Dass sie organisieren können, dass diese Volkwin Marg, der Architekt der den Masterplan Kameralistik, das ist sozusagen die städtische, gemacht hat, die beiden anderen [Henning staatliche Rechnungsführung abgelöst wird durch eine Voscheraus, Peter Dietrich] sind jetzt mittlerweile kaufmännische Rechnungsführung. Und damit kam verstorben, aber es war immer ganz wichtig, auch immer die Versprechung, dass die Einrichtung wenn die politischen Verhältnisse sich änderten, es gab schneller, agiler, unternehmerischer Handeln und ja dann auch einen schwarz-grünen Senat usw., dass Arbeiten können. Und nicht so langsam und immer betont wurde, dass der rote Senat unter stagnierend wie Verwaltung und Bürokratien arbeiten. Voscherau das gemacht hätte, dass das ohne Es hat zwei Seiten, das hat Vor- und Nachteile. Und Voscherau nicht zustande gekommen wäre usw. Das diese Konstruktion gib es im Grunde genommen für ist eine wichtige Erzählung für die Entstehung dieses alle ehemalig staatlich geführten oder kommunalen Hafenareals und für die Umwidmung usw. Und ich Einrichtungen. Egal ob das Krankenhäuser, ob das glaube schon, dass … zumindest, wenn mal sich mal Wasser oder Energie is, ob das die Museen sind, ob ankuckt, wofür diese Männer standen, dass das auch das solche Hafenbehörden sind. Die sind alle. Die Teil dieser kaufmännisch geprägten Identität ist, die sie heissen dann heute Landesbetriebkrankenhäuser oder bewogen hat, so zu handeln. Quasi ein Handschlag Landesbetrieb … also HPA, diese Hamburg Port und dann gilt der Vertrag, man sagt sich in die Hand Authority, ist auch ein Landesbetrieb, aber sie sind und man schweigt und so … so diese … abgesehen eben nicht mehr Teil der öffentlichen Verwaltung. davon, dass das sicher auch kluge Politiker waren usw., ich will das auch gar nicht minimieren und sie um AK: Und würden Sie sagen, da unterscheidet sich ihre Verdienste bringen, aber ich glaube, dass so eine Hamburg von anderen deutschen Städten die nicht Haltung die so kaufmännisch-handelsstädtisch geprägt Stadtstaaten sind, z.B. Stuttgart oder Köln? Dass die war, ganz wichtig war. Auch so dieser "Ehrbare Auslagerung dieser Aufgaben hier konsequenter Kaufmann". Sagt Ihnen das was? privatisiert ist? AK: Nein. Jedenfalls nicht speziell in Bezug auf die LK: Ich komme ja aus dem Ruhrgebiet. Und wenn ich Geschichte Hamburgs. das jetzt mal so … ich kann das zur Kultur am ehesten sagen als bei anderen Einrichtungen. Ich meine der LK: Das ist wichtig für das Selbstverständnis dieser Trend geht sowieso dahin. Solche Institutionen, Stadt. Die "Vereinigung des Ehrbaren Kaufmanns zu Behörden auszugliedern oder zu privatisieren, zu Hamburg (VEEK)". Die gibt es immer noch. Die ist im verselbstständigen, das ist der korrekte Ausdruck. 16. Jahrhundert gegründet worden. Und das ist Aber zum Beispiel hier in Hamburg mit den sozusagen die Vereinigung, die kaufmännisches Kulturinstitutionen, Museen, Theater, Oper usw., diese Handeln und kaufmännische Tugenden entwickelt hat. GmbH oder Stiftung flächendeckend erfolgt, kann Und die Commerzbibliothek und die Handelskammer man … fürs Ruhrgebiet ist das überhaupt nicht der Fall, sind Produkte dieser Vereinigung. Das ist heute einfach oder ist auch für Köln nicht der Fall. Also es ist ein Verein, damals war das die kaufmännische Elite, die sich zusammentat, um die Geschicke dieser

Handelsstadt zu lenken und zu justieren, die aber eben auch heute noch sozusagen mit dem Begriff des auch diese Tugenden eines Kaufmanns entwickelt hat. hanseatischen verbunden wird. Dazu gehört, dass man zu seinem Wort steht, dass AK: Das ist jetzt vielleicht ein wenig spekulativ, aber man keine Verträge machen muss, sondern der würden Sie sagen, dass die Tatsache, dass das Handschlag reicht usw., dass man sparsam ist, dass überhaupt funktioniert hat, diese Geheimhaltung in den man nicht auf Kosten anderer usw., dass es eine frühesten Stufen des Projekts [der HafenCity], dass das gewisse Ehrlichkeit gibt usw. Es sind also so irgendwie zusammenhängt mit dieser ehrbaren kaufmännische Tugenden, ob die jetzt immer Tradition? eingehalten wurden, sei mal dahingestellt, die aber dieser Vereinigung des Ehrbaren Kaufmanns entwickelt LK: Ja, mit Sicherheit. Dieses Selbstverständnis spielte hat, postuliert hat, und für seine Mitglieder gefordert da eine grosse Rolle, dass das so funktionierte … ja, hat. Die Commerzbibliothek ist daraus entstanden, die also wenn Sie die Leute kennen würden, dann würden Commerzdeputation, die Handelskammer ist daraus Sie sagen, "Ja, das stimmt." Obwohl das alle stramme entstanden und heute noch gibt es jedes Jahr am 31. Sozialdemokraten waren, alle drei, sind ja bessere Dezember, also an Silvester, gibt es die "Versammlung Hanseaten als ~ … [lacht]. eines ehrbaren Kaufmanns", das war schon immer so, AK: Also der Masterplan war der Startschuss von und diese … und dann spricht der Präses der diesem geheimen Gremium, so um 1990. War das Handelskammer, der gesamte Senat dabei und der vorher gar nicht Teil des öffentlichen Diskurses, dass Erste Bürgermeister. Das findet in der Handelskammer man das Gebiet umnutzt … oder anders gefragt, wie statt, die sind eingeladen. Aber wichtig ist, dass der brach und unbenutzt war das denn überhaupt hier. Senat da ist und der Bürgermeister. Und der Präses Weil in Rotterdam, zum Beispiel, da war dort eigentlich der Handelskammer sagt dann, was er von der gar nichts mehr, es galt als sozialer Brennpunkt usw. Wirtschaftspolitik des Bürgermeisters und des Senats Und da gab es von der Stadt wie auch von der hält und macht Vorschläge zur kommenden Politik. Öffentlichkeit eine Art Druck, das Gebiet zu entwickeln. Und das ist eine Tradition, die seit Jahrhunderten gepflegt wird. Und da kommt auch kein Bürgermeister LK: Dazu muss man vielleicht wissen, dass das alles rum. Die sitzen dann da, am 31.12. um 12:00 Uhr in der Freihafengebiet war. Im Grunde genommen war das ja, Handelskammer. ich will nicht sagen Terra Incognita, aber das war ja so … das war von einem Zollzaun umgeben und wenn AK: Und das hat dann auch tatsächlich politisches man durchfuhr, fuhr man durch einen Zoll. Da gab es Gewicht? eine richtige Zollstation, wenn man in diese LK: Also es ist ein Ritual, natürlich, auf der anderen Speicherstadt reinfuhr in den Freihafen. Und das ist Seite gibt es schon immer so … die gewissen sozusagen nicht unbedingt der Weg der täglich Marschrouten und Wünsche und Interessen, die genommen von den Hamburgern. Es gab natürlich gewissermassen von Seiten der Wirtschaft an den Leute, die täglich aus Harburg kamen, mit dem Auto Sneat herangetragen werden, die da, sagen wir mal hier jeden Tag zur Arbeit, für die war das eine Art allgemein formuliert werden. Bis hin zu Transitstrecke, mehr oder weniger. Aber ansonsten war kulturpolitischen Vorschlägen und Ratschlägen ist alles das Hafengebiet mit Schuppen, mit Kränen, vielleicht dabei. Das spielt keine sehr grosse Rolle, aber sie mit so Nischengewerben die für Zulieferer usw. sagen dann durchaus, was sie sich wünschen, zuständig waren. Aber es war eben ein wirtschaftspolitisch, vor allem auch verkehrspolitisch. Freihafengebiet, alles was da lag war zollfrei und Es wird ja jedes Jahr gesagt, dass jetzt endlich mal die mehrwertsteuerfrei, das war für manche Sachen auch Elbe ausgebaggert und vertieft gehört usw. Und dass nicht unerheblich, und es war, glaube ich, nicht so im sozusagen die Hafenwirtschaft in gewissen Fragen Fokus der öffentlichen Wahrnehmung, was da jetzt stärker werden muss. Auch die Friktionen die sich passiert. Weil es eben auch immer … obwohl das jetzt durch die Entwicklung, durch die Stadtentwicklung kein grosses Hindernis war, aber es war immer ein immer näher an den Hafen rankommen, da zeigt sich Zaun rundherum. Also es war einfach ein richtig das auch wieder, dass da auch immer Terrains umgrenztes, definiertes Terrain, was einen Unterschied verteidigt werden und Interessen der Hafenwirtschaft in der Wahrnehmung macht. Man kam da nicht jeden gegenüber der Wohnungswirtschaft betont werden. Tag vorbei. Natürlich war die Speicherstadt sichtbar Also, dass … ich glaube die Reden … wenn Sie auf die und touristische Attraktion. Aber mehr Webseiten der Handelskammer gehen oder der darüberhinausgehend […] Da standen Schuppen, die Commerzbibliothek, dann sind mit Sicherheit die fingen bei Zeh an und waren durchnummeriert. Und Reden irgendwo abrufbar. Also, wir kommen … also das war eben auch typische Hafenarchitektur und man dieser ehrbare Kaufmann ist ein wichtiges Gerüst und hat das auch nicht so wahrgenommen, dass alles ein Set an Tugenden, dass sozusagen entwickelt und verfiel und runtergekommen war.

AK: Das Gebiet wurde auch noch aktiv genutzt vom GmbH gegründet wurde, da war schon klar, wohin die Hafen? Reise geht. Das war dann nicht mehr so geheim. Also zumindest für aufmerksame Beobachter, für eine LK: Ja. Jetzt im Grunde genommen auch noch. Hier in aufmerksame Öffentlichkeit und auch für die Politik. diesem Gebiet [Kleiner Grasbrook] gib es ganz viel Hafengewerbe, hafennahes Gewerbe und eine AK: Ein Themenwechsel. Die deutsche Kaizunge weiter gibt es noch alte Schuppen, die auch Wiedervereinigung, die ja eigentlich zeitgleich passierte heute noch genutzt werden. Wenn man da im Sommer mit der Entstehung der ersten Pläne zur Entwicklung vorbeikommt riecht das gesamte Areal nach des Gebiets, hatte die einerseits politische und dann Gewürzen. Ganz toll! Und das ist, wie gesagt immer vielleicht auch institutionelle Auswirkungen auf noch … das wird auch genutzt und das wird auch Hamburg als Stadtstaat und, falls ja, welche waren und verteidigt von den aktuellen Nutzern, die schon auch gibt es da Verbindungen zu den ersten Probleme sehen, wenn jetzt der Kleine Grasbrook Entwicklungsansätzen der HafenCity, oder ist das zu entwickelt wird und da Wohnen hinkommt usw. Was ist weit gegriffen? mit Gefahrenlagerung usw., wo kann man das denn LK: Ich meine man muss natürlich sehen, dass hintun, "müssen wir dann umziehen?" Und da wird Hamburg dadurch auch sein Hinterland wiedergekriegt auch verhandelt, richtig, da geht es um viel Geld. […] hat. Früher ist ja ganz viel Handel über die Elbe AK: Gibt es für den Kleinen Grasbrook denn jetzt schon gelaufen und nach Osten gegangen. Es gab ja auch konkrete Pläne? immer mal so eine Anleihe wie, "Hamburg ist der Hafen von Moskau." Da gab es eben ganz viel aus Europa … LK: Wie konkret die sind … es gab unlängst eine Ostseehandel und Osthandel, der mit dem Mauerbau Präsentation, die ist nach wie vor in den Händen der und der DDR-Gründung dann nicht mehr stattgefunden HafenCity GmbH, die Entwicklung des Kleinen hat. Wobei man auch sagen muss, da sind die Grasbrooks, und es gab eine Präsentation mit so ein Hamburger Kaufleute immer sehr findig gewesen. Es paar Bildern, die natürlich auch wirken, zur Entwicklung gibt so ein Beispiel für 1956, in Zeiten des tiefsten alten des Kleinen Grasbrooks, wobei der eben auch nur Krieges, ist ein Hamburger Bürgerschaftsabgeordneter partiell entwickelt wird, hier und hier [zeigt auf Karte] … nach St. Petersburg gefahren, das damals noch und da ist das … da ist jetzt gerade die Planung Leningrad hiess, und hat sozusagen eine Partnerschaft gestartet. Es gibt laut Präsentationsbericht noch keine mit St. Petersburg gegründet, auch mit dem definitiven Ausführungsplanungen. Hintergedanken, "die Zeiten bleiben nicht so wie sie AK: Und das passiert jetzt demnach auch viel sind und wird müssen Voraussetzungen schaffen und transparenter als damals beim Startschuss der freundliche in Kontakt zu treten und auch handeln zu HafenCity. können usw. Und das war so ein Alleingang, der hochumstritten war. Und das ist so ein bisschen LK: Ja, ja. Also das ist so … nun, da gab es natürlich typisch für diese Handels- und Kaufmannsstadt, die ja auch Beschwerden, dass diese Präsentation nicht so ein bisschen von Restriktionen und Protektionismus hinreichend bekannt gemacht worden ist usw., aber es nie profitieren konnte und eigentlich immer versucht war schon deutlich, dass die Öffentlichkeit hat, so unter dem Radar des Politischen versucht hat, miteinbezogen werden sollte, dass auch Wünsche ihre Kontakte aufrechtzuerhalten. Die versucht hat, die mitberücksichtigt werden können usw. Also da ging es Möglichkeiten ungestört Handel zu betreiben, zu jetzt eher darum zu zeigen, wie offen, transparent und bewahren. Das war ja ganz wichtig. Im Ersten partizipativ dieser Prozess jetzt ist. Aber das hatte Weltkrieg, im Zweiten Weltkrieg, bei Seeblockaden jetzt … also selbst dieser Prozess, dieses Geheime mit usw. Das war für eine Handelsstadt immer schrecklich dem ersten Masterplan, hat ja im Grunde genommen und wirtschaftlich verheerend, wenn solche Konflikte auch erst … hat ja im Grunde genommen nur so lange dastanden. So. Und jetzt kommt der Mauerfall und die gedauert, bis diese Gesellschaft für Hafen- und Öffnung nach Osten und damit sieht man wieder Standortentwicklung gegründet war [heute die Handelsmöglichkeiten, die bislang immer grossen HafenCity GmbH] und die erste Masterplanung vorlag. Einschränkungen unterlagen. Und das ist mit Sicherheit Und danach ging es ja schon darum, dass man eine Option, ein Versprechen für die Politik gewesen, bestimmte Grundstücke anheimstellte, dass man auch sich weiter auch hafenwirtschaftlich zu entwickeln. noch versuchte bestimmte … da gab es noch so eine Wobei das ja weniger mit diesem Areal zu tun hat, mit Kaffeerösterei, ganz lange, die hier lag und die musste dem Wohnen usw. Das hat mehr mit dem hier zu tun auch noch gekauft werden und es war auch nicht klar, [zeigt über die Elbe nach Westen], mit dem ob der Besitzer sie verkauft. Das sind natürlich auch Containerhafen der jetzt gebaut wird und dem Hinderungsgründe für so eine systematische Freihafen, der noch viel mehr von diesen Kaizonen Entwicklung. Also das war alles nachdem diese erste hatte. Da geht die Entwicklung dann viel stärker in

Richtung von diesen Containerhäfen, in die von Hamburg eine charakteristische Tradition Rationalisierungsprozesse die in dem Zusammenhang ausmachen? Meine These ist ja eigentlich, dass es eine wichtig sind. städteplanerische Tradition sich herausgebildet hat über die letzten ca. 200 Jahre, vor deren Hintergrund AK: Und die Verbindung zur HafenCity ist nicht wirklich die Entwicklung der HafenCity eigentlich eine Art Bruch da. darstellt. In Rotterdam bestätigt sich das so halb, LK: Ich würde sagen, dass war … klar, dass hier … hier würde ich sagen. Rotterdam hat eine grosse Tradition ist auch nichts mehr zu machen, weil die von sozialem Wohnungsbau. Nicht grad so stark wie Containerschiffe können gar nicht bis hierher … hier ist Wien, zum Beispiel, aber die Stadtplanung ging immer der alte Elbtunnel und die Schiffe haben einen stark in diese Richtung, was auch von den meist Tiefgang, dass sie da gar nicht rüberkommen. Das sozialistisch geprägten Regierungszusammen- heisst dieses Areal war für den Containerumschlag setzungen getragen wurde. Und insofern stellt das eine dann auch völlig uninteressant. Art Bruch dar, obwohl das Kop van Zuid auch mit der Absicht entwickelt wurde, die südlich von der Stadt AK: Also der weitere Ausbau des Hafens im Zuge der räumlich, ökonomisch und sozial eher abgehängten Wiedervereinigung hat nichts mit der HafenCity zu tun. Gebiete, was hier in Hamburg Wilhelmsburg wäre, LK: Nein. Das findet hier im Südwesten statt. Da näher an die Stadt zu bringen, ein neues Stadtzentrum entwickelt sich der Hafen weiter. Und da kommt dann zu schaffen. Trotzdem steht diese Highend- eben die Konkurrenz mit Rotterdam. Das ist schon Entwicklung des Gebiets für einen Bruch in der immer ein Thema für Hamburg, Rotterdam ist die städteplanerischen Tradition dar. Kann man das hier in Benchmark an der man sich misst. Und die Hamburg ähnlich ansehen? Lässt sich hier überhaupt Möglichkeiten die Rotterdam hat, mit dem eine stadtplanerische Tradition ausmachen? Hafenausbau und den Hafen~flächen, die sind hier LK: Ja, auf jeden Fall. Also, mit der … 1911, nein 1909 eben begrenzt, weil das Stadtgebiet Grenzen hat. Und wurde Fritz Schumacher als erster Oberbaudirektor da … ich würde ja sagen das bricht den Hamburgern nach Hamburg geholt und damit überhaupt die auch das Genick an gewissen Stellen. Auf der einen Institution des Oberbaudirektors geschaffen. Vorher Seite bestimmte Entwicklungen nicht zu verfolgen, auf war die Baubehörde vor allen Dingen mit der anderen Seite sehr stark auf den Hafen zu setzen. Oberingenieuren und Architekten besetzt. Dann mit Es gab ja mal so ein Entwicklungsprojekt in Fritz Schumacher mit einem Architekten und Wilhelmshaven, was dann Niedersachsen ist, und an Stadtplaner, der auch systematisch eine dem sich Hamburg zunächst beteiligt hat. Und da ging stadtplanerisch geprägte und gesteuerte es genau darum, dass diese Containerschiffe der Planungspolitik in Angriff genommen hat. Ich weiss gar neuen Klasse ohne Probleme umschlagen können. Und nicht, ob ich das jetzt so ganz kausal mit der aus diesen Konsortium hat sich Hamburg dann auch Hafenentwicklung in Verbindung setzen würde. Ich wieder rausgenommen. Also die tun sich total schwer würde sagen, in allen europäischen Grossstädten die damit, sich an Entwicklungsprojekten zu beteiligen, die industriell geprägt waren und im Zentrum industrieller jenseits der Hamburger Stadtgrenze oder Staatsgrenze Entwicklungen standen und Industriestandorte waren – stattfinden. Ich glaube ich würde Widerspruch ernten ich würde das nicht so vom Hafen abhängig machen – [lacht], wenn ich das jetzt in eine politische hatte das zur Folge, dass es Arbeit gab, bezahlte Öffentlichkeit hineingeben und vertreten würde, denn Arbeit. Das heisst es gab Bedarf an Wohnungen und die würden natürlich sagen, "Wir verstehen uns als Infrastruktur. Man muss am Rande auch nochmal Metropolregion und diese Staatsgrenzen speilen keine sagen, dass Hamburg ja auch immer, und das ist auch grosse Rolle mehr" usw. Ich glaube aber sie spielen ein Unterschied zu Rotterdam, würde ich sagen, mental immer noch eine relative Rolle. Vielleicht nicht Hamburg hat sich ja immer als Handelsstadt begriffen so gewichtig aber sie spielen schon eine Rolle. Und bei und dieses Image als Hafen- und Handelsstadt dieser Hafenentwicklung … das hier wird jetzt auch geprägt. Hamburg war über Jahrzehnte einer der gerade begonnen zuzuschütten … grössten Industriestandorte Deutschlands. Mit Werften, AK: Für die weitere operative Hafennutzung? mit Lebensmittelindustrie, mit Maschinenbau. Das ist niemandem im Gedächtnis oder im Bewusstsein – in LK: Ja. Um da konkurrenzfähig zu bleiben und mit dem Hamburg heisst auch die Handelskammer nicht grossen Konkurrenten Rotterdam zumindest halbwegs Industrie- und Handelskammer, wie sie sonst in mithalten zu können. Deutschland heissen, die heissen in Deutschland […] Industrie- und Handelskammer, in Hamburg heisst sie Handelskammer. Also die Industrie hat, zumindest für AK: Wenn ich noch eine ganz gross gefasst Frage das Selbstverständnis und die Imagebildung, immer stellen darf. Meinen Sie, man kann in der Stadtplanung

eine untergeordnete Rolle gespielt, obwohl sie extrem werden entwickelt und realisiert. Dann kommt der wichtig war für diese Stadt. So. Und jetzt kommen Zweite Weltkrieg mit diesen extremen Zerstörungen. ganz viele Industriearbeiter in die Stadt, es gibt Da hat man ja 70% bis 80%, in manchen Quartieren spezifische Industrien die sich auch entwickeln usw., gar 100% des Wohnungsbestandes verloren. Und es natürlich auch Hafenindustrie, Werften, wird dann nach dem Krieg die Chance wahr- Lebensmittelindustrie, Weiterverarbeitungsindustrie, genommen, nach den Wohnungsbauidealen und Veredelung usw., das findet alles hier statt und es gibt Stadtplanungsidealen, wie sie in der Charta von Athen keinen geregelten Wohnungsmarkt, sondern einen [1933] vertreten wurden, also die funktional gemischte, privaten Wohnungsmarkt der wild wächst und die verkehrsfreundliche, die durchgrünte Stadt mit den gesteuert werden muss. ganzen Zeilenbauten usw., bis dann in den 1970er Jahren wieder diese Grossraumsiedlungen entstehen. AK: In welchem Zeitraum bewegen wir uns jetzt? Steilshoop und Mümmelmannsberg, also auch wieder LK: So spätes 19. früher 20. Jahrhundert, also an den Rändern, Iserbrook usw., dann aber nicht nur Hochindustrialisierungsphase. Mit Schumacher werden vier- bis fünfgeschossig, sondern sechzehngeschossig dann zum ersten Mal systematisch usw. Grosswohnsiedlungen für die arbeitende Bevölkerung AK: Also alles auch zum sozialen Wohnungsbau angelegt oder zumindest geplant, wo man aber dann gehörend. auch eher die gut verdienenden Teile der Bevölkerung unterbringt. Aber das ist sozusagen auf dem Gutsberg, LK: Genau. Und dann kommt eigentlich der Cut, in den in Barmbek, in Wilhelmsburg, sozusagen an den 1990er Jahren, wo im Grunde genommen kein sozialer Rändern, entstehen diese Grosswohnsiedlungen die, Wohnungsbau mehr betrieben wird sondern, … da und das ist auch ein wichtiges Infrastrukturprojekt, werden noch Altenwohnungen gebaut und so, dann mit der U-Bahn, die damals noch Hochbahn Seniorenheime usw., aber die Stadt zieht sich völlig hiess und eine Ringbahn war, angeschlossen werden. heraus aus diesem sozialen Wohnungsbau. Auch diese Und das ist natürlich kommunal und staatlich Genossenschaften und Wohnungsformen daneben gesteuerte Wohnungsbaupolitik. Es werden werden privatisiert. Und jetzt gibt es eigentlich wieder Wohnungsbauunternehmungen gegründet, die SAGA, die Diskussion, ob man wieder verstärkten diese staatlichen Wohnungsbauunternehmen und Wohnungsbau machen soll. Wo man im Grunde -genossenschaften die diesen Wohnungsbau genommen die Mietpreisentwicklung sieht, die zu vorantreiben, der extrem gefördert wird von einem extremen Verdrängungsprozess geführt hat, die Schumacher. Da wird Hamburg auch als dazu führt, dass bestimmte Einkommensschichten in Backsteinstadt erfunden. Also diese dieser Stadt keine Wohnung mehr bezahlen können Grosswohnsiedlungen sind alles traditionelle, würde und eben auch diese sozialen Gefälle die da entstehen. ich jetzt sagen, Backsteinsiedlungen, die auch immer in Und dazu gehört sicherlich dann auch der kleine einem Atemzug genannt werden mit dem roten Wien Grasbrook, dann wir innerstädtisch extrem verdichtet und die ja auch in ähnlicher Absicht und mit ähnlicher und … das ist jetzt auch wieder so ein grosses sozialer Geste gebaut werden. Und auch mit hoher Wohnungsbauprojekt in Oberbillwerder, weiter nach Qualität. Für die Zeit technisch gut ausgestattet, Osten. Typisch für Hamburg in der Stadtplanung, belüftet, mit Grünzügen, mit Innenhöfen, usw. Also kein würde ich sagen, ist so eine konservative Moderne, Vergleich mit dem privaten Wohnungsbau. Und da mit sozusagen. Das ist vielleicht etwas widersprüchlich. Sicherheit auch vorbildlich für eine sozial verpflichtete, AK: Es passt zum Zeitgeist. moderne Wohnungsbaupolitik. Das muss man dann aber sehen … der kommt 1910, der Schumacher, dann LK: Auch schon in den 1920er Jahren … es ist jetzt wird angefangen zu planen, natürlich auch solche nicht radikal sozialdemokratisch, es ist verhalten Gebäude wie die Finanzbehörde oder das Museum für sozialdemokratisch. Es ist sozusagen eine … in der Hamburgische Geschichte usw., also auch Bauästhetik ist es eine [Tradition], die auf Backsteinen Repräsentationsgebäude. Und dann werden diese und Materialien beruht, die traditionelle Handelsstädte Siedlungen … dann kommt der Erste Weltkriegt, das auszeichnen, die darauf zurückgreift … es ist nicht realisiert sich also erst in den 1920er Jahren, die extrem Bauhaus inspiriert, manchmal hat man Hochzeit dieser Wohnungsbaupolitik. Wenn man sich ästhetische Elemente und Formsprache aus dem diese Grosswohnsiedlungen ankuckt, dann sind sie Bauhaus, die man da wiederfindet, aber es gibt eben schon sehr klug geplant und durchdacht und eben auch so regional inspirierten Wohnungsbau. Also es ist gedacht für diese arbeitende Bevölkerung, in Wahrheit verhalten. Also es gibt Leute die sagen, es ist sehr aber eigentlich zu teuer für bestimmte Kreise der verhalten aber solide. Das ist so ein typischer Zug, der arbeitenden Bevölkerung, und die wird letztlich … also die Wohnungsbaupolitik und auch die Ästhetik diese Grossraumsiedlungen der 1920er Jahre, die auszeichnet.

AK: Und würden Sie sagen, in Bezug auf den Die kommt natürlich auch eher aus dem Kultursektor, theoretischen Rahmen meiner Masterarbeit, die weil ich da vorher tätig war und da kann man das Pfadabhängigkeit – dieses Wort ist ja … also immer sehr gut sehen. Vor allen Dingen … also, wenn "Abhängigkeit" – also, konnte man bis in die 1970er, ein Museum gegründet wird, dann wird gekuckt, ob 1980er, als das eingesetzt hat mit dem Rückzug des sich das anderswo schon etabliert hat. Und sagen wir Staates aus Domänen seiner vormaligen mal radikal avantgardistisch war diese Stadt nie [lacht]. Verantwortung und dem damit einhergehenden Und das hängt in der Tat wahrscheinlich auch mit Startschuss für die Privatisierungswellen der 1980er protestantischen Prägungen zusammen, das würde ich und 1990er Jahre, kann man da eine Abhängigkeit auch sagen. Wenn man Bayern dagegen nimmt, da ausmachen, musste sich die Stadtplanung auf diesem würde ich sagen, dass neben so einem Pfad des sozialen Wohnungsbaus weiter bewegen? Kaufmannsgeist auch so ein protestantischer Geist eine Rolle spielt. Das ist natürlich in Holland noch LK: Also ich würde sagen, grundsätzlich gibt es immer prägender wahrscheinlich Möglichkeiten. Es gibt ja immer Spielräume. Es sind ja immer Verhandlungsprozesse aber es gibt Prägungen AK: Darauf habe ich mich jetzt ehrlich gesagt gar nicht von denen ich sagen würde, die schlagen sich schon fokussiert, inwieweit religiöse Prägungen die an vielen Stellen nieder. In den Mentalitäten, auch in Stadtplanung beeinflussen. den Bautraditionen, z.B., wo man das dann in der LK: Ich will damit auch gar nicht sagen, dass diese Ästhetik wiederfindet, aber auch in so einer Art Institutionen, die natürlich in dieser Stadt in gewissen Tugendset, in diesem Image einer Hafen- und Zeiten eine grosse Bedeutung hatten, auch politisch Handelsstadt. Also das ist schon so ein Konglomerat und bürokratisch, die Stadt wurde ja um diese von Vorstellungen, die sich mit Sicherheit immer wieder Hauptkirchen herum organisiert. Diese prägend durchsetzen. Dazu gehört aber auch eine Kirchenorganisationen hatten ja auch politische gewisse Fürsorglichkeit, auch wenn es so eine Aufgaben. Aber das war im Mittelalter, frühe Neuzeit. patriarchalische Fürsorglichkeit ist usw., die dann aber Also ich wollte damit jetzt auch nicht sagen, dass es so auch sozialdemokratisch durchsetzt ist. Was ich sagen einen direkten politischen Einfluss gab. Ich glaube aber will ist … ok, es gibt Prägungen, Pfadabhängigkeit, das die Stadt schon so einen typisch protestantischen wenn das der Begriff den Sie da wählen, und die sich Geist hat, auch in der Sparsamkeit, in der auch im Grunde genommen flächendeckend Zurückhaltung gegenüber allem was Schmuck und niederschlagen, aber es gibt auch immer mal wieder so Protz und Ästhetik betrifft, offensive Ästhetik. Ausreisser. Es gibt sicherlich immer Beispiel wo man sagen kann, "Da ist es jetzt mal anders gelaufen." AK: Ist für mich als Schweizer einfach nachvollziehbar. AK: Ich finde den Begriff Prägung eigentlich besser als […] den der Pfadabhängigkeit. Das Konzept kommt ja auch LK: Also wie gesagt, solche Prägungen oder typischen stark aus der Ökonomie und besagt zum Beispiel, dass Eigenschaften von Städten, die kann man ja selten so eine Firma die sich spezialisiert hat, Mühe haben wird, eindeutig festmachen, im Sinne von "Das ist die einen neuen Weg einzuschlagen. Aber im Zug meiner Institution die dafür zuständig war und das Recherche komme ich auch immer mehr zum Schluss, herbeigeführt hat." Sondern da gibt es ja immer viele dass dieser Begriff der Abhängigkeit zu ungenau ist, Faktoren. Also die politischen Eliten und auch diese zumindest was die grösseren politischen und Gesellschaft der Kaufleute, die ja nicht der alleinige stadtplanerischen Entscheidungen betrifft. Verein waren, sondern auch andere Vereine und auch […] informelle Zirkel in denen gesellschaftliches Leben stattfand, […], das sind natürlich auch Elemente die LK: Also Rotterdam war ja auch extrem zerstört und dazu führten, dass erstens das Geld ~ blieb und hat sich, glaube ich, viel konsequenter als moderne zweitens bestimmte grundsätzliche Haltungen von Stadt erfunden. Würde ich jetzt mal sagen, ich kenne denen diese Stadt und die Wirtschaft auch Rotterdam nicht besonders gut, aber viel radikaler. Die entsprechend tangiert wurden. Stadt hat letztlich auch seine architektonische Moderne zelebriert. Und das gilt für Hamburg ja nicht. AK: Ja genau. Das ist ja auch immer das Dilemma des Hamburg hat sich nie als Hochhausstadt begriffen. Historikers, sich da abgrenzen zu müssen. Weil … also, Man setzte immer auf das Solide und Qualität. Und ganz banal gesagt, es hängt ja immer alles mit allem keine Experimente. "Wenn sich etwas woanders zusammen. bewährt hat, dann nehmen wir das. Aber wir suchen LK: [lacht] Ja, also die Pfadabhängigkeit … Sie haben nicht selber." Keine Risiken eingehen, viel vorsichtiger, sich ja vor allem auf die Institutionen, im weitesten würde ich jetzt sagen. Eine gewagte These aber so in Sinne, konzentriert. Sehen Sie denn grosse Parallelen der Summe speist sich daraus etwa meine Einstellung.

zwischen Hamburg und Rotterdam oder eher grosse LK: Das war sehr gemischt. Es gab natürlich auch Unterschiede? Arbeiterquartiere und einfache Wohnungen. Es gab aber eben auch bürgerliche, vornehme Wohnungen. AK: Ich muss sagen, gerade mit der historischen Also man täuscht sich ja immer, wie dicht das auch in Recherche bin ich bei Hamburg noch nicht soweit. den alten Stadtkernen beieinander war. Diese rigide Jedoch sehe ich eine Parallele. In Rotterdam, ähnlich Trennung, die sozial definiert ist, ich glaube das ist das wie Sie das für Hamburg beschrieben haben, wurde 20. Jahrhundert, die dafür gesorgt hat. Und dann noch Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts der soziale Wohnungsbau der Krieg. Danach wurde diese soziale Segregation viel wichtiger. Was auch damit zu tun hatte, dass noch viel extremer, als das im 18. Und 19. Jahrhundert schon vor der Containerisierung ab den 1960er Jahren, der Fall war. der Platzbedarf in den Häfen grösser wurde schon Ende 19. Jahrhundert zunahm. Und in Rotterdam ist es […] auch so, dass Hafen und Wohnen schon immer AK: Abschliessend auch nochmals auf ihre Frage nach irgendwie zusammengehört haben. Also auch die den Parallelen eingehend; in Rotterdam hat auch Hafenleute, die Handelsleute, die haben nicht selten im Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts dieser soziale Hafen selbst gewohnt, obwohl es Auflagen gab, die Wohnungsbau richtig Fuss gefasst. Typisch war aber eine Nutzung der Flächen dafür nicht zuliessen, haben immer dieses inklusive der Bevölkerung. sich die Hafenmacher da irgendwie drum herumgeschlichen. Und daneben hat sich in Rotterdam LK: Tatsächlich, auch im 19. Jahrhundert? durch das offizielle Anwohnen der oberen Klassen AK: Ja, also ich meine jetzt frühes 20. Jahrhundert. direkt am Wasser eine Art Fassade der Stadt gebildet. Also das war eher marginal, meine ich und ich kann Und da würde mich auch sehr interessieren, ob das jetzt auch kein konkretes Beispiel nennen, wie das vor hier in Hamburg ähnlich war, ob schon früh im Hafen sich ging vor einhundert Jahren. Aber diese gewohnt wurde oder ob die HafenCity da eine niederländische Kultur der Konsenspolitik und Inklusion tatsächlich neue Nutzung darstellt. hat schon auch früh auf die Stadtplanung abgefärbt. LK: Nun, da ist ja eben dieser Cut. Da gab es einmal Würden Sie jetzt sagen, dass gerade so etwas diesen Brand 1842. Cholera ist nochmal ein anderes untypisch ist für Hamburg, dass das alles etwas Thema […] Und dann aber eben der Bau der verriegelter und ich sage jetzt mal elitär passiert? Speicherstadt, wo ein ganzes bewohntes Quartier LK: Also ich würde grundsätzlich sagen, dass ist so ~ niedergelegt wurde. Und die Speicherstadt, die ja eben identisch. Das würde ich aber jetzt nicht nur auf dann Freihafengebiet war, hatte zur Folge, dass da Hamburg beziehen. Im Grunde würde ich sagen, das auch nicht mehr gewohnt wurde. Und die war wirklich ist einfach eine andere Kultur gibt, in Holland und in exterritorial, auch das ganze Gebiet. Da gab es auch Deutschland. Wenngleich ja der Austausch gerade hier Hausmeister und irgendwelche Leute, die dafür unter den Küstenstädten, Holland, Amsterdam usw., sorgten, dass die Infrastruktur funktioniert. Sicherlich auch schon im Mittelalterextrem war. Und die konnten gab es auch das eine oder andere Wohnen noch, aber sich ja verstehen. Das war eine Sprachregion, das ist ja im Grunde genommen wurde im Hafen nicht mehr nicht so verschlagen. […] letztlich gibt es hier aber, gewohnt. Da wurden diese Siedlungen auch angelegt glaube ich, nicht so eine ausgeprägte Konsenskultur, [an den Rändern] und eben auch diese Ringbahn, die es gibt sie auch, muss man sagen. Man muss ja dafür sorgte, dass die Leute von den äusseren differenzieren. Wenn man sich jetzt die Eliten ankuckt, Randgebieten in den Hafen transportiert wurden. Das dann würde ich sagen, dass die Kaufmannseliten ihre war eine Verkehrsinfrastruktur, die damit notwendig Söhne … entweder wurden sie Kaufleute oder sie wurde. Und es gibt in der Bildüberlieferung ganz viele wurden Juristen und man sorgte dafür, dass Fotos davon, die zeigen, dass diese Hafenarbeiter mit sozusagen die politische Vertretung geregelt war. Und den Barkassen [Boote] auf die andere Elbseite ansonsten wollte man ungestört seinem Handel gefahren wurden. Da waren ja auch Werften, bis in die nachgehen. Die Beteiligungs- oder Konsenskultur was 1980er Jahre […] gab es da grosse Werften, und die die politischen Meinungsbildungsprozesse betrifft … ja, wurden eben … entweder kamen sie durch den naja, Hamburg war immer eine Stadt, die starke Elbtunnel oder die wurden mit Barkassen zu Hunderten politische und soziale Bewegungen hatte. Die rüber geschifft, in den Hafen rein. Die kamen aber von Arbeiterbewegung die im 19. Und 20. Jahrhundert … ausserhalb. […] der erste Reichstagsabgeordnete der Sozialdemokratie AK: Und das Wohngebiet das in der späteren stammte aus Hamburg usw. Da ist schon auch eine Speicherstadt angelegt war, was lebten da für Leute, starke politische Klasse, die sich aber eigentlich in was für Klassen? Konfrontation zur herrschenden Klasse bildete. Und da kann man ja eigentlich auch nicht von Konsenskultur

sprechen. Also ich würde eher sagen, es gab schon Gamesentwickler sind. Und über die findet der Leute … eine Kultur der offensiven politischen Strukturwandel dann so statt [lacht] "Wir haben jetzt Auseinandersetzungen, schon immer, aber durchaus paar ganz Kreative hier!" Ich glaube das ist auch eine auch solche Instanzen die dann immer gefunden Art Pfadabhängigkeit. Da wieder runterzukommen, ist wurden ohne so einen Konsens zu stiften. Ich denke glaube ich verdammt schwer, zumindest für die jetzt mal an die Hafenstrasse, wo Häuser besetzt politischen Eliten die im Moment noch tätig sind. Die waren usw., wo dann auch wirklich das Liberale sind wirklich davon geprägt. Der Hafen ist wirklich der Bürgertum sich aufgefordert sah, zu schlichten. Aber Taktgeber für alles was in dieser Stadt stattfindet. Die es ist nicht so wie bei den Holländern, das glaube ich HHLA AG hat ihren Hauptsitz ja in der Speicherstadt. nicht, da ist es anders. Also ich würde nicht unbedingt Und da wir auch immer wieder gesagt, "Das ist das von Konsenskultur … also da müsste ich nochmals eigentliche Rathaus, da wird die Politik gemacht." Das drüber nachdenken, um das präzise zu beantworten. ist das Eine. Und dann gibt es die Handelskammer, die Es gab schon so etwas wie Konsenskulturen, es gab direkt hinter dem Rathaus ist. Es gibt ja den Kellergang auch Moderatoren in diesen politischen Konflikten und zwischen dem, Rathaus und der Handelskammer. […] Auseinandersetzungen. Wenn man sich jetzt die Da wird dann architektonisch und räumlich nochmals Geschichte seit den 1920er Jahren ankuckt, der deutlich, welche Kräfte die Politik beeinflussen. Nationalsozialismus hat hier gewütet, genauso wie in anderen deutschen Regionen, obwohl die Hamburger immer gesagt haben "Wir waren eigentlich nie NS affin und die Kaufleute schon gar nicht" usw. Das stimmt nicht, das sind alles Legendenbildungen. Hitler war in keiner Stadt so oft wie in Hamburg, es gab Pläne für eine Elbrandbebauung die Berlin in nichts nachstanden. Also auch die NS-Geschichte wird mythologisiert im Sinne von "Wir waren da anfällig für." Und die Sozialdemokratie die ja nach 1945 die politische Gestaltung dieser Stadt massgeblich geprägt und beeinflusst hat, die war eine eher konservative Sozialdemokratie und eine sehr wirtschaftsfreundliche. Das ist der Konsens der existiert. Wenn man versucht sich sozial verpflichtet zu verhalten, aber man tut auch nicts gegen die Wirtschaftsinteressen dieser Stadt. Und das war dann auch immer der Hafen. Wahrscheinlich kann man auch sagen, dass im Grossteil der arbeitenden Bevölkerung ein Konsens darüber bestand, dass wenn es dem Hafen gut geht, geht es auch der Stadt und den Menschen gut. Was natürlich auch ein Fehler ist, wenn man sich die Entwicklungen anschaut die jetzt so stattfinden. Also versucht man sich jetzt als Wissenschaftsstadt, als Kulturstadt, als Musikstadt oder wie auch immer zu erfinden.

AK: Rotterdam war wirtschaftlich ja schon immer sehr stark abhängig vom Hafen. In Hamburg, meine ich, ist dies etwas weniger stark ausgeprägt, dass da andere Wirtschaftszweige mitgetragen haben. Medienstadt, Musikstadt, etc.

LK: Ja und nein. Das wird immer ignoriert, dass Hamburg auch Industriestadt war, Medienstadt war, Verlagsstadt war. Das ist sicherlich alles auch für Hamburg extrem wichtig, aber man setzt gar nicht so sehr auf deren Entwicklung. […] Es wird auch nicht so viel dafür getan, das neben dem Hafen andere Wirtschaftszweige stark werden. Da gibt es dann immer ein paar Unternehmen, die so Spiele- und

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.

Interview with Len de Klerk, 25 July 2018 • Interviewer: Andreas Künzi, MSc student Urban & Regional Planning, 2017-2018, University of Amsterdam

• Interviewee: Len de Klerk, Professor for Urban Planning, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam • Interview setting: The interview was held at the University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 166, 1018 WV Amsterdam

• Interview language: English • Interview referenced as: RTM4

• Affiliation with interviewee: None • Explanation of characters:

- AK = Andreas Künzi (Interviewer) - LK = Len de Klerk (Interviewee)

- ~ = Inaudible - [ ] = Remark by author

Interview neighbourhoods were appointed as official urban renewal areas in 1975. And about nine or ten more in AK: In your time as associate director of urban 1980. development in Rotterdam (1990-2000), how were you involved in the development of the Kop van Zuid? AK: Riek Bakker told me that at the time she took over. She was speaking of thousand individual little LK: Indirectly. In terms of judging plans. I remember fragmented projects, which she then clustered into 1983/84, the very early beginnings of the change in approximately 30 “packages”, allowing for a more concept of the Kop van Zuid. cohesive planning approach. How do these clusters AK: At that time, it was till the intention to the develop relate to the appointed areas you just mentioned? the area with social housing. Is that correct? LK: I don’t think it's true what Riek Bakker says. LK: Yes. That lasted until 1986/87, when Riek [Bakker] Because the concept was this one: once a came to Rotterdam and made use of earlier plans. neighbourhood, there were small neighbourhoods with There was a manifestation in, I think 1983, I'm not sure, a about 1,500 houses but there were also several large where about four more or less famous neighbourhoods, accounting for approximately 10,000 urbanists/architects, among them … what's his name, houses or dwellings. Once a neighbourhood had been the famous Italian theorist and architect [Aldo Rossi] … appointed as an official area for urban renewal, a so- an Englishman, one or two Dutch architects, who called project group was established, consisting of made, let's say, alternative designs for the Kop van representatives of the renters. And planning officials of Zuid. Alternative as compared to the policy of the municipality. And project groups had the task, to developing the area with social housing. set up the whole urban renewal process. Sometimes by buying houses, in order to replace them or to AK: What was the motivation behind the approach of renovate them. And this has been, from beginning to developing it with social housing? the end, a process of, let's say, smaller and larger LK: The motivation was that in 1974 a new urban projects in every urban neighbourhood for urban renewal policy concept has been introduced in the city. renewal. I do not know that there had been an attempt And, well, it always takes four or five years before this to cluster these projects by anyone. What has is going to work and to produce effects, which come happened, in the mid 1990s, was a change of concept as more or less a surprise. But let's say in the early where the whole idea of the mid 1970s, that project 1980s there was a great need for urban land to groups had, let's say, pretty much the power to redevelop new social housing in these first eleven undertake urban renewal activities, all kinds of urban neighbourhoods around the city centre. And this piece renewal activities, and were built up only by of land, which had been abandoned by the port representatives of the area and urban planning officers, operations, they were there since about 1880, was that concept was left, and a new concept was available. It was owned by the city. introduced by law, because the whole idea of social AK: And it was barren, unused. housing in the Netherlands changed in 1995. It's a very complicated story. What happened in Rotterdam was LK: Yes, it was unused. A real brownfield, in terms of that more or less new project groups were established urban renewal. […] it was seen as a very useful area to consisting again of planning officers, representatives of build new houses for the southern part of the total neighbourhood dwellers, not only renters but also urban renewal are. representatives of landowners, which were excluded AK: Did that focus on the Wilhelmina Pier as well, before, that was a political decision of the mid 1970s, which is now kind of the heart of the Kop van Zuid? and the housing associations and corporations. And that was also new. Because the city of Rotterdam had LK: No. The Wilhelmina pier was not specifically in bought about, I think, 60,000 dwellings between 1975 sight in terms of redevelopment. To my memory it was and the early 1990s, from private owners, mainly. still used by shipping companies at the time. It was one Because housing corporations hardly had any houses of the few parts of the whole planning between, let's in that part of the city. It was a part of the city, which say 1974 and 1978, which was still in use. The other had been developed between 1880 and 1920. There parts had become derelict for shipping. were housing corporations but very small ones. And AK: So, the plans for the Kop van Zuid development the majority of these houses, which were bought by the focused on the Noordereiland? city, were given into the control of the housing corporations. Not in ownership, that happened in 1995. LK: The Noordereiland was one of the eleven urban renewal areas, which had been appointed directly in And I was heavily involved in that process, a pretty 1975. We had two phases. Well three, by the end of difficult process. […] I had meetings with 1983. The first two phases were eleven representatives of housing corporations, meetings

week after week, more or less secretly, in the evenings, AK: So, in that sense you would say that the in order to prepare a decision by the municipality, to development of the Kop van Zuid did in no way give these houses, which were bought by the city, not actually mark a change in urban development policies, only into control but also in ownership to these housing or maybe, by extension, trigger a change in policy. corporations. What I mean to ask is, whether the Kop van Zuid can be seen as some kind of precursor of that change you AK: And these housing corporations were private? mentioned that happened in 1995, with the increasing LK: Housing corporations in the Netherlands are privatisation of housing corporations? another story [laughs]. You can't compare them to LK: More as a result. housing corporations in England or in France. You can compare them to housing corporations in Germany, AK: Ok? So, that would be linking it back to the 1970s maybe in Switzerland, too. Housing corporations in the and the demise of the state? So, when you mentioned Netherlands buy and rent social housing to people who that change in politics in 1995 … what I mean is, that meet the requirements social housing based on their the shift to more neoliberal politics, triggered in the mid income, which works according the rule of housing 1970s by the demise of the state and followed by law. And as such between 1901 and 1995 these social increasing financial deregulations in the 1980s and housing corporations received subsidies and cheap widespread privatisation in the 1990s, that this initial loans. But in the mid 1990s, against the backdrop of shift actually enabled a development like the Kop van neoliberal politics, they became more or less Zuid. Of course, this is rather simplified, but would you independent. […] agree?

AK: So, from 1901 until 1995 the housing corporations LK: Yes, I think that's correct. When I … I see the were publicly steered? changing politics in the second half of the 1980s. There is this change in the 1970s, which has been prepared LK: If you look at it very formally, juridically, they were in the first half of the decade, the change from typical always private institutions. And they still are. […] 1950s and 1960s concept of inner city redevelopment, AK: So, this was established in 1901? into what sometimes in the Netherlands is called a sociocratic view on inner city politics. But the inner LK: The law dates back to 1901. And since 1901 in the city, then, is not the inner-city centre of the 1950s and country as a whole maybe between 800 or 1,000 or 1960s. It is the city centre plus the ring around it, which 1,500 housing corporations have been founded. had been developed between 1880 and 1920, with the Smaller and larger ones, with different purposes etc. housing advancements as a result of the Industrial But this is a world of its own. My advice to you is to Revolution. And then there is another change in the stay away from this [laughs]! late 1980s, where liberal politics is intruding in all veins AK: The reason why I am interested is … well, I have of the political system, not only of Rotterdam but in this hypothesis that over the course of the 20th century Western Europe as a whole. […] You see the first social housing was the significant pathway for urban results of this, again, four or five years later, in the Kop development in Rotterdam. And that the Kop van Zuid, van Zuid. And also, in some new developments in the with its high-end development approach, largely driven outskirts of the city. It is not easy to make difference by private investors, can be seen as some kind of a between what are exactly causes and what are results. break- away from this previous path. Of course, there were people with differing views on how to develop the Kop van Zuid already in 1995. LK: That is not correct. The break-away … there is a break-away but not specifically connected with the AK: But sill, maybe I am too hung up on my initial Kop van Zuid. The break-away is in politics, in the hypothesis, but the area was indented to be developed [political] history since 1901. And I think that if you look with social housing at first? at a map of the city, then the Kop van Zuid and some LK: Yes. But to my knowledge … I don't know of any developments in the outskirts, the so-called VINEX design of the area for social housing. It was only neighbourhoods, are the first areas, which you can intended, never actually approached. appoint on the map, that have been develop to, let's say, the new … after the break in 1995. I think you AK: Ok. Now let's us assume the KvZ had been have to look at it this way. The Kop van Zuid has never developed with social housing. Would that have been a been an instrument to change housing policies. It has kind of continuation of planning urban development been an instrument to change urban outlay policy, policies from 1900 on? more or less. And also, more, let's say, in terms of LK: No, no. From 1974 on! The changes were very social demographic policies. quick if you look back. […] Important shifts in urban development policies can be made out; 1880 →

Industrial Revolution housing, 1925 → is maybe not so different from the free German rational/functional planning [Fordism], 1940 → hanseatic cities. The Dutch Republic between 1600 destruction of inner city in WWII/continuous functional and 1975 has been ruled by twenty independent cities planning, 1970/75 → urban renewal area/social and seven regions. There was no central power. And housing, 1995 → privatisation. […] In 1995 subsidising maybe you could fit Hamburg or Bremen into that of social housing in the Netherlands stops completely. system. So, from the institutional viewpoint, 1995 is a very AK: In this way, Rotterdam resembles a city-state like important break. Let's say, that all the financial ties setting? between central government and local government and the housing corporations were cut off. And so, the LK: Yes. As the second largest city in the Netherlands market has to take over tasks, which in this phase, since the early 1800s, Rotterdam was used to pay its lasting for forty years or something like that [post war own projects and never took money from Den Haag. period until mid 1980s], [state lead planning] was a AK: Due to its position of a trade and merchants city growing idea, also here, in the 1930s, with the great and the accompanying economic power. depression, everybody calls for intervening of the public sector. LK: Yes. But also, in an effort to demonstrate its independency, I think. But that is more the AK: So, WWII and the destruction of the inner-city of psychological side of this. Rotterdam did not actually result in a change in policy? AK: In light of these aspects of mentalities, would you LK: Yes, it did, very much. Rotterdam policy, even say there is a characteristic approach in planning in socialist policy, has always been liberal, in the Western Rotterdam? European sense of the word liberal. Far more liberal than, for instance, policy in Amsterdam, which is also LK: Today? an effect in the difference in mentalities. If you look to AK: Historically. Say, over the last two hundred years, the 1920s and 1930s then in Rotterdam the market can a typical tradition of urban planning be assigned to sector got more room than, for instance in Amsterdam, Rotterdam, especially seen through the lens of and had the market totally in its grip. In Rotterdam, institutions, policy making, decision making etc., not so even socialist politicians had no need the keep the much in terms of design? market in its grip. And I think that has to do with the way how the money is earned in the city, with trade. LK: The first question then is, which other city you Maybe this could be compared to Hamburg, both free should compare such an approach with. And that is “hanseatic” trade cities. […] The trading mentalities of not easy because we have, on the international scale, both cities could be compared. But Hamburg has far about three more or less medium cities, Amsterdam, greater tradition of, let's say, self-esteem, of … […] Rotterdam, Den Haag, with between half a million and Hamburg handles such a problem [the public financial a million people […] Hamburg is about twice as big. disaster of the Elbe Philharmonic Hall] different from … That already makes a difference in terms of the nature it's to be explained from history, also having still a large of problems, quantity etc. In the Netherlands, if I bunch of rich people and prominent families that you should give some characteristics of planning in could already find in the city two centuries ago. You Rotterdam, then … very functional, in terms of problem can't find that in Rotterdam. Only a few. […] solving in a very pragmatic way rather than via theoretical/idealistic approach, I would say that is more AK: And something like the Elbe Philharmonic Hall, or less also characteristic for Amsterdam. But if you which was announced to be bankrolled purely with take other cities in the Netherlands, Nijmegen, private investments and then turned out to swallow Groeningen, then you see also that the whole idea of hundreds of millions of public money, would that be urban development and planning, and also regional possibly happening similarly in Rotterdam? planning, in the Netherlands is pragmatic. If I look to LK: If I look at these kind of projects, then I see a the early 20th century I see a combination of German difference between Rotterdam and Hamburg. My rules, especially derived from the 'Baugesetz', experience of 21 years as planning officer in the city is combined with the English concepts of the Garden that Rotterdam has much more experience with good City. And then applied by the Dutch pragmatic idea control of these kind of projects. Metro, bridges, etc. of … what to do. Because the Garden City concept did Only very few got out of financial control. not work in the Netherland because we have hardly any cheap natural areas. The cities grew and AK: Why do you think that is? developed very quickly around 19000 in the western LK: One would have to look far back in time. […] part of the country, but were surrounded by expensive Rotterdam always behaved independently from the agrarian land, not by cheap wasteland or something public sector, from its resources. But again, the history

like that, which is the basic idea of the Garden City. Rotterdam, until 1985/86, leaving lots of problems. And we needed more or less strict building rules and Urban renewal policy was an example of Keynesian looked to Germany. Because in the Ruhrgebiet building policy, in the broader sense of the word. And then the rules were developed first … it developed so quickly economy of the Netherlands and the economy of its between 1850 and 1900. And engineers in the cities came out of the crisis in about 1990. And, let's Netherlands looked to Germany for urban say, new ideas, new liberal policies, were going to rule development. Also, because the Germans were the the public sector, that started to introduce new ways of first […] the Germans were confronted first with working internally. Privatisation of a lot of sub-sectors. problems of modern urban traffic, one of the basics of So, that's the general tendency in the 20th century. And pragmatic building rules. That’s the early phase. And I have always seen, also as a scientist, urban policy as then you see in the 1920s and 1930s that Dutch subject to general economic social policy. If I look to a architects play an important international role in what city then I consider what I see as the map, the later has been calls the functional city, CIAM, together physical … the map is the physical face of society, in with German architects and some French. Dutch terms of society consisting of millions and billions of architects were working at Dessau at the Bauhaus. social actions. One of the many effects of these social There was an exchange of ideas. And that lasted until actions is urban development. […] the late 1950s. The English architects hardly took part AK: From what you said before I almost hear of it, or at least not with such a borad approach like the something like the flipside of the coin of my mentioned Gemran and Dutch architects did. And that is the story hypothesis, which was seeing a pathway of social of, let's say, the late 1930s but especially the 1940s, housing and the Kop van Zuid with an emphasis on 1950s, 1960s until it faded away in the 1970s. And that privatised development, as a break with that. What you is Rotterdam in top form. Also, other cities in the accounted was almost the other way around, so to Netherland. Because there is not much difference in speak. So, the private sector was always very the rebuilding period 1945 und 1970. If you are looking important in urban development, also in Rotterdam, at urban neighbourhoods in those times, you will find and then in these specific moments of crisis [WWI, very much of the same ideas. Some with different Great Depression, WWII] the public sector increased, forms, but let's say the urban concepts are the same. albeit not detached from the private sector but much Building a new, more or less self-containing, functional stronger. And then in the late 1970s and early 1980s Netherlands. the private sector experienced some kind of a revival AK: And to what extent was there … or in what way did as the driving force of urban development. the public and private sectors cooperate in this period? LK: Yes. Because there was a crisis, too. And this time How was the private sector included in what was, to it was a housing crisis. As a result of neglection and my understanding, a rather centralised system? lack of maintenance since the early 1930s.

LK: Let's again go through the 20th century. The private AK: Of the housing sector. sector dominated until WWI, which triggered a heavy economic crisis. So, the public sector came in with LK: Let's say, of that part of the city. It's a way of social housing and subsidies etc. That lasted until, let's looking at it. And its very, very difficult to say where the say, the early 1920s. Then came what an American loose ends are and what the multiblock [?] is in president called “back to normalcy.” And normalcy is a development. But if I look to a longer period, from 1800 dominance of the private sector in urban development. until now, then you may say that … in 1800 we [the Because urban development, as an inheritance from Netherlands] were not independent, Napoleon was the 19th century, was seen as a private enterprise. Then here. And even in the 1860s people in Rotterdam came the crisis of the 1930s. Again, the public sector remembered the period of Napoleon with a look of came in with subsidies and construction, some scepticism on the idea of a central state etc. […] what housing but not too much. If you look back in detail you see is that the problems caused by private what exactly happened in the 1930s, most people are imitative have to be solved by the public sector, you surprised about the large role of the private sector. could say it that way. The problems in the period after Then came the war [WWII]. [It could be said that] the WWII are taking a long time. It's that kind of pattern economic crisis lasted until the early 1950s. Again, with you can see in history. And if you look to who is taking explicit Keynesian policy, sustained by almost a lead in urban planning, or in housing as part of urban everyone, private sector, public sector etc. All political planning, but not only in housing, that is the public parties, a very central role of the public sector, lasting sector. But on the other hand, if you are studying and until the end of the 1970s. Again, a crisis, the fading analysing what happened in the history of urban away of the industrial era, the loss of large industries. planning, the public sector is never far away. The This economic crisis lasted in the largest cities, like private sector needs the public sector. Because

already in 1600, this city needed admittance, by Revolution, which was pretty late in the Netherlands. whoever, in order to undertake something. As […] But there are always people who have the guts, the independent as it was. In that way Rotterdam, I think, feelings for things to come. That is the first phase if I was not as independent as Bremen or Hamburg. These look back to this study. What you see then is that in the kinds of things always play somewhere in the 1880, far more people are convinced of the break- background. And that means that what is called through of the Industrial Revolution. And 1880 is also 'normal' is in fact the dominance of the private sector the start of a revolutionary growth of cites. Rotterdam in economic development. That is what people call grew from 130,000 to 550,000 in forty years, between normal, more or less, in this pragmatic Dutch society. 1880 and 1920, Amsterdam the same. This had never And as soon as something is going wrong and is been seen in history before and after, such fast growth catching a larger part of the population, then the public within such short time. This growth marked the start of sector comes in, trying to repair the damage. establishing a professional and fast-growing bureaucracy, which at the end of the century [the AK: That of course now flips my complete hypothesis 19th] … into, “don't we have to plan it.” And if you look [laughs]! […] Coming to some of your publications […] at publication from the time, the Germans produced One of those is called Particuliere plannen (1998), how handbooks on how to makes streets, places tramway urban elites from the mid 19th to the mid 20th century systems etc. They were read here. If you look to affected urban planning. articles these German books … and after 1900, 1905 LK: That was my PhD. That is about that, it's about you see the English books coming. And you see that Rotterdam. What I did was to analyse about ten urban bureaucracy is growing and getting more and different urban development or housing projects in more sense of urban planning, housing, medical terms of introducing new concepts. And from, let's facilities, etc. That is a very short time in history where say … the idea of who did it and why. What I tried to you go from, let's say, an amateurish sort of public do was to demonstrate that private enterprise, and in sector to a very professional public sector. With lots of this case, members of the urban elite in Rotterdam, engineers and academics etc. took many initiatives for the betterment of housing and AK: So, there is no path one can look back onto of urban planning, between 1860 and 1950. And that inclusion and consensus building in planning in this started with the foundation of typical housing period. association. Because before 1901, the housing law, the famous Dutch housing law, there were already kind of LK: Yes. Inclusion and consensus building has come private housing associations. And if you look at the step by step. If you go to the early projects, mid 19th housing law you will discover that the housing law is in century to 1880/90, then you can imagine that it is fact a continuation of the private initiatives from the almost only the urban elite that is able to set up new 1870s to about 1900, founded by idealistic liberal kinds of projects. Step by step then democracy grew members of the elite. This also happened in and in 1918 or 1920, we had the first general election, Amsterdam or Groeningen or in Hamburg, Bremen in everyone in the country, including women, could vote. German. Sometimes industrialists. And that changed radically the balance between political parties. The political parties, in the old sense of AK: So that would also be an indicator of the private the word, got their power until about 1920. And then it sector affecting urban development and collaborating was finished. After that the country had been ruled by with the public sector. coalitions. The Netherlands is a republic with a LK: Yes. The set also new standards for what is quality monarch consisting of minorities. Since the 1920s is, housing and the overall quality of urban environment. by definition, ruled by coalition of minorities. The minorities are smaller now, we have more parties, and AK: And so, the decision making in urban development minorities that always took a pragmatic view on with the private sector, the mentioned economic urban problems and were able to work together with other elites, was that exclusive of other parties … the reason people with different views on society. I'm asking, what I'm aiming at is that the Dutch political culture has this reputation of consensus building and AK: So, it is somewhat rooted in the Dutch political inclusion of stakeholders, etc. Is that something than history of the last one hundred years. can be traced back into the 19th century or is it more of LK: The last one hundred and twenty-five years, I think. a phenomenon of [late] modernity? If you look back at liberalism in the Netherlands LK: That is … if I go back to the mid 19th century then I between 1850 and 1900 as compared to France or would rather say it was young people of urban elite Germany was different. It was not rejecting Christian families, which had the feeling that society was parties, or something like that. It was not rejecting changing as a result of the upcoming Industrial Christian democratic policy. And the liberalism was a

composition of individuals and factions, small factions. used for harbour operations abandoned, is a kind of From 1870 on there were three factions striving for crisis. Then, in this respect, when looking at how different kinds of societies with different concepts. And dominant and significant the influence of the private the largest faction was aiming at general election, sector in waterfront developments in these areas was, thereby making itself obsolete as a political power. But one could call that a break-away from the historical yes, you could say that [inclusion and consensus path, i.e. the public sector did not increase and neither building] is part of the Dutch political history. did the private decrease in a moment of crisis, contrary to the trajectory of the approx. one hundred previous […] years. LK: I researched urban renewal between 1950 and LK: Yes. I think that's correct. That is what I said. You 1980 Rotterdam [e.g. Stadsvernieuwing in Rotterdam have crises of sorts. You have an economic crisis. But (1982)] and in that period I looked at the concept of what is an economic crisis? Is it a financial crisis or a urban renewal in those days and looked for clues of trade crisis? That is different in some ways. In terms of change. And I think that in the late 1960s the first what causes the crisis and who is affected the most. changes in the concepts about the position in the city And to my opinion the time from 1930 to 1970, forty centre, the position as what was seen as what the years, caused the housing crisis of the 1970s. And the Americans called the twilight zone, these 1880-1920 housing crisis, which was seen already in the late rings around the city, the meaning was changed … 1960s, is the beginning of this account of urban because if you look at the Netherlands as a whole, renewal with social housing. And then again twenty then … you may call the year 1968 as the year of years later, this changed for this specific part of the changing thoughts on urban renewal. And that means city. There are other parts of the city. You always have also changing thoughts on the concept of the meaning to look at the map, too! What is happening in which of the city centre. No longer just an economic focus on part of the city, why and at what time and by and for the city, which … with, let's say, a centre of offices and whom. inner-city highways etc. But with a broader social meaning as a city as a whole. And that is then extended to this ring around, which was no longer seen as just a reserve area to expand the city centre but as an area with its own meaning, a meaning to the people who live there and its specific atmosphere.

AK: Based on all that we have discussed now I can paint a macro-historical image of urban development in Rotterdam with assigning important breaks and shifts. However, I find it still difficult to conceptually and theoretically align these findings to the waterfront development of the Kop van Zuid. LK: If you see these new port developments, they come in at about the mid 1980s. And what happened in Rotterdam happened earlier in London. […] You may say that there is a historical line of private development. And in times of crisis the public sector increased. […] It's always difficult how something has influenced not only urban design but also the whole idea of organisation, who should do what etc. AK: So, then I would re-hypothesise, somewhat flipping it again. The pathway is that the private sector was always very dominant in urban development, always collaborating with the public sector. And the public sector became increasingly important in moments of crisis.

LK: Yes. As a general thesis, or general idea, that works.

AK: So, let us assume that the withdrawal of the port from the city centre, with its leaving areas formerly

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.

Interview with Paul van de Laar, 27 July 2018 • Interviewer: Andreas Künzi, MSc student Urban & Regional Planning, 2017-2018, University of Amsterdam

• Interviewee: Paul van de Laar, Associate Professor with the Department of History, Erasmus School of History, Culture and Communication, Erasmus University Rotterdam

• Interview setting: The interview was held at the Erasmus University Rotterdam, Burg. Oudlaan 50, 3062 PA Rotterdam

• Interview language: English • Interview referenced as: RTM5 • Affiliation with interviewee: None

• Explanation of characters: - AK = Andreas Künzi (Interviewer)

- PL = Paul van de Laar (Interviewee) - ~ = Inaudible

- [ ] = Remark by author

Interview interesting, the complexities of this waterfront decision making processes. AK: My rough research hypothesis assumes that planning is path dependent, thus using path AK: So, then you see a path dependence in the public dependence theory as my theoretical framework. I sector making policies and investments for the intend to produce what could be called a historical development of port infrastructure. narrative over the last 150-200 years in planning for PL: Yes. Rotterdam and Hamburg against the backdrop of historical institutionalism, i.e. finding out how planning AK: And how would these waterfront developments institutions have evolved and how they affect planning relate to that. Would they stand for a break-away from strategies. that specific path dependency?

PL: It [path dependence theory] is a concept use by PL: No, I don't think so. Because the … in order to Carola Hein, in her research. […] Path dependence is make sure … how are you going to convince people, particular significant in port cities due to the huge how do you convince your population, that you need to investments made in infrastructure. Once this is there invest your money, your resources in port you cannot say “Ok, let's stop it.” It means that there is development. That means that you need the old port kind of a lock-in effect, which makes it very difficult for as a kind of heritage site in order to make sure that ports to really adapt their economic position. your local population remains mentally attached to this port culture. And once the port is out of sight and not AK: So, in this respect the path dependence and the culturally, socially or political linked to the city … that's lock-in is affecting the port operation and not so why port-city relations remain important, although much … important [port infrastructural] developments take PL: Yes. And decision making. We believe that the path place far away from the city. But from a mental side, dependency is actually so strong that it becomes part it's very important that for the redevelopments, the of the port culture. So, it is one of the major elements industrial port heritage, the brown lands, are turned in in port culture. And port culture is very thoroughly to regenerated areas in order to create new job framed in a historical context. In Hamburg there is a opportunities, to create new atmosphere to make sure beautiful concept, researched by Christoph Strupp, that you're going to attract people with medium and and one of his arguments is that Hamburg does not upper-class families to your city. So, you use the need to develop its port anymore. It's economically so waterfront not any longer as a place where the dockers strong, it [Hamburg] can afford, almost like a first city used to live, but you turn it into a ... almost into a new [?], to leave the port, to not further invest. But it is way of pleasure and leisure scape. strange that they spent so much money for digging out AK: So, looking at the big picture then, there's a path the Elbe. Because they want to have the ships actually dependence … those waterfront developments are within the urban district. Which, from a rational path dependent in the sense that they emphasise the economic perspective, rather odd. Why would you cultural importance of the port. […] So, the path invest so much money for accommodating big dependence lays in the idea of having to develop these container ships, when there is a kind of cut-throat areas due to strong cultural and mental connections competition going on in the northern and western between port and city. Could you then think of an areas, between Antwerp, Rotterdam, Hamburg and example how such waterfront areas would be Bremen. So, who is actually benefitting from all these developed in a way that they would not relate to that investments. The problem … the major shipping path dependency? Because to my understanding, the companies and multinational firms, that are in need of sheer idea of developing these waterfront sites is owed cheap transportation, cheap port terminal operations. to path dependence, i.e. the city has to develop in So, it's very interesting. And that explains path order to satisfy its cultural heritage. dependency. Because the port of Hamburg is so much embedded in the local culture of the city, that it is PL: First there is the question of when port cities simply impossible to say, “We're not going to invest in started to be regenerated. It started in Baltimore and the port anymore.” And in that respect Rotterdam and Boston, taking over in London and then it became … in Hamburg are quite similar, in their … how path the early days waterfront regeneration was just making dependency is responsible for their future operations in sure that these spaces were made into district for the planning space. […] Boris Vormann did research on social housing. To make sure that you accommodate waterfronts as well. And [he states that] in order to people and offer decent housing facilities. But then it make sure that the waterfront regeneration is actually came under the influence of international globalisation sold to the public, the bad images of port cities, of the and market development. Neoliberalism. And people historical past, aere used in order to defen the said, “Well, let's turn this waterfront into a site of waterfront regeneration. So, it's almost a kind of social conspicuous consumption, turn it into an area, which policy as well, that is involved. So, this is very attract new kinds of income.” So, I think that originally path dependence was perhaps not that important in respect to starting the regeneration projects. But public sector peaked, whereas the private sector nowadays they have become part of defending port somewhat subducted. And when looking at it through culture. So, it's very strongly related. And the this lens, then the waterfront development in the Kop interesting thing is, I'm not sure but it would be worth van Zuid, for example, which you could say emerged researching, is that, for instance, in Liverpool and out of a crisis, namely the withdrawal from the port of Marseille, they have a tradition of waterfront the city centre, leaving behind abandoned brow regeneration as well. In the 1980s in Liveropool and lands … looking at it through this lens the Kop van Marseille. But the strange thing is that they both Zuid marks a break-away from a previous path. Would became cultural capital of Europa. In 2010 and in 2013, you agree with that? respectively. And the interesting thing is that Liverpool PL: Well, I think that the social housing was not … if now, although it is a private company, uses the you look at how the major dwelling were fabricated, waterfront regeneration for its re-imagining of the city, this was always done by the market. So, the social in order to attract investors to create a new port housing commission by the city government, especially terminal for containers. […] Nowadays, because of the in the 19th and 20th century … if you consider corporate new image, which is based on the new waterfront housing, then the government is always involved. S, in regenerations … they use this image in order to attract the earl 20th century most buildings were made by the new investors. But they do not want to invest in other private sector. Although the socialist city government economic aspects of the urban economy, but they now wanted to do that. But Len is correct, there was always invest in the port economy as well. The same a combination of public and private. Especially within happened in Marseille. So, perhaps, you could say the urban elite, which was willing to spend money on that, although it's almost flipping the coin, it partly very important projects. They also became more depends on the same arguments as path dependency. important because so many architects and historians Because in port culture the notion of “Can you be an published around these social housing experiments. important city without being an important port?” is very And if you look at the quantity of buildings, the private central. […] Why should you invest in a container market was always dominant, until the Second World terminal in Liverpool again? Because as a private War. And if you want to focus on path dependency, company you're going to earn money by it. Otherwise, perhaps you can say that in the 1970s there was a why should a private investor … perhaps there are crisis, a political-cultural crisis along with the economic subsidies from the government, I'm not sure. As I said, crisis, and the city governments, the new leftists of the I would have to look at it more carefully. […] But the city governments said, “We don't want that business problem with path dependency is that it is difficult … plays such a strong role in our city management. Why because what are you explaining? That's the problem. should the corporate sector be so influential in our You can use it to describe it, but it's not a model to decision making?” So, there was a retreat from the explain. public private partnerships. But I think that the AK: Yes. It's an illustration. Also, I believe that there are waterfront regeneration is important in the sense that it many branches of path dependence, so to speak. For has to do with these public-private partnerships. And I example, my initial hypothesis was that Rotterdam has think that has to do with the breach to the inner-city. a strong tradition for social housing and that this There was an international global movement that approach was very dominant for urban development turned to the inner-city again. From focussing on over the course of the 20th century. And then the neighbourhoods, focussing on outskirts to be development of the Kop van Zuid, under the paradigm interested in redeveloping and changing the inner-city. of neoliberalism, would mark a break with this path. So, the inner-city became more important. It's what's But when I talked to Len de Klerk he said that this is called in the international literature a 'return to the city'. not actually true. For one thing he said that the whole So, when you have the inner-city in focus […] the issue of social housing in Rotterdam would make a traditional Rotterdam model would ask, “What to do book on its own. He recommended not to get into that, with areas that have no function anymore?” and then for the purpose of my thesis. And furthermore, he said get rid of them. But because changing them would that there was always a strong connection between the cost more money than developing them, i.e. turning the public and the private sector in urban development, for waterfront into … well, refill the basins again … the case of Rotterdam. The timeline he saw, however, AK: As in changing the area topographically? was that there were important moments of crisis, where the public sector increased and the private PL: Exactly. So, that would have been more expensive. decreased. […] And when looking at it this way, one So, they used this international cultural movement as a could make out a path of continuous close hot spot for regeneration. […] I agree with Len … the collaboration between to public and private sector in only thing you could say is that the social housing urban development. And in moments of crisis the movements, were dominant because it was the public

sector that was leading. And then the 'return to the PL: Yes. But if we say public-private partnerships we city' is means that not just that the city is in charge, but should realise that it's perhaps more public than it is a combination of public-private initiatives. But private. whether you can relate this to path dependency, I'm AK: And how would you say that was 100 or 150 years not sure. I think that’s difficult. ago? AK: But would you agree with the idea … in these PL: Always the case. moments of crisis … well, it needs better research, of course, but that in moments of crisis the public sector AK: So, this term public-private partnerships … I think increased and the private decreased, … it is somewhat new, emerged in the 1980s, I'm not

sure … what I'm saying is that in the late 19th century, PL: Yes, that's absolutely true. nobody talked of public-private partnerships although AK: … which is a narrative that is not entirely true in the it actually was happening. case of the Kop van zuid? PL: Yes. The port is developed by the city government. PL: It started as a public initiative. It was the mayor of And the private sector exploited the port area. But they Rotterdam and the head of the Urban Development didn't take the risk of investing. They didn't invest in Department who said, “Look at this site.” So, they constructing water basins etc. They started successful made an international tour to look at what happened in companies. The only real public-private partnership other cities. The looked at the waterfront and said, that Rotterdam ever had, was in the 1870s with the first “Hey, there's an asset there. It's just lying there next to Kop van Zuid under Lodewijk Pincoffs. That really was the river.” And at first private investors were very a public-private partnership. A private investor said, reluctant. For instance, the pier of Hotel New York … “Ok, we are going to start a company and we're going nobody wanted to invest in that area. And it was the to invest in this dock area”. And this turned out to be a cultural sector, cultural entrepreneurs, that were daring disaster. So, the city government had to take over. And enough to start there. So, this was one of the things from that moment onwards, it was public money that that is very interesting for the Rotterdam case. My was responsible for the major investments in port hypothesis is that Rotterdam is starting to think about infrastructure. being an attractive city in times of crisis. Once the AK: Was this … the name you mentioned. Was he the economy slows down, they realise that there's more one that had a private shipping company and received than just the port. So, if the port is not functioning well land by the municipality to develop south of the Maas or slow and not generating enough employment, which and about eight or nine years later, his company went is actually the case, since they started to ~ the port, bankrupt because he embezzled money from it to save particularly in the 1960s and 1970s, then you could say some subsidiary company in Africa? that Rotterdam is since the 1970s still thinking about PL: Yes, exactly, that was him. what its future is. And they [the city] city is so obsessed with the future of the port that there are no alternative AK: And from what I read that resulted in a kind of a models for Rotterdam. And in that way the waterfront break in planning system, almost. Following this there regeneration helped them, because it made the city were calls for more centralised and governmental lead more attractive. So, they used the waterfront and the planning. For more state control, so to speak. now attractive city as an argument to continue in the PL: Yes. So, from that moment onwards the city was in same way. […] The private sector is thus saying, “This charge. And if you look at how the decisions were is good for the port of Rotterdam, good for the port of being made on port developments … of course there Liverpool, good for the port of Glasgow, etc.” And they were members of the liberal parties who said, “We are framing these successes and use them in order to should invest in the port economy.” And they were convince them to invest in waterfront regeneration. But promoting this. But the port development until the who is taking the risk of the investments? It's the 1940s was totally paid by, apart from ~, the city public sector. So, the public sector is still in charge. government. So, because the invested so much money Even if we talk about public-private partnerships. Once in the port infrastructure they did not have enough the risk is taken by the public sector, then the private money to invest in housing and cultural facilities etc. sector joins to invest. So, the port was always dominant for investments AK: Do you think the financial risk is largely carried by being made. Which was the case until the 1970s, when the public sector? the people started to oppose this development and said, “Hey, hey, hey, when are you going to reconstruct PL: Yes, absolutely. my area, my neighbourhood, because we live in bad AK: But that was always like this, right? housing and sanitation conditions.” And the social housing movement was an idea from the 1970s,

promoted by the new left city government. They said, van Zuid. Although there was an original plan for urban “The people come first, the port comes second. We are planning, made by Riek Bakker … but I believ that the going to invest in neighbourhood development, we will architects were very influential. Look at what Rem turn these areas into sites for social housing.” And that Koolhaaas did with the De Rotterdam on the started in 1974 and lasted until the early/mid 1980s. Wilhelmina Pier. From an urban planning perspective Because at that time Rotterdam was in a sever crisis this is a disaster! because of the maritime industries and shipping repair AK: In what respect? etc. And then they had to find new ways of urban development. So, they looked to this international PL: Because of all the logistics. The building is too big movement and focussed on the city. That was what for this pier. Logistics, organisation of transport. It's an started the public initiatives. He was in favour … icon and an icon that could only be realised, because because he made this international tour … “We have to the government was guaranteeing the building … they focus more on the city!” And in order to develop the said to the real estate developer, “Ok, we are going to city they knew that you have to redress part of your make sure that we will put our civil servants into that [political] left ideas. Because if you want to develop, building as to make sure that you have a business you want investors getting back to the city, you need case.” They were so eager to have this big start to cooperate with the private sector. architects on the waterfront.

AK: Is it correct that under the socialist government, […] that came in 1974, the initial plans for the development PL: The city party became the most important contract of the Kop van Zuid was social housing, an approach party in guaranteeing that so much space could be that was met with opposition in politics and in the filled, because they said they would put all these civil public as people thought the area needs some kind of services there, and that guaranteed long term upgrading? I.e. the idea of giving increased value to the contracts because they were going to rent these area and that social housing would not do that. spaces. And when you're an investor, that's easy PL: Yes. In the middle of the 1970s they started to money think what to do with Katendrecht. And they wanted to AK: It's an interesting fact that there are now so many develop it with social housing. But the simply didn't public functions located on the Wilhelmina Pier. have the money to do that. So, they needed … the waterfront regeneration was therefore very useful. PL: But it's the same all over Europe. All waterfront Because once you regenerate and add value, you get regeneration programs need the public money. And the more income as a city, which you can spend on social interesting thing is that with public money, in order to housing. But this is not what happened. Because of the defend why investment is needed for waterfront retreat of the city government from the public sector. regenerations, the public sector uses the same So, the public sector became less dominant than in the arguments as the private sector. So, the civil servants 1970s. And that means that since the 1970s, especially who are responsible for the decision-making process, in respect to the liberalisation of housing corporations, the politicians, are all framed with the same they went to the market. So, the market became the perspective. If you look at the decision-making process dominant model for urban development in Rotterdam. […] The demographic focus lays on upper and creative And I believe that real estate developers in the private classes. So, all these global models of waterfront sector is the most dominant party. And the city regeneration … and then the question of, “Is there a government, which had a strong tradition of urban kind of path dependence to this? Or are these planning as directed by the city government, started to waterfront regenerations a totally new way … do they retreat from this sector. […] Nowadays the most have nothing to do with the path dependency of port important planners are the market and star architects, development?” And it has less to do with the locally not the city government. So actually, the architects, embedded path dependency in port culture than with and we have a tradition that architecture is secondary the effect of an international movement that everybody to urban planning. tries to do the same. A kind of copy-paste behaviour. AK: Form follows function, so to speak. […]

PL: Yes. And this, I believe, has to do with this PL: [path dependence] is the reason why all these oil 'iconisation' [sic] of the city. And because of the companies have such great difficulties. Because what influence of the market development that you and to are you goung to do with these major refineries in the attract investments and international competition. So, port areas. And I think path dependency is important the star architects are competing worldwide. And they for port companies. Because nowadays the major oil are very influential. Look at what happened to the Kop companies want to reduce their capacities. They want

to make sure there' s an adaptation, that there's earlier decision-making processes. But why is it so movement. And the port authorities in hope that difficult to start alternative strategies and what are Rotterdam remains an important transit port. Even they? And of course, you're absolutely right, if it's under the condition that oil is not the most important some kind of copy-paste reaction and we're going to commodity of port economy anymore. And I think that invest in, for instance, waterfront regeneration, and we you should make scenarios for the city of Roterda, for use the examples of other ports, then perhaps there is the port, that the transit economy is not an option in … one big path dependency with a kind of lock-in effect so, we have to change the port economy within fifty for all port cities, which have to deal with the fact of years. So, that means that you're not going to invest in turning brown lands into areas with newly added value. a perhaps increasing port economy but make sure to And then there are three leading models: the reduce it, to make sure that you have alternative international model of globalisation, the model of strategies. What are you going to do with this port creative cities, the model of Richard Florida. [What is area, with all these installations once the oil is gone? the third model?] So, they become very influential … And they hope that Rotterdam will remain an important Richard Florida and the creative city … so, the port. And we are important, but we depend on the argument of flagship projects for the creative city are refineries in the German hinterland. Once there are no all based on Charles Landry, The Art of City Making, more refineries in the German hinterland, what are you Richard Florida's way of turning brown lands, derelict going to do with the pipelines. And perhaps Hamburg areas into creative areas. Because most of these areas is now … because Hamburg had the major position start creative industries. […] There's a kind of ad before the second world war, and Hamburg believes or hoc … well, off-site … it was not planned, was not hopes that by investing in container terminals, it will organised. And I think that Rotterdam is in that sense become the most important port of Europe again. […] interesting. My hypothesis is that Katendrecht has The harbour ~, which are less important from an become a success because of the crisis. Because of economic perspective than the industrial sector, are the crisis real estate investors were not willing to invest leading in the decision-making process. So, they use in that area anymore. Because they were very the image of the port of Hamburg. And that's why the uncertain to spend money in the reconstruction, Elbphilharmonie is so important because it is another reconfiguration of the port area. So, they had these icon of the revitalization of the port culture of Hamburg. derelict areas. And they started all kind of cultural That's why the port is perhaps different than industrial entrepreneurs. Music halls, pop-up restaurants, etc. cities. Once you're out of business you're out of And people liked it and they moved there. And that business. I think that Detroit in that sense is a very attracted a lot of people and more investors came. interesting case. Detroit lost its position as a car Small, medium sized … and now, well, the crisis is manufacturer … and, well, the path dependency … gone and now the real estate developments see that there's nothing, so they have to really reinvent Katendrecht is successful ad they want to invest. And themselves. they said to the government … because we have a very strong planning tradition. Actually, we think in AK: Yes. That is exactly the path dependency in Rotterdam, that cities are not made by people, but by economics, this commodity dependence, almost. I planners. So, we always think that planning is the best think you could also look to many cities in the north of solution in order to solve urban problems. You could England that struggled with the demise of the steel say this is our path dependency. Social housing … we industries, such as Sheffield or Newcastle. But then I are planners. We can't do without planning and we are would be interested in the connection to planning. How a kind of … well, Calvinists. So, once we start planning is urban planning in light of this path dependence, how we have a kind of orthodox way of planning. We have a does this economic path dependence affect planning? handbook of planning, the criteria and we, of course … PL: Well, planning historians use path dependency our tradition is … we are living below sea level and quite a lot. Almost every paper on planning history … planning efforts working together are vital to survive in and I know that Carola Hein, she's using path this area. So, planning is … what we now do is that we dependency. And her students and PhDs have to use want to make sure that the creative sector becomes path dependency as well. And my PhD candidate is involved. But we now want to plan the creative sector. part of this group around Carola. And the always use So, creativity becomes part of the planning processes. path dependency. And I always say, “What are you When I discuss this with urban developers of the city going to explain with path dependency?” Perhaps you government, I say to them, “We believe that the should look for a model … because path creative sector is so important in this process of dependency … ok, decisions. These decisions are regeneration, creating a kind of atmosphere that is being made and why are they being made, because it totally different form the clean slate urban planning we was more rational to do so, because it was based on are trained for.” Because of the position we have taken

after the second world war. We had to rebuild the city urban planning, port development and municipal and we want to do it better than before. So, I said, “If works, three of a kind. They worked together. you believe that the creative sector is so vital for the AK: If you allow me a methodological question, almost. redevelopment of Rotterdam, why shouldn't you You mentioned the 1946 rebuilding plan, which was appoint as chief executive creator an artist, somebody dominant until the 1980s. And then you mentioned this from the creative sector as chief developer.” plan in 1969. Was this still embedded in the 1046 plan? AK: And when you said that Rotterdam has this My question ultimately is what would mark significant planning tradition with a rather centralised approach changes in policy, in urban policy. If you were to draw and the urban development largely revolves around a chronology, say, from 1850 to 2000, were would you planning, that would be a kind of institutional path put the marker in the sense of, “This is an important dependence. And so again, how would you relate the change in policy.” development of the Kop van Zuid to that? Would you PL: I used the model of ~ Andersson on logistic see it as a continuation or a break-away? revolutions. And I said, “How are we going to explain PL: I think that originally it is something that came out the activities of the city government.” I'm actually of the blue. Because the city did not … when you look writing this down now for a paper. I was looking for my at the reconstruction plan of Rotterdam, which was map … but if I … I would say, that planning tradition … finalised in 1946, was the blueprint for all urban if you look at the development from the 1850s to 2000 planning until the mid 1980s. So, forty years of urban and you look at the city and you look at the port. Then planning was based on this original plan. And then in port planning became dominant … there's a kind of the 1980s they started to come up with new urban public-private partnership in the 1870s, mostly private development schemes, in which they said, “Well, the before that, though. Almost no public planning apart city should become more important.” So, I think that from the things the government had to do, in terms of it's a coincidence. And the interesting thing is, well, I sanitation etc. And then in the 1870s public planning don't have the answer but since you are triggering became dominant in the port. And this remained … still thinking this over, “Would Rotterdam have been able to remains the dominant … the public sector is important decode to develop the Kop van Zuid from its original in its impact on the decision-making process. But if urban planning tradition?” I believe perhaps not. you look at the city planning in the 1870s it is still Because it was a city in distress, a city in doubt. private. Then there's the beginning of urban planning Without the developments in Boston, Baltimore … so, before WWII, and then in the 1940s it's almost private. that helped to come up with new ideas. But then, these That private sector is so dominant that after WWII, the new ideas were actually interwoven into this urban public-private corporation became influential in the planning [tradition]. “Ok, we have new ideas for the reconstruction as well. And this lasted until the 1970s. urban planning department, which will be in charge for And then there's the economic crisis. So, there is this process.” So, although Riek Bakker was not a civil almost one period of port development [1870s to servant, she became embedded in this planning 1970s, mainly public]. And there's a strong relation tradition with one exception; she became in charge of when the port development started to slow down in the the urban development department, which was quite 1970s, private became … so, until the 1980s, public different. She did not get that position from … she was was dominant again. The private sector is not … and not part of internal civil service, not from within the then you see that between 1980s and 2000 they almost department. The mayor of Rotterdam said, “Riek, you want to return to this model of public-private planning. will be in charge and yu have one chief, I'm your chief That's why the mayor of Rotterdam always says, “We and your totally capable and competent and no other have a tradition in public-private partnerships.” And director will be involved in your activities.” So, you see they want to reintroduce it. […] because the private it again, it is quite unique for Rotterdam. Although we entrepreneurs have such a strong tradition of being had a very strong urban planning tradition based on involved in Rotterdam, that they should return to the the director of the port of Rotterdam, the director of decision-making process. But the problem is that the municipal works and the director of urban planning. private initiative, the private members within public- Three of a kind and they were in charge of the city private partnerships, were very much involved in the development. Port, city and city infrastructure. And city. So, actually they were very interested that the city they worked very closely together. So, actually they would benefit from the development. And I think the made a new … a blueprint for the urban development reason is that the public-private partnerships now … of Rotterdam in 1969, the plan 2000+, which is one of although they are referring to this tradition, it is a the major manifestations. It came out of the heads of different kind of public-private partnership. Because this planning tradition [sic]. In 1969 Rotterdam was on the private investors are less interested in city top of its planning tradition. And there was actually developments for the benefit of the city as a whole but

more interested in personal benefits. So, we [the city] although the crisis is different … so, you can have a used that tradition, in this sense you could say there's matrix, a timeline. For instance, the HafenCity and the a path dependency, because it was the most Kop van Zuid … you look at the transnational successful model of Rotterdam. And you could say, in communities and relationships. Dirk Schubert is this period major shifts were created, which were presenting his papers in Rotterdam and Hamburg and always linked to problems of urgency. Urgency and all over. So, there's a kind of international community having a very clear agenda. They had this agenda in of specialists actually promoting these ideas. And that the 1940s in the reconstruction period and the is exactly what happened in the 1970s. When there rebuilding of the city and port development. The were international communities of engineers. The problem is that although we now try to encourage model of the London docks was copied by Marseille public-private initiatives, what is the urgency? Is the and Rotterdam and Hamburg. So, although the local urgency again recognised? I believe that the urgency of situation is different, they made local adaptations to the city of Rotterdam is … there are different opinions local circumstances, the general overarching model on what is now the urgent matters. I believe that the was based on the same idea. increasing diversity of Rotterdam … how are we going AK: In respect to describing or explaining or analysing I to generate enough jobs, create a satisfying future for see my method somewhat two-tiered. And explaining generation in such a diverse context when the port will part, illustrating historical path ways, and then an not generate the jobs. […] And in order to have this analysing part, i.e. analysing how the waterfront agenda, what kind of policies do you need. And I think developments of the Kop van Zuid and the HafenCity this is one of the most challenging … it goes beyond relate to this path. And the explanation, by extension, your research project. But when port and city are very could then be found in the rise of neoliberal politics, in tight in development, then the public- private a shift in global economic structures. partnership works. And now the interesting is … this waterfront regeneration, does it fit in this model or not. PL: 99% of the work of historians is interpretation. We A very interesting research question. Can we explain come up with some explanations, maybe, but the the waterfront regeneration in Rotterdam based on historical reality is so complicated. planning traditions in the city? AK: Absolutely. I call this the historian's dilemma. To AK: Does it fin in or does it break out. Exactly. That's restrict and limit your research because, ultimately, the basic research question. And like you said, that is everything is connecting to everything else. then more of an illustration and maybe less of an Determinism, if you will. explanation. […] And further research could then look PL: That's the difference to my colleagues in the at governance models, how governance changed department of economics. All things that they can't put under the rise of neoliberalism and the demise of the into mathematical models are not relevant to them. So, state in the 1970s and increased privatisation etc., and all behavioural aspects, everything they're not able to by extension, relating that to the history of urban quantify, they leave out. governance models.

PL: And perhaps there's a return to urban governance models now. Because the question is whether the private sector is generating enough jobs. But I think in the very moment we are quite satisfied how it works, we are quite optimistic.

[…] AK: I am still struggling slightly with position all of this into a framework. PL: The model is the most difficult. Are you going to describe or explain or analyse? Because if there is a path dependence … for instance, are the processes in Hamburg and Rotterdam alike? What are the major similarities, what are the major differences? So, if you put it in some kind of matrix, some of the development processes will be alike. The German port … there was a government crisis in the 1920s, 1930s. Then they had another crisis in the 1970s. But also, in the … the fall of the Berlin Wall. So, the interesting thing is that

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.

Interview with Siegfried Krauß, 2 August 2018

• Interviewer: Andreas Künzi, MSc student Urban & Regional Planning, 2017-2018, University of Amsterdam • Interviewee: Siegfried Krauß, Amt für Landesplanung und Stadtentwicklung, Referat LP31 Projektgruppe HafenCity (Department for regional planning and urban development, unit LP31project group HafenCity), Hamburg

• Interview setting: The interview was held on the phone • Interview language: German

• Interview referenced as: HH3 • Affiliation with interviewee: None • Explanation of characters:

- AK = Andreas Künzi (Interviewer) - SK = Siegfried Krauß (Interviewee)

- ~ = Inaudible - [ ] = Remark by author

Interview Ministerium in Hannover berichtspflichtig. Und das ist dann ein räumlich und funktional weiter AK: Einer der der Gründe weshalb ich die auseinanderklaffendes Abhängigkeitssystem. Im Entwicklungen der Hafenviertel Hamburg und Hamburg bleibt das also sehr eng beieinander. Wenn Rotterdam als Fallstudien ausgesucht habe, ist auch da irgendwelche Interessen entwickelt werden, der Unterschied der lokalpolitischen Systeme. Eine irgendwelcher Art, mehr Wohnungsbau oder andere Gemeinde unter dem Schirm der nationalen Regierung Gewerbe oder es gilt mehr Landschaft zu sichern, dann im Falle von Rotterdam und ein Stadtstaat in einer ist dieser Impuls, der aus einer politischen föderalistischen Struktur im Falle Hamburgs. Zu Meinungsbildung wie auch immer resultiert, relative welchem Grad nimmt denn das lokalpolitische System schnell und eben auch auf der planerischen von Hamburg als Stadt-Staat Einfluss auf die Entscheidungsebene zu verorten. Und dann gibt es Stadtplanung? eben auch oft sehr direkte Möglichkeiten, auch über SK: Das ist natürlich für Hamburg, auch aus der parlamentarische Initiativen oder wie auch immer, Staatsgeschichte heraus, eines der wichtigsten ~ mit Dinge dann auch zu steuern und Einfluss zu nehmen. dem die Stadt wuchern kann, dass sie eine Das ist der große Vorteil eines Stadtstaates. weitgehende planerische Hoheit über ihr AK: Das macht die Prozesse dann auch dynamischer Gemeindegebiet hat, weil sie flächenidentisch ist … und schneller, nehme ich an. also die kommunale Ebene und die Staatsebene sind flächengleich und auch in den Interessen, die Hamburg SK: Ja, wenn es wichtig ist, dann geht es schneller auf seinen Flächen verfolgt, nicht separiert. Also es gibt [lacht]. da keine unterschiedlichen Zielsetzungen. Es gibt nur AK: Welche Herausforderungen stellen denn die Zielsetzungen die sich einmal in der Bürgerschaft, Stadterneuerungsprogramme wie die Hafencity für die auf Senatsebene artikulieren. Das ist natürlich auch der Stadtpolitik dar? Vor allem auch hinsichtlich der etwas übergeordnete planerische Impuls, der von Regelung und Finanzierung von öffentlichen dieser Eben ausgeht, auch im Reflex auf Planungsaufgaben und damit verbundenen öffentlich- bundespolitische Entwicklungen, oder auch privaten Partnerschaften. weltpolitische Entwicklungen, sicherlich, die dann auch eine Rolle spielen. Und dann gibt es die Bezirksebene, SK: Ab 1998, als die HafenCity das Licht der Welt die die Bezirke plus das Gebiet des Hafens, das von erblickt hatte, da fängt in Hamburg eine der Hamburg Port Authority verwaltet wird, die dann Neuorientierung in der Aufarbeitung und Aufbereitung auf der engeren Flächenebene, einer anderen solcher Prozesse statt. Es gab Überlegungen, auch in Maßstabsebene die Bebauungspläne und der Senatskanzlei, also auch im politischen Kern des Baugenehmigungen im Wesentlichen bearbeiten. Und Senats, diesen Stadtteil über eine das Instrument mit dem Hamburg das macht, ist der Entwicklungsgesellschaft, das war seinerzeit die Flächennutzungsplan und das Landschaftsprogramm. Gesellschaft für Hafen- und Standortentwicklung, Und das ist auch gleichzeitig das entwickeln zu lassen. Und das war in dem Sinne neu Raumordnungsprogramm das sonst für Flächenländer und hat zu einer neuen Austerrierung [sic] des gelten würde. Planungswesens geführt, weil sich dann eben auch über die Erfahrung mit der HafenCity GmbH, die dann AK: Die Fertigung, der Aufbau von solchen ja die Folgegesellschaft durch Umbenennung war, der Programmen mit Blick auf die alte Begriff war ein bisschen sperrig, [über die Entscheidungsfindungen … würden Sie sagen, dieser Erfahrung mit der HafenCity GmbH ] hat sich dann Prozess unterscheidet sich in Hamburg, aufgrund des auch gezeigt, dass es durchaus eine gute Status eines Stadtstaates, zu andern deutschen Arbeitsteilung sein kann, wenn eine sich in städtischem Städten? Lassen sich da konkrete Unterschiede Eigentum befindliche aber privat organisierte oder ausmachen zu, ich sage mal, zum Beispiel Köln oder agierende Gesellschaft die Dortmund? Erschließungsverantwortung für die Flächen SK: Ja natürlich. In einer mittelgroßen Stadt, übernimmt. Wenn man das über den normalen meinetwegen in Winsen oder so, wenn man da ein Haushalt hätte geschehen lassen, dann hätte die Stadt neues Baugebiet planen würde, dann müsste man Hamburg sich erstmal sehr hoch verschulden müssen, irgendwann den Plan beim Regierungspräsidenten zur um diesen Aufwand auch stemmen zu können, auch Genehmigung einreichen. Und der kuckt dann, ob das mit den entsprechenden Risiken für den eigentlichen genehmigungsfähig ist. Das ist dann eine andere Kernhaushalt der Stadt. Und so wurde es eben Dienststelle. Und dieser Regierungspräsident, der ist möglich, dass durch die Übertragung städtischer dann wiederum, und das sind dann die größeren Flächen in dieses Sondervermögen Stadt und Hafen, kommunalen Einheiten, der ist dann dem zuständigen das seinerzeit gebildet wurde, 1998, dass die

Gesellschaft [für Hafen- und Standortentwicklung] so SK: Nein. Nur die Entscheidungsebene hat sich Mittel am Kapitalmarkt holen um damit die ersten verändert, vom Bezirk zum Senat. Aber nicht … wir Erschließungsaktitäten finanzieren konnte. Und nach hätten zwar die Möglichkeit gehabt, von der diesem Motiv hat sich Hamburg dann auch im Gesetzgebung her auch wesentliche Planungsinhalte Planungswesen modernisiert und Planungsprozesse über Private bearbeiten zu lassen. Aber das haben wir beschleunigt. Sonst musste man erst eine städtische bewusst nicht gemacht um da die Planungshoheit für Planung machen und diese durch das Parlament das Gebiet nicht abzugeben. bringen. Und dann musste man sie im Haushalt AK: Gehen wir zum nächsten Frageblock. Können Sie irgendwo unterbringen. Und das kann dauern, weil mir etwas sagen zur Geschichte der Stadtplanung in man da natürlich auch in Konkurrenz zu anderen Hamburg? Projekten kommt und durch Zufälligkeiten oder politische Abläufe bestimmte Entwicklungen nicht SK: Ja sicherlich. Wie sich die HafenCity zu einer Art zeitgerecht umsetzten konnte, weil man eben nicht an stadtplanerischen Tradition verhält? Das ist natürlich diese Finanzierung rankam. Und das ist für die ein großes Thema! Aber Hamburg ist eben eine HafenCity ein deutlicher Vorteil gewesen. Republik, eine Bürgerstadt und unterscheidet sich von daher von anderen Städten, die ihren Stadtstatus eher AK: Das Projekt “steht und fällt” damit, wenn ich das über eine Residenzfunktion erhalten haben. Alles was richtig verstehe. Also durch diese Auslagerung oder in Hamburg da ist oder gebaut oder entwickelt wurde, Halbauslagerung in ein privates Gefäß, konnten quasi durchläuft so oft eine große Diskussion innerhalb der politische Hindernisse übersprungen werden. Stadt damit man zu einem baulich-physischen SK: Das war natürlich eine politische Abwägung die Ergebnis kommt. Also es ist dann nicht so, dass gemacht wurde. Das war das eine Thema. Das andere irgendjemand bestimmt, der Rathausplatz wird jetzt Thema war, dass gesagt wurde, die Bauleitplanung rund gebaut […] das macht dann eben kein König, und Entwicklung dieses Gebietes wird nicht wie üblich sondern tatsächlich der verantwortliche Senat, der im Bezirk gemacht, sondern unterliegt der direkten auch von Bürgern gewählt wurde. Und das ist die Senatsverantwortung. Und das ist diese Ausnahme der große stadtplanerische Tradition, einmal in dem was so Regel, die ich eingangs erläutert habe. Also für die eine Stadt ausmacht und dann natürlich im Verhältnis HafenCity wurde dann eben eine besondere Regelung von normaler Bürgerstadt, Handwerkerstadt zum getroffen, dass der Senat dort die Bebauungspläne Hafen. Die befinden sich ja immer auch in einer erlässt und nicht der Bezirk. Und darüber hat der gewissen Spannung zueinander, das heißt die Senat, weil ihm das Gebiet wichtig ist, eine sehr viel Interessen überlagern sich auch stark. Auf der anderen direktere Einwirkung auf die Inhalte und Abläufe und Seite gibt es dezidierte Interessen des Hafens, die Fristen usw. die für die Pläne … je nach Bezirk sind manchmal eben auch divergieren, gerade auch in der andere Fristen gängig, weil es viele Fragen gibt, die auf Vergangenheit, andere Interessen in Hamburg wie Bezirksebene aufgeworfen werden, aber auf meinetwegen Wohnungsbau eher zurückgedrängt Bezirksebene nicht einfach zu lösen und zu haben. Aber auch hat sich jetzt in jüngerer Zeit auch entscheiden sind. stark gewandelt. Von daher gibt es auch eine Tradition des sozialen Wohnungsbaus in Hamburg, das muss AK: Das hat sich demnach nicht nur auf die man sehen. Die 1920er Jahre waren im Wesentlichen Finanzierung, sondern auch auf die von sozialem Wohnungsbau bestimmt. Ich weiß nicht, Entscheidungsprozesse ausgewirkt. ob Sie diese Backsteinviertel von Schumacher kennen. SK: Ja, auf beides. Auf die Finanzierung und Da hat sich Hamburg einen großen Anzug gegeben, Erschließung aber dann eben auch auf das reale dort etwas zu entwickeln, was einen ganz wichtigen Planungsgeschehen. Beitrag zur Wohnungsfrage in den 1920er Jahren leistete, zur Lösung der Wohnungsfrage beigetragen AK: Und würde Sie sagen, das war eine öffentlich- hat. Und die SAGA selbst, da würde ich mal sagen … private Partnerschaft auch im Entscheidungsprozess. zu Beginn der Entwicklung der HafenCity gab es den SK: Nein, das ist gar nicht geschehen. Also wir haben Versuch von Seiten öffentlicher Unternehmen, größere das ganz normal als Stadtplanung vertanden, wie die Grundstückseinheiten in der HafenCity zu reklamieren Bebauungspläne und mit allem was dazugehört … das auch über politische Einflussnahme, dass gesagt wird nicht von Privaten gemacht. wurde, "Wir wollen eine größere Fläche bekommen, dann machen wir etwas daraus." Und das wurde auch AK: Also war der Entscheidungsprozess bei der diskutiert in den zuständigen Gremien und regelmäßig, Entstehung der HafenCity nicht eigentlich einmal im Fall des ~ in Hamburg auch anders unterschieden von anderen. entschieden und gesagt, "Wir wollen ganz bewusst eine kleinteilige, stadtbezogene Entwicklung haben und

keine großflächige." Weil das System dieser die Stadt da nicht einfach unter Druck setzen und mitteleuropäischen Stadt der HafenCIty, die wir hier sagen, "Ich kann das nicht, gib mir trotzdem das verfolgen, baut eher auf kleinteiligen, parzellierten Grundstück," und die Stadt muss dann dulden, dass Strukturen auf und nicht auf den größeren Einheiten. die Ebene als Wohnungsbau ausgeführt wird. Das sieht Also wir gehen da eher auf die gründerzeitliche nicht gut aus und ist auch für die Stadt nicht nützlich. Perspektive zurück, für die Entwicklung der HafenCity, AK: Und die Tradition der funktionalen Stadtplanung, als auf die Phase der Stadterweiterung der 1920er oder wenn man das denn eine Tradition nennen kann, der frühen 1960erJahre, wo ja auch Quartiere würden Sie sagen, das war eine Zeitlang der entstanden sind, die nicht gemischt genug waren und dominante Treiber in der Stadtplanung Hamburgs und, in dem Sinne auch städtebaulich nicht nachhaltig falls ja, wie lange, wann wurde das gebrochen? genug sind, weil sie eben keine gemischten Angebote SK: Das geht bis in die 1980er Jahre hinein. Diese in ihren baulichen Strukturen anbieten. Tradition Flächen in großen Einheiten zu entwickeln AK: Sie meinen jetzt in den 1920er Jahren unter der und dann eben auch mit teilweise großen Leitung von Schumacher? Stadtrandentwicklungen Masse zu erzeugen. SK: Ja. In den 1920er Jahren sind natürlich sehr Steilshoop, Neuwiedenthal, all diese Siedlungen die schöne Siedlungen entstanden. Aber sie sind, so wie seinerzeit von der Neuen Heimat gebaut wurden, die sie bestimmt und geprägt sind, zu 95% Wohnungsbau SAGA ist eine Nachfolgegesellschaft. Und wir haben und enthalten wenig weitere Funktionen. Gewerbliche einfach gemerkt, dass wenn für die HafenCity so einen oder geschäftliche usw. sind da eigentlich nur sehr Ansatz wählen würden, dann könnten wir die sporadisch eingestreut. Es gibt einige soziale innerstädtische Qualität, die wir dort verfolgen, da nicht Einrichtungen aber keine sich permanent erneuernde umsetzen. Weil die Innenstadtqualität sich eben auch und anpassende Dienstleistungssphäre. Und das ist über die vitalen Erdgeschosszonen artikuliert. Und im dann die Schwäche. Unterschied zur jetzigen Innenstadt, wollte man im Hafen dann doch einen relevanten Wohnungsanteil drin AK: Das ist dann auch in der Tradition der rationalen haben, in den Häusern, und nicht nur Büros. Und von Stadtplanung mit räumlich getrennten Funktionen, aus daher ist der Mischungsanspruch auch eine hohe von der Gartenstadt und dem Fordismus geprägt. Benchmark gewesen für alle Investoren, da die SK: Ja. Und die an einer Entwicklung angeschlossen gemerkt haben, dass wenn sie da bauen wollen, sie haben, bei der es eher darum ging, in dem was neu sich diesem Thema auch stellen und in den Gebäuden gebaut wird, je nach Lage und Mischungsanspruch, selbst eine Mischung ermöglichen müssen. Und das meinetwegen entweder zwei Drittel Wohnungsbau, ein hat im Wesentlichen auch geklappt. Aber es war ein Drittel gewerblichen Anteil zu berücksichtigen, wie zum zähes Entwicklungsgeschehen. Beispiel auf dem Dalmannkai. Und in anderen Teilen, AK: Könnte man die HafenCity vor diesem Hintergrund wie im Überseequartier, ist dann eben der als eine Art Rückbesinnung auf innerstädtische Wohnungsbau bei einem Drittel und der gewerbliche Entwicklung bezeichnen, als Bruch zu den Anteil überwiegt. Aber das in beiden, in jeder großflächigen Planungsansätzen ab den 1920er Quartierstypologie beides eben auch vorkommt. Ganz Jahren? wichtig ist eben auch, dass die gesamte HafenCity immer mit einer erhöhten Erdgeschosszone von fünf SK: Ja. Da ist eine Rückbesinnung sicherlich da Metern entwickelt wird. Und dass in dieser gewesen, auch auf die Entwicklung des Mittelalters, Erdgeschosszone immer die Vorzüglichkeit der auf das Kaufmannshaus mit den kommerziellen städtischen Dienstleistungsangebote sicherstelle zu Erdgeschosszonen und den Lagerungen in den können, wie Versorgung, Gastronomie, usw. Obergeschossen. Das sind natürlich Rückschlüsse auf Dienstleistungen die dann immer in dieser solche Traditionen, wie man sie auch in der Fünfmetereben arbeiten können. Und dort nach Deichstraße, zum Beispiel, in historischem Möglichkeit den Wohnungsbau im Erdgeschoss Zusammenhang hat und sieht. Auch mit diesen alten zurückdrängen. Viele Investoren wollen dann eigentlich Themen, vorne die Putzfassade zur Straße, zum ~ dann sagen, "Ich mache keinen Wohnungsbau, gib mir das die Ziegelfassade, das Rote … im Stadtwappen von Haus da oder das Grundstück," und die merken dann Hamburg, das Weiße und das Rote, dass sich immer auf einmal, dass wenn sie das als Wohnungsbau so spiegelt. Also das integrierte Leben in einem Haus entwickeln, dann müssen sie sich eben auch um und Quartier entlang einer gemeinsam organisierten bestimmte Dinge kümmern, wie einen Nutzer, einen Siedlungstypologie. Und dann gibt es eine Chance im Mieter für die Erdgeschosszone zu finden. Und da Zeitfenster der HafenCity Entwicklung; das haben wir müssen die sich eben auch darauf einstellen, schon im da geschafft, uns da ein Stück weit abzukoppeln von Bewerbungsprozess um die Grundstücke, damit sich einer bisher gängigen Vermarktungslogik. Und das war diese auch intern diversifizieren. Die Investoren können auch etwas das die Investoren am Anfang gerne

nachgefragt hätten, weil wir gesagt haben, "Um das Stadtteile zum Norden, zum Zentrum eine Rolle? War richtig zum Laufen und Funktionieren zu bringen als das ein Ziel? attraktive Stadterweiterung, müsst ihr bestimmte SK: Wenn Sie sich das Strukturkonzept zum Qualität in euren Gebäuden abbilden. Ansonsten haben Masterplan ansehen, dann sieht man eben auch wir mittelfristig das große Problem, dass die HafenCity wesentliche Bezüge, auch in den textlichen verödet." Ausführungen, in den Leitlinien. Und da wurde schon AK: Noch etwas zu Stadtplanung und Geschichte in seinerzeit gesagt, dass Veddel und Rotheburgsort Hamburg. Die Frage nach einer Tradition der verknüpft und einbezogen sein sollen, auch aus Konsensfindung in der Stadtplanung. Gibt es die? Ich städtebaulicher Perspektive. Und wir schreiten frage auch im Vergleich zu Rotterdam, wo die natürlich, und das war die andere ~ der HafenCity, von niederländische Politiktradition des Konsenses, des Westen nach Osten vor. Als wir 2000 begonnen haben, Einbezugs verschiedener Akteure usw. stark mitspielt. im Westen das Gebiet zu entwickeln, da war der Hafen im Osten noch vorhanden, da hatte sich in der SK: Das hat Hamburg jetzt auch seit … es gab jetzt Komponente der Dynamik noch nichts geändert, es auch größere Entwicklungen, die Messeansiedlung blieb so wie es ist. Und jetzt kommen wir schrittweise Anfang 2000, zum Beispiel, da wurde die Messe über die neuen Erschließungen, die S-Bahn und die U- modernisiert, auch in Bezug auf die städtische Lage. Bahn-Station, die jetzt neu gebaut wird im Bereich Das war ein riesengroßes Abstimmungs- und Elbbrücken, auch physisch ran. Und das wird über Konsultationsverfahren, auch mit den Anliegern und genau diese Prozesse ausgelöst, die dann auch mit teilweise auch Kritikern aus den angrenzenden den benachbarten Stadteilen zu klären sind. Und das Quartieren. Dort wurde förmlich ausgehandelt, wie das führt natürlich zu neuen Entwicklungen. Das bleibt ja gebaut wurde. Auch Wilhelmsburg, die gesamte nicht alles so erhalten wie es dann ist, sondern es Entwicklung dieses Sprungs über die Elbe, ist kommt der Grasbrook im Süden dazu, das ist die eigentlich nur über Partizipation und Einbezug von neuere Entscheidung. Und da entwickeln sich natürlich örtlich ansässigen Wilhelmsburgern machbar auch neue Gebote, auch für die Veddeler. Der Veddeler geworden. Also da gibt es jetzt eine starke und sieht, "Ok, da kommt die HafenCity, da kommen etablierte Perspektive, die sich nun eigentlich in jedem Hochhäuser und wa auch immer, aber das hat mit mir größeren Projekt wiederfinden lässt. Aber ich denke, es nicht viel zu tun." Aber jetzt beim Grasbrook sind die gibt da keine generelle Linie, sondern immer eine Leute schon interessiert und fragen natürlich, was für fallbezogene Betrachtung dazu, aus einer planerischen Chancen für die Veddel sich daraus ergeben. Da Beurteilung heraus. fangen natürlich auch die Diskussion an. Das ist dann AK: Konsens und Einbezug entsteht also aus einer Art auch ein Beitrag und eine neue Perspektive. Die Veddel punktuellen Notwendigkeit. ist ja so ein klassischer monofunktionaler Wohnungsstandort der 1920er Jahre, eine gebaute SK: Das wird jetzt auch sehr bewusst gepflegt, auch Backsteinsiedlung, fünf-/sechsgeschossig, den öffentlichen Diskurs frühzeitig zu ermöglichen. Für Arbeiterwohnungsbau. Und der muss sich eben auch die HafenCity war es entscheidend, dass wir damals modernisieren können. Aber das schafft er nicht so in schon, 2000, großes Gewicht auf öffentliche sich selbst, sondern da muss man jetzt eben auch ran Information gelegt haben um dieses ganze Gebiet, und sowas bietet dann natürlich gute Impulse. welches eigentlich aus dem Gesichtskreis der städtischen Öffentlichkeit gefallen war, weil man sich in AK: Um bei der Entwicklung von weiteren obsolet der Speicherstadt auch nichtmehr bewegt hat. Wir gewordene Hafenflächen bleibend: der Kleine haben dann dazu eingeladen, größere Foren gemacht Grasbrook soll ja der nächste Schritt sein und diesen und auch Begehungen. Und das Informationszentrum Sprung über die Elbe markieren und das Gebiet in der Speicherstadt hat dabei eine wichtige Funktion räumlich und auch, ich sage mal strategisch mit der gehabt als Ort wo man hingeht, wo man das zeigen HafenCity und dem Norden der Stadt verknüpft und die kann, Pläne etc., und den Menschen eben auch in der städtische Entwicklung weiter nach Süden ausweiten. Information erstmal positiv entgegentritt und sagt, "Das Wie speilen die verschiedenen Parteien, die Hamburg ist eine Riesenchance, die sich Hamburg hier öffnet Port Authority als Anstalt öffentlichen Rechts (verantw. und ihr habt da auch etwas davon, zum Beispiel einen für das Hafenmanagement), die Hamburger Hafen und interessanten öffentlichen neuen Raum, der sich Logistik AG als Privatunternehmen (verantw. für den darüber für die Stadt erschließt." Güterverlad und deren Weitertransport ins Hinterland) und die Behörde für Stadtentwicklung bei der Planung AK: Sie haben den Sprung über die Elbe erwähnt. und Entstehung der HafenCity, da konkret zusammen? Inwiefern spielte in der Entwicklung der HafenCity denn die räumliche und soziale Verbindung der südlichen SK: Vielleicht ist es wichtig, nochmals zu einer Art historischen Analyse zurückzugehen. Wenn man das

Gebiet der HafenCity historisch sieht, dann war das ja Das waren ja auch um die 20,000 Menschen die alles Marschland. Und dann war die innere Stadt und innerhalb einigen Jahren obdachlos wurden. Und das der Hafen eine Art Übergangszone im Mittelalter mit sind natürlich Entwicklungen gewesen, die durch neue einer Art Festungslinie, die dann auch zum Wasser globale Handelsmöglichkeiten verursacht wurden und hinlag. Da war Weideland und dann gab es zu riesigen Umwälzungen im Stadtbild geführt. Und Lagerflächen usw. Und Anfang des 19. Jahrhunderts jetzt kann man sagen, "Ok, wir sind 150 oder 200 Jahre kamen die ersten Industrien da rein und dann hat sich weiter und nun diversifiziert sich wieder das, was da ein stückweit etwas gewandelt. Aber die vormals schon mal angesiedelt war, zumindest im wesentliche Zäsur für Hamburg selbst wird durch den Hafen, und wieder integriert in den Stadtorganismus." Neuaufbau nach dem großen Brand 1842 markiert, wo Das wäre eine andere Haltung dazu. Die einen sagen, gesagt wurde, "Das macht keinen Sinn mehr, in diesem der Hafen war für Hamburg schon immer wichtig usw. mittelalterlichen Klein-Klein zu bauen, sondern jetzt Das kann man natürlich sagen und das stimmt auch. müssen wir besser Funktionen entwickeln." Da wurden Aber die Frage dieses nahezu vollständigen Kontorhäuser entwickelt und Villen und Bootshäuser Explodierens eines Gebietes aus einer innerstädtischen außerhalb, für die reichen Leute, die haben auswärts Lage, wie es über die Hafenentwicklung seit 1890 bis gewohnt und ihre Kontore und Geschäft in der in die jüngste Zeit geschehen war, verursacht durch die Innenstadt gehabt. Das war die erste industriellen ~ und die neuen Möglichkeiten Handel zu Funktionstrennung. Und dann gab es betreiben. Aber das ist nicht festgeschrieben für die Arbeiterwohnungsbau, der sich dann eben auch als Zukunft. Sondern man kann darüber sicherlich reden Resultat dieser Funktionstrennung entwickeln musste. und es wir auch darüber geredet, weil die Und dann wurden auch die ersten kommerziellen Handelswege sich auch wieder verändern können. Und Geschäfte usw. auch als Idee entwickelt. Und dann Vorzüglichkeiten von Standorten, gerade in diesen gab es den großen weiteren Schritt, die Idee, oder der innenstadtnahen Hafenlagen, sich natürlich auch Zwang, mit dem Freihafen. Als das Deutsche Reich ändern können. Und da liegen dann gesagt hat," Also Hamburg, schön und gut, dass ihr da Diskussionspunkte. Die haben wir aber auch im euern Stadtstaat habt, aber ihr unterliegt nicht mehr Grasbrook jetzt, wo das Hafengewerbe einem der Zollfreiheit." Bismarck sagte ja dann, dass Kompromiss eingewilligt hat, Teile freizugeben für Hamburg selbst das verzollen muss, was gebraucht städtische Entwicklung, aber bei anderen Flächen hart wird. Und in einem separierten Hafenbereich, können bleibt und sagt, "Das soll Hafen bleiben, möglichst für Waren und Güter zollfrei gelagert werden. Das war ja immer und ewig." der politische Entscheidungsweg da weiterzukommen. AK: Einerseits wurde im Gebiet der Speicherstadt, vor Ansonsten hätte das Deutsche Reich Hamburg platt deren Erstellung gewohnt. Wie war die Demographie in gemacht. Das war mehr oder weniger eine Erpressung. diesem Bereich, war die ansässige Bevölkerung da Die hätten dann die Elbe zugemacht und gesagt, gemischt oder waren das alleine die Arbeiterklasse? "Dann hungern wir euch aus!" Soweit ging das schon. Und dann wurde eben die grosse Entwicklung SK: Das war ein gemischtes Quartier mit innerhalb des Hafens auch denkbar. Alle Wohnungsbau, Tuchweberei und Hafen bezogenen Hafenfunktionen in einem Freihafen und unter dem Dienstleistungen usw. Und sicherlich auch ein Gesichtspunkt von neuen Technologien im Umschlag, stückweit verarbeitendes Gewerbe. Das war ein neuen Schiffsgrößen usw. großzügig zu entwickeln. barockes, noch mittelalterliches Stadtquartier. Sehr Und das hat dann eben zu diesen stürmischen gemischt, auch in einer gewissen Dichte bebaut. Wenn Entwicklungen in den Bereichen Grasbrook und Veddel man sich die alten Pläne ankuckt, das waren so lange geführt. Das wurde innerhalb von vierzig Jahren wurde schmale Grundstücke, die da entwickelt waren, mit der der gesamte Marschenraum dort umgebaut, zu einer Straße und den Hinterhöfen, die aber eben auch durch modernen Logistikfläche für den Hafen. Überbelegung auch hygienisch kritisch wurden. Und dann auch sehr pauschal als Brutstätten von AK: In welchem Zeitraum bewegen wir uns jetzt? Krankheiten und kommunistischen Umtrieben bewertet SK: 1860 bis 1910. Das war sozusagen ein Riesending, wurden, was dann auch zu Flächensanierungen geführt wenn man das so … da waren ja durchaus auch hat. Und das ist natürlich, wenn man sich solche Viertel Siedlungen da im Hafen. Es gab Steinwerder und heute ankucken würde … man würde sagen, "Ach, ist ~werder usw. Es waren nicht unbesiedelte Gebiete, ja prima, was die damals gemacht haben." Vielleicht von heute betrachtet. Da wurden alle die da gewohnt kennen Sie die Diskussion um das Gängeviertel in haben rausgeschmissen und vertrieben. Und so ging Hamburg wo ein kleines Relikt erhalten wurde um das es ja auch den Quartiersbewohnern der Speicherstadt. auch zeigen zu können. Ein Gebiet das auch nicht nur Die wurden auch enteignet, beziehungsweise ideal erhalten ist sondern auch durch neue Nutzer … vertrieben, damit man die Speicherstadt bauen konnte. aber das ist dann wirklich nur ein sehr kleiner Bereich.

Das war ja vor fünf, sechs Jahren eine Entscheidung AK: Vielleicht noch ganz abschließend und zum Anfang gewesen, genauso eine kleine Fläche zu sichern und zurückkommend: war das eine Entscheidung, die auch auch interessierten Nutzern zu übertragen. ermöglicht oder einfacher gemacht wurde durch den Status eines Stadtstaates? Oder anders gefragt, AK: Also eine Initiative im Sinne des Denkmalschutzes. glauben Sie, dass ohne Status des Stadtstaates, die SK: Ja, aber auch eine Weiterentwicklung des Entscheidung zur Änderung der Besitzverhältnisse im Denkmalschutzes, dass das umgebaut wird und Grundeigentum von einer Einmischung der nationalen anderen und neueren Nutzungsansprüchen entspricht. Regierung, von der Bundeseben begleitet gewesen wäre? AK: Abschließend vielleicht noch eine Frage: wie stand es um die Besitzverhältnisse von Grundeigentum? War SK: Das glaube ich nicht. Da fehlen mir jetzt aber auch das alles bereits in Besitz des Stadtstaates oder kam die Beispiele dazu. Da müsste man jetzt es dabei zu Enteignungen? Wilhelmshaven ankucken, die ja auch Hafenanlagen haben, die aber, wenn sie einen Hafen bauen, in die SK: Im Hafen war es im Besitz … alles was Nordsee ausweichen, also auf neue Refugien. Umschlagflächen waren, sind Flächen der Stadt. Und Hamburg hat ja die Hoheit über diese Hafenflächen soweit es Verkehrsflächen der Bahn sind, befinden sich gehabt und auch nicht abgegeben an den Bund. diese im Besitz der Bahn. So war das auch in der Hamburg ist zwar der Welthafen für Deutschland, hat HafenCity. Es gab da nur ausnahmsweise einzelne aber trotzdem die Planungshoheit über die private Grundbesitzer, die nicht aufgekauft worden Hafenflächen. Und mir ist keine Entscheidung des sind. Also Hamburg hat schon immer dafür gesorgt, Bundes bekannt, dass die HafenCity-Flächen aus dem dass die Flächen im Hafen im Besitz der Kommune Hafenentwicklungsgebiet entlassen wurden. Das ist waren und lediglich verpachtet wurden. von Hamburg selbst entscheiden worden, weil sie auch AK: Also im Zuge der Entwicklung der HafenCity haben erkennbar funktionsfrei wurden für den relevanten sich die Besitzverhältnisse von Grundeigentum nicht Containerumschlag. geändert?

SK: Doch. Jetzt nach der Entwicklung werden die verkauft. Als es Hafen war es städtischer Grundbesitz. Dann wurde es in dieses Sondervermögen überführt und nach Entwicklung, nach der Erschließung und Bebauung der Flächen, bekommen die jeweiligen Investoren das Grundstück förmlich übereignet, mit Grundbucheintrag und Drum und Dran.

AK: Also im Zuge ihrer Investitionen, im Zuge der Bebauung von Flächen durch private Investoren, ändern sich die Besitzverhältnisse. SK: Ja. Und das ist eben auch eine Entscheidung, die damit zusammenhängt, dass so ein Bereich nicht so ganz einfach zum Hafen zurückentwickelt werden kann. Der ist jetzt auf längere Perspektive städtisch und unterliegt anderen Verwertungsprozessen. Also nicht mehr der Verwertung HHLA und Pachteinnahmen, usw. AK: Können Sie noch ganz kurz etwas zum Prozess dieser sich ändernden Besitzverhältnisse sagen? SK: Die Entscheidung musste man natürlich einfach treffen und sagen, dass wenn Investoren und Bauherren interessiert sind an Investitionen dieser Art, auf Grundstücken, dann ist so ein Verkauf dann auch naheliegend. Natürlich kann man das auch mit Pachtverhältnissen versuchen. Aber das wäre nicht so ganz einfach gewesen, das so zu machen. Und so konnte man auch die Verantwortung für die Grundstücke abschießend in die Hände Privater geben.