Posts Tagged ‘conurbation’

Read Full Post »

It is with great sadness to report that emeritus professor and famous town planner Dirk Frieling passed away last Wednesday at the age of 73. Dirk Frieling gained most of his fame as the town planner of Almere. In 1973, when he as appointed as the head of the planning office, Almere was a tabula rasa with ample room to experiment. In fact, Almere was one big experiment. Some of it failed, a lot of it succeeded. Almere is currently the biggest city in the Flevoland province and one of the fastest growing ones in the Netherlands.

I first met him when I did an internship at ‘his’ Vereniging Deltametropool. He was the official representative of the society. In fact, the society was not his as such, but his never-ending devotion to the cause of metropolitan development of the Randstad Holland made him an undisputed leader. Dirk Frieling was very energetic, sharp, and focused on the metropolitan cause. It came as a bit of a shock for me. With a background in Public Administration, I was used to think in terms of constraints or opportunities to further a policy goal. Dirk wasn’t. He was a visionary with clear ideas and goals and the current situation was no constraint for him. So the first thing I learned during my stint at the society was that ‘chasing dreams’ is as important, if not more important, than thinking about what is perhaps impossible given the current state of affairs.  The second thing I learned was that ‘good’ is not good enough. He could be quite strict and demanding to his relatively young crew. He could be harsh in his criticism but he could be equally complimentary. Most importantly, he was always willing to learn and paired his clear focus with the ability to readjust his thoughts to new insights and ideas. He spoke kind words when I graduated with a thesis about envisioning the future in policy networks.

We kept in contact over the years. One of the later highlights  was his final symposium when he retired from the TU Delft. The audience, including this country´s most important policy makers, planners, experts and scientists, was invited to vote for or against a number of propositions about metropolitan development. The fact that by far most people voted in favor of metropolitan development came as a testimony of his work. It is largely thanks to Dirk Frieling that I can only think of the Randstad as a system. A complex system, perhaps, but a system nevertheless. It means that any spatial development that does not take this systemness into account is a failure. Dirk Frieling knew that and he has inspired many with his ideas. He will be missed.

Update: official announcements can be found by clicking here.

Read Full Post »

Intermediair published a rather thoughtful article about the changes that the city may experience in the future. They summarize what others (including me) have stated before: that we have a planning and building policy that is completely based on expansion but that there is no real basis for that expansion anymore. The author, Kees Versluis, predicts that existing excess capacity in office and retail space will not be used in the future, period. That leaves massive amounts of built but empty spaces. Those places will become increasingly unpopular, leading to a downward spiral. The urban has been through such spirals before (the article refers to Detroit as an example) but there are two reasons why this time it is different. First of all, it is unlikely that the consumer base will increase as populations start to shrink (provided that immigration continuous to be discouraged). Secondly, it will reinforce city centres rather than weakening them as happened during the phase of suburbanization. City centres, with their specific qualities, are likely to become more interesting than bland office parks near provincial towns. This corresponds to findings from my research and the research by colleagues. The article is in Dutch and I encourage all Dutch readers to have a look at it.

IJburg under construction in 2006. The article in Intermediair refers to this large new area, east of Amsterdam. Picture by me.

Read Full Post »

Earlier, I wrote about how Europe may have arrived in a period where its cities will be in decline because of economic and demographic developments. The two major Dutch cities Amsterdam and Rotterdam have policies to attract people to live and work in the cities in order to maintain momentum, or in the case of Rotterdam: to win the battle with the suburbs. This is all well as long as there is population growth, i.e. as long as there are enough people to keep pressure on the housing market. This pressure is now disappearing. The direct cause of this is the credit freeze that affects mortgages and the house prices. In the long run, demographic change will mean that there are fewer people available to live in cities or suburbs or in the countryside. So far, this looming trend was countered by the fact that the average number of people living together in one house has gone down considerably since World War 2. But that trend will also reach its end. It is simply impossible to have <1 person per house! The need for office space is also in decline but the number of offices being build in e.g. Rotterdam still exceeds demand considerably (and by that I mean: 30% or more).

So, we should brace ourselves for an urban economy that is no longer based on expansion. Now, the question is whether this is a bad thing. The Economist run an interesting debate where it was argued that bigger cities are not necessarily better cities. As exemplified elsewhere in the world, many cities are enormous conurbations of urban sprawl that still grow at enormous rates. With that (almost unmanageable) growth comes a host of problems: air, water and soil pollution, long travel distances and associated traffic and grid locks, bad sanitation and general lack of quality of life. There is an argument that growing cities are as unstoppable as declining cities, but in both cases there is a necessity for managing the trend. However, the core question is whether a small city is preferable over a larger city. Large cities still hold many advantages for people who do not yet live in a city. But yes, they come at a price. So here is the main question for Dutch urban planners: should you focus on urban expansion or focus on managing an endurable scale? Your call.

Crying over a city that never was? Picture by me.

Read Full Post »

Follow this link to the website of the Vereniging Deltametropool or Deltametropolis Association. In their own words: “The association aims to develop, the in principal already present, deltametropolis in the West of the Netherlands.” The link will take you to a series of documents that map the historic development of the contemporary metropolis. Highly recommended! (but Dutch only)

Read Full Post »

As the effects of the global economic cooling spreads to the public sector (where earlier bailouts, measures to dampen unemployment and special financial incentives to keep industrial sectors going are now being felt in the governmental budgets), the questions rise whether the contemporary city can stay out of trouble and how it will affect the city. The answer to first question is that no one escapes the consequences of the greatest economic depression in almost a century. The second question is much harder to answer. I had a number of discussions with experts recently and all had different ideas. But there was one thing they all said: the prolonged period of post-war growth will be replaced by a prolonged period of zero-growth or marginal growth – very alike the current Japanese situation. Again: what does that mean for the city? I try to get my head around the idead that in many cases (in Europe and the US, that is) we have seen the zenith of the city and that things go downhill from here. Let me try to explain that (from a European perspective, that is).

Source: The Economist, September 16th, 2010

The graph I think is important is the one on the right, taken from The Economist. It relates the number of cities to population growth. What it shows is that more and more people live in cities but that they are not moving towards the traditional city centers. Rather, the trend is towards the polycentric city, i.e. the conurbation of cities that are appearing everywhere. This (well-known) trend has caused the edge city where urban life is slowly creeping outside, leaving the downtown areas empty and devoid of life. The extent of this change varies but invariably urban planners have struggled with the consequences. There are two potential causes for a change: (1) population growth that needs to be accommodated by  the city because of lack of space elsewhere; (2) push factors that make the city more attractive in comparison to suburbia. As for (1), this is not going to happen. Western Europe and perhaps even the US will experience a declining population in twenty or thirty years time because of demographic change and a popular blocking of immigration. As for (2), it is clear that it is very, very hard to make the city look like a more attractive alternative than suburbia. There are very few instances where the flight to the suburbs was successfully curbed and channeled back into the city. A more recent Economist report shows that it is the suburbs themselves who are now subject to the developments that were thought unique to the city: poverty, mortgages that are not being repaid, lack of maintenance etc. This may act as a push factor away from the suburbs towards the city. But altogether I think that this is unlikely. So here it is: all recent urban plans I saw where based on the assumption that some sort of growth (demographic, economic) would propel the city back into the limelight. Now that this assumption has been slashed we need to rethink our urban strategies. What will the city look like in a contracting world? I would be happy to hear your thoughts!

Are we witnessing the evening of the city? Skyline of Rotterdam, picture by me.

Disclaimer: my view is obviously Euro-centric because Asia shows very different patterns and cities will continue to grow. But even there the main growth is not achieved in the traditional cities but rather in the ‘anonymous’ cities that have not claimed world fame (yet).

Read Full Post »

I received a large book from Randstad Urgent, a policy program initiated by several Minitries to develop the competitiveness of the Randstad Holland in the ongoing competition with other city regions all over the world. The book is a good moment to reflect on the Randstad itself. The idea has been in use since World War 2 but appeared in the international thinking about planning when Sir Peter Hall included it in his seminal work ‘The World Cities’. To quote him: “It is only from the air, or from the map, that you can appreciate the real change that has come over Holland. The cities […] are recognisable today but have grown so close that they form, in an important sense, one city, though a city of particular form. The Dutch call it Randstad Holland: the Ring City. It has the shape of a great horseshoe.” (1966: 96). It launched the Randstad as a planning concept and it has ever since remained important in Dutch urban planning. But despite all well-intended planning efforts, its global importance is gradually declining. The OECD says: “[…] even though the Randstad had high growth rates over the 1990s, it performed less well in the 2000s. In particular, the Randstad has witnessed relatively low labour productivity growth over the last decade – much lower than cities such as Munich or Stockholm for instance.” The Global Urban Competitiveness report even ranks Amsterdam as low as 74 out of 116 most competitive cities. Yes, the Randstad is more than just Amsterdam but it is a tell tale sign of where the Randstad is headed. Much of this is down to the rise of other cities (China provides a relatively big amount of newcomers in the ranks) but it leaves Dutch urban planners with the feeling that things could be better.

Logo of the Randstad Urgent policy program

Enter the Randstad Urgent policy program in 2007. As a program it was relatively innovative because rather than specifying the spatial and economic tasks for each Ministry, Province and Municipality, it was recognized that task specification was not going to help. Consequently, the program managers focused on projects and on what was needed to get things done within the projects. Essentially, it applied network management on a very large and complex scale. From a planning and governing perspective, Randstad Urgent promised much change in the way spatial issues are usually dealt with in The Netherlands. It employed unconventional methods and it was understood that there was no need for yet another change in the planning structures but rather a need for people, rule benders sometimes, to act as change agents. Projects were accelerated by what became known as ‘duo-administrators’, linking a Minister with a provincial Deputy or municipal Aldermen in order to make sure that concrete ambitions and national policies and resources were constantly aligned. So far so good. Come 2010, however, the government resigned and called for new elections and the program was terminated. A bit early.

The book I received this week reviews the projects that were included in Randstad Urgent. It arrives at the conclusion that Randstad Urgent was a success. Well, yes, that’s not unexpected. The authors are correct to some extent. Quite a few things have been started or even completely delivered. And yes, the unconventional approach meant quite a change to pace to the development process. Moreover, I find it very healthy that thinking in terms of conurbations rather than competing cities has become common within the administrative ranks. Still it is a bit too early to call everything a success. Complex spatial development always takes a lot of time and rarely gets completed within a few years. If anything, the book shows that the program was killed prematurely.

Reconstruction and extension of the A15 highway was one the projects in Randstad Urgent. Its purpose is to improve the connections between the port of Rotterdam and the hinterland. Work is currently in progress.

Where to next? There is no denying that the Randstad can only remain successful if it is developed as a whole and there is no denying that metropolitan regions are the future. Unfortunately, fear of the metropolis is common too (as documented and discussed in issue 6 of the Hollandblad) and it will remain difficult and sometimes controversial to develop this conurbation. Still, the Randstad has survived many changes so the future is not that bleak. It just takes some courage. That is both a small and a big step.

Read Full Post »