This article was downloaded by: [64.231.173.

6] On: 20 June 2013, At: 20:35 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Planning Practice & Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cppr20

The Role of Public Space in Urban Renewal Strategies in Rotterdam and Dublin
Rianne Van Melik & Philip Lawton Published online: 21 Dec 2011.

To cite this article: Rianne Van Melik & Philip Lawton (2011): The Role of Public Space in Urban Renewal Strategies in Rotterdam and Dublin, Planning Practice & Research, 26:5, 513-530 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2011.626681

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Planning Practice and Research, Vol. 26, No. 5, pp. 513530, October 2011

ARTICLE

The Role of Public Space in Urban Renewal Strategies in Rotterdam and Dublin
RIANNE VAN MELIK & PHILIP LAWTON

Downloaded by [64.231.173.6] at 20:35 20 June 2013

Abstract Urban entrepreneurialism has been well investigated, but few publications focus directly upon the role of urban public space in renewal strategies associated with such. Although generally acknowledged as important, public space is often seen as supportive rather than a driving force of urban redevelopment. We compare two cases, Rotterdam and Dublin, in which, in contrast, public space was regarded as essential to urban renewal. We show how municipalities have been active in improving public space with a view to attracting private investment. Additionally, these cases underscore the importance of the local context in examining entrepreneurial planning agendas in different cities.

Introduction In the last few decades a wide-ranging literature has appeared on the shift from managerial to entrepreneurial forms of urban governance (for example, Harvey, es & Carmona, 2006). 1989; Hall & Hubbard, 1998; De Magalha Deindustrialization and suburbanization caused many cities to experience a decline in both their economic circumstances and physical appearance throughout the 1970s and 1980s. These processes were often accompanied with a decline in national scal support and resulted in what Harvey (1989) refers to as the transition from managerialism to entrepreneurial modes of urban governance. Whereas the Fordist managerialist mode had concentrated on the wider provision of public services and welfare, the post-Fordist entrepreneurial regime is essentially concerned with reviving the competitive position of urban economies, especially through the liberation of private enterprise and an associated demunicipalization and recommodication of social and economic life . . . (MacLeod, 2002, p. 604). The foregoing emphasizes the competitive position of a city. Improvements are sought in a number of strategies ranging from marketing campaigns and the organization of events (Hall & Hubbard, 1998; Ward, 1998) to large-scale
Rianne van Melik, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80.115, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands. Email: [email protected]
ISSN 0269-7459 print/1360-0583 online/11/05051318 2011 Taylor & Francis http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2011.626681

513

Rianne van Melik & Philip Lawton redevelopment projects. Such strategies vary in intent, scale, and outcome. Commonly-cited examples include large-scale docklands redevelopment such as Baltimores Inner harbour and Londons Canary Wharf, but also inner-city renewal strategies such as the Potzdamer Platz in Berlin and the Temple Bar quarter in Dublin. These projects have all involved an implicit redevelopment of public space. However, the role of public space differs according the specics of each city. Most urban renewal projects aim (in addition to the construction of new housing, ofces, and retail) at improving public space, as its importance is commonly acknowledged (see below). Nevertheless, in practice, public space is often seen as performing a secondary or supporting role within urban regeneration projects; one that merely adds the nishing touches to a broader project rather than being a driving force. We critically examine the approach to public-space redevelopment in two European citiesRotterdam and Dublinfrom the early 1990s until 2007. This was a period of sustained economic growth in both The Netherlands and Ireland. These cases offer insights into the transformation of public space, which support the existing body of research (for example, Atkinson, 2003; Low & Smith, 2006; van Melik, 2008). Rotterdam and Dublin have embraced entrepreneurial means of urban redevelopment in recent decades. Their local governments have not only focused on the construction of prestigious iconic developments (including the Erasmus bridge in Rotterdam and the Spire of Dublin), but also set about redeveloping public space as an inherent aspect of urban transformation. In this paper, we address the role of public space in urban renewal strategies, the involvement of the private sector, and their potential consequences. Following Peck and Theodore (2010) and McCann (2011), we have used Rotterdam and Dublin as case studies to assess the importance of local contexts in understanding entrepreneurial approaches to urban planning practice. Moreover, we have compared the differing approaches to the development of public space to reveal their key signicance in understanding the nature of the relationship between public bodies and private actors. Thus, while public space is often used as an umbrella term for the redevelopment of those spaces that are accessible to the public, the form that a public space takes varies with economic, political, and historical factors and the social context. The selection of the case studies is outlined in the section dealing with the research approach. First, in the following two theoretical sections, we discuss the relationship between public space and urban regeneration strategies, and the involvement of the private sector in such. The research approach section follows and precedes two sections dealing with the respective case studies and the conclusion. Public Space and Urban Regeneration Public spaces like streets and parks are important structuring elements of urban space. They are places for unexpected encounters and public discourse as well as relaxation and passage (Carr et al., 1992; Hajer & Reijndorp, 2001; Madanipour, 2003; Watson, 2006). Moreover, they have a practical function in promoting the
514

Downloaded by [64.231.173.6] at 20:35 20 June 2013

Role of Public Space in Urban Renewal Strategies access points of buildings, connecting different neighbourhoods, and strengthening a citys identity. Public space is therefore indispensible to a well-functioning city. This importance of urban public space has been increasingly acknowledged in the academic literature since the 1960s (for example, Loand, 1973; Sennett, 1977). The planning and the urban design of public space received attention as a result of the rejection of modernist urban planning practices (Jacobs, 1961) and a return to the creation of more people-oriented urban spaces. Such perspectives clarify the dynamics of public space in developing more comfortable and liveable cities. The aims and ambitions of redevelopment projects have also grown over the decades. Early strategies include the pedestrianization of town centres from the 1980s onwards (such as Birmingham and Shefeld; Barber & Hall, 2008), often coupled with more sensitive approaches to the inll within historic urban areas. More recent interventions have focused on the development of high-prole landmark buildings surrounded by enhanced public spaces or, as in the case of Barcelona, the transformation of the public domain of an entire city (McNeill, 1999). Indeed, there has been a leap in scope over time. For example, the redevelopment of Londons former Bankside power station into Tate Modern, coupled with the construction of the Millennium Bridge and its connection to the larger South Bank area, has virtually transformed a large part of central London. Similarly, the transformation of Gateshead Quays through the development of The Sage, The Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art, and the Gateshead Millennium Bridge also exemplify the enhanced ambitions in regeneration projects. This enhancement ts in with the emergence of the Urban Renaissance (Lees, 2003; Urban Taskforce, 2005; Barber & Hall, 2008), which marked a new departure in the aims and ambitions associated with the redevelopment of urban public space: A key message of the Urban Task Force was that urban neighbourhoods should be vital, safe and beautiful places to live. This is not just a matter of aesthetics, but of economics. As cities compete with each other to host increasingly footloose international companies, their credentials as attractive, vibrant homes are major selling points. This demands that ever greater signicance be given to the design and management of the public realm. Well designed and maintained public spaces should be at the heart of any community . . . (Urban Task Force, 2005, p. 5) The quote also bears out that the regeneration of public space is often part and parcel of a wider transformation of the physical structure and social meanings of city centres. Since the late 1970s, city centres have faced stiffer competition generated both externally (from other cities) and internally (from district shopping centres)in their attempts to attract higher-income residents, tourists, capital, and businesses. Having a number of exceptional buildings and events is not sufcient: The public spaces which connect these buildings and activities are also important in the decisions of the tourists. Creation of new public spaces is, therefore, part of
515

Downloaded by [64.231.173.6] at 20:35 20 June 2013

Rianne van Melik & Philip Lawton the larger process of creating spectacles in the cities . . . (Madanipour, 2003, p. 225). Municipalities invest in public space to enhance their citys look and feel; these can play an important role in city marketing by lending a positive image to a city and the lifestyle within it that is being promoted. The public realm is thus increasingly seen as a weapon in the arsenal of urban competition (De es & Carmona, 2006). Magalha Urban Entrepreneurialism and Privatization In most European countries, responsibility for the development and management of public space is vested in the municipality. Motivation stems from the public role in the provision of basic servicessuch as housing and healthcareand maintaining public order. However, in recent years local authorities have become increasingly unable to bear the sole responsibility of public goods. In the Netherlands, Ireland, and elsewhere, the result has been the privatization of stateowned services, such as waste disposal, railways, and postal deliveries. The perception is that placing the production of goods and services in the hands of the market is economically better practice as it should lead to maximum efciency (Needham, 2006). Similarly, for much of the 20th century, municipal authorities were broadly responsible for their public spaces. However, this role has also gradually been ceded to private interests. The increased reliance by a local authority on private sectors to deliver public goods marks the rise of the entrepreneurial city. Governing has become more businesslike, aimed at attracting investment and restricting welfare demands. Cooperation with private actors is required because of not only decreasing state power, but also the requirements of complex contemporary society for knowledge and resources that are only available through cooperation between government and other actors (Kooiman, 1993; Rhodes, 1996). Nevertheless, local governments continue to play an important role in urban-development processes (Brenner & Theodore, 2002). According to Needham (2006), it is a common misconception that markets exist independently of the state. The government (the lawmaker) creates rights and determines the rules about the way in which they may be used and traded, and thus structures the market. Private actors such as developers and investors are increasingly aware that assisting local governments and investing in the public realm is in their own interests (Punter, 1990). In so doing, they aim to enhance the value of a scheme and its long-term potential. There are many types of investors: banks, pension funds, life-insurance companies, and large stock-market-listed property companies. Each has its own sources of funding, tax regime status, and behaviour in the property market (Nappi-Choulet, 2006). Consequently, their objectives in investing in public space differ: some might be attracted by the possibility of capital growth (that is to say, improved public space increases the value of surrounding property), while others might be interested in increased returns based on retaining the property and receiving rents from occupiers who benet from improvements in public space. Good-quality public space can thus enhance the property values (for developers) or rental potential of real estate (for investors) and generate higher revenues (for retailers and other occupiers).
516

Downloaded by [64.231.173.6] at 20:35 20 June 2013

Role of Public Space in Urban Renewal Strategies Several authors (Sorkin, 1992; Mitchell, 1995; Zukin, 1995; Kohn, 2004) assert that the increased interest from private bodies in public space has led to a perceived decrease in openly-accessible public space, referred to as the privatization of public space. Processes referred to as privatization can be divided into two inter-related sub-categories. The rst is the shift to more private lifestyles and the associated urban forms, such as gated communities and enclosed shopping centres (Goss, 1993; Low, 2006); the second is the greater level of interest in the public realm shown by private interests (Mitchell, 2003). Privately-controlled public spaces, such as Battery Park City in New York or Canary Wharf in London, are specic examples of where private investors are able to invest in public spaces with the ability to control them for their own gain (Kohn, 2004). Thus, in an effort to protect their investment, and that of other stakeholders such as retailers, privately-owned public spaces are managed in a manner that ensures the dispersal of all unwanted activities or people. This is carried out through the enforcement of a strict set of rules and regulations, by a number of measures including private security and CCTV. In combination, the increased levels of attention to the development of public space by the private sector, and the increased attention given to place-marketing strategies, have had a profound impact on the manner in which public bodies approach public space (e.g. the Urban Renaissance in the UK). Furthermore, there has been a tendency for urban municipalities to sanction the introduction of private bodies in the promotion of clean and safe public space (Helms, 2008). In a similar manner to privately managed public spaces, the forms that such measures take often include the promotion of CCTV and private management (Helms, 2008). Such measures are highlighted by the designation of areas as Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) (Zukin, 1995; Kohn, 2004). BIDs are geographically-dened areas where a group of major stakeholdersusually business ownershave come together to control their surrounding environment. Services within a BID involve additional cleaning, marketing and the provision of (tourist) information, and the prevention of petty crime, such as grafti. BIDs are a key feature of the reordering of public space according to the interests of specic commercial bodies. For several commentators, such approaches to the management of public space mark an aggressive turn against the most vulnerable in society, such as the homeless and the poor (Mitchell, 1995, 2003; Zukin, 1995; Atkinson, 2003; Low & Smith, 2006). As Ward comments, aggressive place marketing strategies have been accompanied by efforts to civilise cities . . . (2003, p. 117). Helms adds: what constitute crimes, offences or simply undesired behaviour is inuenced by economic growth considerations . . . (2008, p. 15). Consequently, there has been an increase in the regulation of public space such as Zero Tolerance Policing and laws on begging and street drinking (Mitchell, 2003; Raco, 2003; Helms, 2008). Listerborn (2005) questions whether this vigilance implies that public space is becoming less public. She argues that the idea of totally-free public space is erroneous and that strategies as listed above might be exclusionary for some, but emancipatory for others. Nevertheless, fundamental questions arise about the nature of public space and the approach taken by public bodies.
517

Downloaded by [64.231.173.6] at 20:35 20 June 2013

Rianne van Melik & Philip Lawton Research Approach To illustrate the role of public space in urban renewal strategies and the involvement of the private sector, we now turn to the two case studies; one in the Dutch context and the other in the Irish context. Rotterdam and Dublin have been selected because they form useful examples of city centres that have been upgraded with a central role for public space in the renewal strategy, and thus add to the existing body of research on the connection between urban regeneration and public space outside either the context of the UK or North America. Both cases (Beurstraverse and OConnell Street, respectively) are centrally located areas, characterized by a dominant retail function. Both serve as important public spaces for the functioning of the respective cities: as places for encounters, access routes for adjacent properties, and image builders for Rotterdam and Dublin. Despite these similarities, the cities differ in their approach to public-space redevelopment. According to Townshend and Madanipour (2008, p. 320), this difference is not remarkable: While places in different cities, or even in the same city, may be subject to similar forces, their particular histories make them unique. Each will have its own stories, associations, uses and congurations . . . The manner in which urban transformation impacts on specic places is related to a wide set of processes that are both internal and external to them. For example, in examining policy transfer, Peck and Theodore (2010) and McCann (2011), stress the continued relevance of the local in understanding the adoption and implementation of policies and strategies that are global in their reach. The comparison of Rotterdam and Dublin has enabled us to research these local particularities. Our research is limited in that it focuses on the transformation of public space according to entrepreneurial means from a policy and practice perspective. We therefore do not address the everyday use and activities in public space, although we acknowledge that an analysis of these topics would play a key role in understanding the broader meanings of public space (see for example, Carr et al., 1992; Watson, 2006). In-depth interviews were held with key-actors from the public and private sectors involved in the planning and day-to-day management of public space in Rotterdam and Dublin. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed by the authors, who also translated the quotations cited. For the sake of anonymity, the quotations are linked to respondents afliations and not their names. Additionally, we investigated policy documentation regarding the redevelopment of public space. Rotterdam Rotterdam is well known for its long-term processes of reconstruction and regeneration (McCarthy, 1998). During the Second World War, the historic core of the city was destroyed. After reconstruction, Rotterdam was given a modern city centre unlike that of any other old city in The Netherlands (van Melik, 2008). However, in due course this new core became in need of redevelopment. The 1985 city-centre plan was set up to create a compact city in which people could work
518

Downloaded by [64.231.173.6] at 20:35 20 June 2013

Role of Public Space in Urban Renewal Strategies and live. The plan triggered a number of changes in public space, but these proved to be inadequate. In 1993 a new plan was presented. The aims included the improvement of the quality of the city centre and a coherent management of public space (Municipality of Rotterdam, 1993). The focus on public space was a condition for creating a city centre that showcased Rotterdam as an international centre with a good investment climate. Public space therefore needed to be clean, safe, and of high quality. Meanwhile, although large parts of the city centre have been redeveloped, the upgrading is far from complete. Although some big projects such as Beurstraverse (see below) have been nished, the train station and the Museumpark areas are still excavated building sites. The municipality continuous to formulate redevelopment plans. Its most recent city-centre plan (20082020) describes the aim to create a city lounge: a city centre that functions as a place for inhabitants, companies, and visitors to meet, spend time, and be entertained (Municipality of Rotterdam, 2008). The ambitions are to offer more culture, leisure, and shopping opportunities in the city, as well as reviving street life and connecting neighbourhoods by means of well-designed public spaces. Overall, public space is a central theme in the new city-centre plan. The municipality believes that good public space is the main precondition for economic development in the city (Municipality of Rotterdam, 2008). Public space is seen as an important aspect of urban renewal rather than its by-product or closing entry. Nevertheless, the upgrading of public space in Rotterdam is nearly always combined with real-estate development, which can be explained by the presence of the private sector in the redevelopment process. Research has shown that real estatenotably retailis a vital precondition for the involvement of the Dutch private sector in the redevelopment of public space (van Melik, 2008). Beurstraverse exemplies this trend. Beurstraverse Rotterdam has been a pioneer in involving the private sector in the upgrading of its city centre. Uniquely, the local government not only cooperates with the private sector in redevelopment projects, but also actively participates as a private actor. The redevelopment of Beurstraverse is an example of a far-reaching cooperation between the local government and private parties including ING bank and Focas, a pension fund of the Dutch retail conglomerate C&A. This project, which opened in 1996, is a 300-metre-long sunken retail passage nicknamed the Koopgoot (Shopping Gutter; see Figure 1). The project contains 60, 000 m2 of retail space divided among 95 shops, as well as 450 parking spaces and 106 apartments. Costs, revenues, risks, and authority are shared amongst the local government and the private parties. The daily maintenance and supervision is contracted out to Actys, a private management company (van Melik, 2008). The initiative to redevelop Beurstraverse came not from the municipality, but from the private sector. C&A wanted to upgrade its store and contacted the developer Multi. They considered that the entire neighbourhood needed upgrading, turning the reconstruction of a single building into a large redevelopment project. The local government soon became interested in the
519

Downloaded by [64.231.173.6] at 20:35 20 June 2013

Rianne van Melik & Philip Lawton

Downloaded by [64.231.173.6] at 20:35 20 June 2013

FIGURE 1. Beurstraverse, Rotterdam.

plans, acknowledging that strengthening the city centres retail function was necessary in the competition with other cities and peripheral shopping centres. The local authority subsequently took the lead in setting up the publicprivate consortium. A local-authority representative explained the underlying rationale: We wanted to safeguard the level of ambition. We could have sold the land . . . , and then we would have earned money. But instead we thought: we might as well stay in the project for some length of time. It is such a crucial place in the city. The risk that a private party would barter away this important part of the city centre was unacceptably high: Thus, the argument ran, the city would have to play an important and permanent role in this project; only then could the areas envisioned contribution to the revitalization of the downtown commercial centre be safeguarded . . . (Bergenhenegouwen & Van Weesep, 2003, p. 81). An additional reason was the presence of a metro station in Beurstraverse. The local authority wanted to ensure that the metro (a public good) would remain accessible for everybody. The main motive of the private parties involvement in the consortium was nancial. According to the developer, the creation of a well-functioning public space is essential for the performance of the surrounding retail businesses: People would rather live, work or shop on a good street or nice square than on a miserable
520

Role of Public Space in Urban Renewal Strategies street or wretched square. Public space of good quality thus facilitates the sale or lease of the developed property. Consequently, the private sector is willing to invest in public space, as the developer of Beurstraverse explained: A public space where no large-scale investment in real estate occurs, where no real property development takes place, will have difculties generating money from the market. However, when property development occurs, theres all of a sudden a large bag of money. In that case, there is always some capital available for the design of public space. This quote suggests that the private sector is mainly interested in participating in the redevelopment of public space when the total project involves new (preferably retail) constructions rather than the mere beautication of public space. This attitude leads also to a potential downside: the involvement of the private sector at one location and its absence at another might lead to a differentiation of quality between urban spaces in terms of investment. This differentiation did not occur in Rotterdam, because the redevelopment was not limited to Beurstraverse, but formed part of the 1993 urban-regeneration strategy to improve the entire city centre. Another risk of private-sector involvement is access restriction (Kohn, 2004; Low & Smith, 2006). The Beurstraverse consortium subjects users to tight restrictions: no alcoholic beverages, no street vendors, no bicycles, no loitering, and so forth. At the entrances the rules are clearly displayed; they can be enforced by the numerous cameras and private security guards in place. In contrast, most of the adjacent area is entirely in the public domain, so it is operated and maintained by municipal services. However, the responsible cabinet member refuted the idea that these differences in rules and regulations are problematic: If you ask what an average person from Rotterdam thinks about Beurstraverse, the answer will be that it is fantastic. I believe that you have to look very hard to nd anyone who feels controlled or whose freedom of action is restricted in that area. Interestingly, he focuses on the people that are present and are not excluded by the measures discussed above rather than those that are absent. From this point of view, the redevelopment of Beurstraverse is a success. Many people visit it frequently and feel that the passage is intimate, clean, and inviting. Visitors perceive Beurstraverse as a typical type of space found in Rotterdam. The local authority is currently in the process of developing another Koopgoot close to Beurstraverse. Koopgoot II will combine retail with housing and ofces; its ground oor will be publicly accessible. Despite the current economic crisis, the development plans have not been cancelled or delayed; the projected nish date is 2013. However, some slight alterations have been made to the design and functions, placing a greater emphasis on housing and less on ofce space. The plan serves part of the local authoritys aim to create a VIP area near Beurstraverse with a good mix of retail, culture, housing and ofces, and with public spaces of high quality (Municipality of Rotterdam, 2010).
521

Downloaded by [64.231.173.6] at 20:35 20 June 2013

Rianne van Melik & Philip Lawton Overall, the case of Beurstraverse illustrates the extent to which the Municipality of Rotterdam has actively embraced entrepreneurial forms of interaction with the private sector in its urban-regeneration strategies. According to McCarthy (1998, p. 432), this entrepreneurialism extends beyond Beurstraverse: the municipality [Rotterdam] has had to act within an entrepreneurial fashion, working with business interests in a pragmatic manner and often acting as a catalyst for development . . . He regards this approach as municipal leadership, illustrated by the local authoritys role to set out detailed criteria for development, invest in accessibility and infrastructure, andif necessarycanvas the local elite to subvert potential protest (McCarthy, 1998). The Beurstraverse also illustrates how public space is seen as an important element in urban-renewal strategies by both the public and private sectors. Although publicprivate cooperation has been benecial in some regards (increasing the budget for public-space design, for example), there is also a risk of increased regulation and differentiation in the quality of public spaces (van Melik et al., 2009). Dublin Since the late 1980s, Dublin has undergone signicant transformation. High levels of economic growth throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s, combined with a shift from managerial to entrepreneurial forms of urban governance and the attendant tax-driven regeneration programmes, have resulted in a marked transformation of the physical and social structures of Dublins city centre (McGuirk & MacLaran, 2001; Punch, 2001; MacLaran & Williams, 2003). Examples include the regeneration of much of the docklands area to become a post-industrial nancial services and residential district (Moore, 2008) along with the creation of the Temple Bar area as a Cultural Quarter in the early 1990s (Montgomery, 2003). To a large extent, the transformation of Dublins public realm is directly inuenced by what may be referred to as the European city model (McNeill, 1999). While the rst phases of development in the Irish Financial Services Centre in the Docklands were inuenced by the North American docklands or festival style of development, the transformation of Temple Bar and, later, the second phase of the Irish Financial Services Centre were directly inuenced by architectural and design philosophies associated with a more European tradition of urban space (Lawton, 2009), thus paralleling the interest in the European model of public space then being pursued in the UK through the Urban Renaissance agenda (Atkinson, 2003). This tradition includes an emphasis on pedestrianoriented public space, mixed-use urban areas, and renewed interest in the historic city (Molnar, 2010). In contrast, the management and control of these public areas in Dublin have been more inuenced by a North American model where private forces have taken on an important role in the development and management of public space (Zukin, 1995; Mitchell, 2003). For example, the main public spaces within Temple Bar are controlled and managed by the Temple Bar Cultural Trust, a quasi-private body. Furthermore, the establishment of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority has resulted in large parts of the docklands area becoming controlled by private
522

Downloaded by [64.231.173.6] at 20:35 20 June 2013

Role of Public Space in Urban Renewal Strategies management companies. The inuence of such approaches on the redevelopment of public space has had a signicant impact on other high-prole public regeneration projects in Dublin. The transformation of Dublins OConnell Street is a noteworthy example of such an approach. OConnell Street OConnell Street is widely renowned as both the commercial and symbolic centre of Dublin (Whelan, 2003). Although originally developed in the 18th century as a residential street, it has become a wide boulevard dominated by commercial uses. In the 1980s OConnell Street became a focal point of negative media attention regarding the physical and social decline of Dublins city centre. Throughout the second half of the 1990s, Dublin Corporation (renamed Dublin City Council in 2001) began to seek ways of altering the image of the street and its surrounding area. This search involved looking towards a European model of public space, by drawing on examples in Barcelona and Paris. In highlighting the focus on the European city as a symbol of harmonious interaction within public space (Molnar, 2010), such a focus is also indicative of the increased attention paid to international competition between European cities. While desiring to create a more comfortable pedestrian environment, the broader signicance of the streets transformation was expressed by a representative of the Dublin City Councils Planning Department as follows: As part of regenerating the city it was considered absolutely essential to regenerate the public realm. You couldnt take one away from the other. And we wanted Dublin to become a competitive European city . . . [so we] had to create a public realm of European quality. The transformation of the street was implemented through the OConnell Street Integrated Area Plan (IAP) (Dublin Corporation, 1998). The physical dimensions of the IAP involved altering the layout of the street by widening the pavements, installing standardized street furniture, and planting new trees in a uniform alignment. The plan also proposed the construction of a new monument to be placed at the centre of the street on the axis with the adjoining North Earl Street and Henry Street. This transformation was carried out through the launch of an international design competition by Dublin Corporation and the Royal Institute of Architects in Ireland. As summarized in the competition brief, the monument should be a new symbol and image of Dublin for the 21st century (such as the Eiffel Tower is for Paris and the Statue of Liberty is for New York) . . . (Dublin Corporation, 1998, p. 4). Thus, the new monument was destined to become a distinguishing feature in re-positioning Dublin in the pecking order of international urban competitiveness. Ian Ritchie Architects winning design was completed in 2003; it is a 120-metre tapering metal spire called the Spire of Dublin. As originally intended, it has been used as a symbol in the marketing of Dublin. Throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s, the regeneration of OConnell Street was aimed at transforming the use-culture of the street, which was directly
523

Downloaded by [64.231.173.6] at 20:35 20 June 2013

Rianne van Melik & Philip Lawton associated with its prevailing land use. The alterations to the physical appearance of the space were therefore seen to be a driver of its social transformation towards higher-end consumption-orientated uses. As previously discussed by Lawton (2010), in an effort to achieve this ambition, the street and its surroundings were designated as an Architectural Conservation Area and, directly connected to this, a Scheme of Special Planning Control (SSPC) (Dublin City Council, 2003). A planner working with Dublin City Council summarized the strategy: Part of the strategy, part of the thinking, was that by raising the bar in terms of environment and design for what the City Council had control ofwhich is the public domain, the street, the streetscape, the planting, the lightingthat the quality of the businesses would follow. So we dont have the power to kick someone out of a business, or to change a business, or to tell them to change, as a City Council, or as a Planning Authority. We do have the power to direct the planning intentions in a certain way. So the Architectural Conservation Area and the Area of Special Planning Control are two tools to direct the planning in a certain way. Such measures are therefore used as a means of enticing the private sector to invest in the street, and thereby respond and add to the newly-created image. The outline of the SSPC was to introduce higher-order retail outlets on the ground oor along with lifestyle, agship stores, and niche retailers, which included bookshops, jewellery, and camera shops. The promotion of cafes, restaurants, and bars instead of outlets such as fast food or other forms of convenience food further complements this desired land use. Policy has therefore been orientated towards the promotion of a more up-market consumption-oriented lifestyle (Zukin, 1995). The desire to utilize the investment in public space to attract further investments by private investors was also marked by an aim within the original IAP to redevelop the area occupied by the former Carlton cinema (a large area of 2.17 hectares on the north-west side of OConnell Street) into a mixed-use development comprising retail, commercial, residential, and recreational uses (Dublin Corporation, 1998). According to the planning department of Dublin City Council, the construction of this project was to have a direct impact on the rest of OConnell Street in that it would provide a new focus on the street and attract further investment. As discussed in Lawton (2010), the logic for Dublin City Council was that the new destination would attract new types of retail to the area, and therefore increase rents, which, it was perceived, would further the attraction of other new higher-order uses (including cafes and restaurants spilling out onto the pavement). Two particular issues arise. First, the degree to which there is a connection between more desired land uses and their ability to pay higher rents is perhaps over-emphasized, and the ability of undesirable land uses to pay higher rents seems to be underestimated. Second, and more importantly, such logic reects the assumption that prevailed in Ireland throughout the years of the economic boom; namely that rents and land values would continue to rise. Indeed, such logic was reinforced by the existence of upwards-only rent reviews, which have recently been banned from new lease agreements in Ireland. The current
524

Downloaded by [64.231.173.6] at 20:35 20 June 2013

Role of Public Space in Urban Renewal Strategies economic crisis in Ireland exemplies the limitations of over-reliance on the market as a mechanism for transformation. Taken in combination, the investment in the public domain along with the introduction of the SSPC and the desire to redevelop the Carlton site are directly related to an ideology of transforming the social dimensions of public space. The implicit logic of the change of land use is that newly-promoted activities lead to a form of consumption that is deemed more acceptable to, and betting, the physical image of the street. However, whereas in the Rotterdam case the municipality has had a direct involvement with the redevelopment of the commercial elements of Beurstraverse as a part shareholder in the land, in the Dublin example the City Councils role was that of facilitator. The street itself remained under public management and control. This situation is indicative of the degree to which the implementation of entrepreneurial planning mechanisms are dictated by factors that are specic to particular places (Townshend & Madanipour, 2008). Moreover, in contrast to the Rotterdam example, mechanisms associated with the privatization of public space (Zukin, 1995; Mitchell, 2003) in this example are related primarily to increased interest from private parties in the management and control of what is still maintained as public space, along with the willingness of public bodies to cede such duties to private interests. These roles are highlighted by the approach to the management and control of public space. The physical alterations to the street were completed in 2006 (see Figure 2). There followed an increase in the intensity of cleaning operations and attention to issues related to safety in public space (Helms, 2008), as was also the case in Rotterdams Beurstraverse. The increased attention to such factors was outlined by a representative of the architects division in Dublin City Council as follows: Now you have created spaces, you have created expectation and you cant let them deteriorate. Then it backres on you, somebody says they went to Dublin, walked on the boardwalk, everybody shooting up, all sorts of drugs problems, I saw one young woman being raped and there was sick all over the place. Now you have just cut your own throat, you were better off without it, so you have to follow through; you know you must maintain it. While the desire to promote more upmarket forms of consumption in the city centre has been severely impacted by the current economic crisis, the emphasis on the promotion of clean and highly-regulated city-centre spaces has continued apace. In line with a desire to maintain the image of public space, the Irish government introduced legislation (Department of Environment and Local Government, 2006) that allowed for the provision of BIDs. The introduction of the BID legislation has been inuenced by global circuits of knowledge, in the form of policy transfer (McCann & Ward, 2010), along with the local desires of the business community and the City Council to regulate the public domain in the city centre. In January 2008, the area encompassing much of the central retail core of Dublin, including OConnell Street, was formally established as a BID through the creation of the Dublin City Centre Bid Company (2007). In line with recent
525

Downloaded by [64.231.173.6] at 20:35 20 June 2013

Rianne van Melik & Philip Lawton

Downloaded by [64.231.173.6] at 20:35 20 June 2013

FIGURE 2. OConnell Street, Dublin.

thinking in the City Council, as outlined above, the BID has included an increased level of cleaning, the introduction of Street Ambassadors, and the removal of grafti from the city centre through a zero tolerance approach. The role of the Street Ambassadors is to monitor issues of personal safety and crime prevention, ocha na. through interaction with the Irish police force, the Garda S Importantly, the development of the BID coincides with the current clampdown on activities such as street-drinking and begging (Dublin City Council, 2008). Furthermore, the enactment of recent legislation (Government of Ireland, 2011),
526

Role of Public Space in Urban Renewal Strategies making it illegal to beg within a certain distance of shop entrances, was actively supported by Dublin City Council and the Dublin City BID Company (Dublin City Council, 2010). Indeed, to a certain extent, such bodies perceive the elimination of activities such as begging as a key element in the economic recovery of the central retail area of Dublin (Dublin City Council, 2010). Thus, the Dublin example ts in with the desire to create the clean and safe public spaces that have become the hall-mark of entrepreneurial cities (Ward, 2003; Helms, 2008). Conclusion This paper has illustrated the role of public space in the redevelopment of Rotterdam and Dublin as entrepreneurial cities. Between the early 1990s and late 2000s, both cities have undergone signicant alterations to their city centres, in ways which resemble the enhancement of aims and ambitions in public-space redevelopment observed in the UK (Lees, 2003; Urban Taskforce, 2005). Various bodies in Rotterdam and Dublin have not only acknowledged the importance of public space, but also acted on this notion by regarding the redevelopment of public space as an essential part of their urban-renewal strategy rather than performing a secondary or supporting role. Importantly, when taken in combination, the case studies have pointed to the importance of understanding local specicities (Peck & Theodore, 2010; McCann, 2011) in examining both entrepreneurial modes of planning and public space. While the paper has illustrated the direct connections between the redevelopment of urban public space, private interests, and city promotion, the local specicities of each space have played a key role in dictating how such factors impact upon different places, each with different planning and urban development structures. The Dutch case shows that the municipality of Rotterdam is very active in improving public space in its city centre with a focus on attracting and promoting commercial investment. By drawing on the example of Beurstraverse, we showed how local authorities have teamed up with private actors such as the ING bank in the redevelopment of public space. However, the example of Rotterdam is exceptional in the Netherlands. Previous research in other Dutch cities (including Amsterdam, Dordrecht, Enschede, and s-Hertogenbosch) shows that the private sector plays a more limited role in redevelopment processes elsewhere: the development and management of public space remains the domain of the public sector (Lawton, 2009; van Melik et al., 2009). The Dutch spatial planning tradition attaches a central role to the (national) government (Priemus, 2002). Needham (2006) conrms that Dutch authorities rarely structure the voluntary interaction between private parties. Instead they prefer to regulate or stimulate the market, even taking the initiative themselves if the private sector does not initiate the desired action. Unlike the Dutch example, where there was a direct involvement in the physical redevelopment of commercial space by the municipality, the example of OConnell Street showed how investment in the public realm was used in an attempt to entice further investment from private sources. Pointedly, this case illustrates the shortcomings of focusing the regeneration of public space upon the
527

Downloaded by [64.231.173.6] at 20:35 20 June 2013

Rianne van Melik & Philip Lawton attraction of further investment in the surrounding area. While the public have gained an upgraded street, and a more comfortable space in which to walk, other externalities were perhaps more dominant in dictating the reality and pace of private investment in the street. Future research might therefore examine opportunities offered by forms of investment within the public domain that are not focused on the fragility of property investment and the whole-sale alteration of the physical and social meanings of the city centre. Finally, both case studies have touched on the connection between entrepreneurial approaches to urban regeneration and the privatization of public space. Again, each of the case studies has illustrated the importance of local context in examining questions about the nature of public space and its connection to entrepreneurial modes of urban planning. On the one hand, the OConnell Street example has illustrated the increased involvement of private forms of management and control within public space, thus leading to questions of who has the right to dictate what is tolerated within city-centre environments. Moreover, the example of Beurstraverse illustrates how, although developed with a considerable input from the local authority, the resultant space became strictly controlled akin to a private space. While we have not been able to examine the impact of these factors on everyday public usage in any great detail, it is still posited that the overextension of and reliance on the private sector in the development of public urban space raises questions for urban policy-makers and practitioners alike about the role of public space within the planning and development of cities. Following authors such as Helms (2008) and Mitchell (2003), future work might therefore concentrate on the specic impacts of such policies on the accessibility of redeveloped public space for different social groups. References
Atkinson, R. (2003) Domestication by cappuccino or a revenge on urban space? Control and empowerment in the management of public spaces, Urban Studies, 40(9), pp. 18291843. Barber, A. & Hall, S. (2008) Birmingham: Whose urban renaissance? Regeneration as a response to economic restructuring, Policy Studies, 29(3), pp. 281292. Bergenhenegouwen, G. & Van Weesep, J. (2003) Manipulated space: The Beurstraverse retail complex in Rotterdam, Belgeo, 3(1), pp. 7986. Brenner, N. & Theodore, N. (2002) Cities and geographies of actually existing neoliberalism, Antipode, 34(3), pp. 349379. Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L. G. & Stone, A. M. (1992) Public Space (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Department of Environment and Local Government (2006) Local Government (Business Improvement Districts) Act 2006 (Dublin: Government of Ireland Stationary Ofce). es, C. & Carmona, M. (2006) Innovations in the management of public space: Reshaping and De Magalha refocusing governance, Planning Theory & Practice, 7(3), pp. 289303. Dublin City Centre BID Company (2007) Dublin City Centre BID Proposal (Dublin: Dublin City Centre BID Company). Dublin City Council (2003) OConnell Street and Environs Scheme of Special Planning Control (Dublin: Dublin City Council). Dublin City Council (2008) Dublin City Council (Prohibition of Consumption of Intoxicating Liquor on Roads and in Public Places) Bye-Laws 2008 (Dublin: Dublin City Council). Dublin City Council (2010) Hurry up with new law to prevent begging on the streets of the capital. Available at www.dublincity.ie/Press/PressReleases/pressreleasesseptember2010/Pages/HurryUpWithNewLawtoPrevent BeggingontheStreetsofTheCapital.aspx (accessed 4 November 2010).

Downloaded by [64.231.173.6] at 20:35 20 June 2013

528

Role of Public Space in Urban Renewal Strategies

Dublin Corporation (1998) OConnell Street Integrated Area Plan (Dublin: Dublin Corporation). Goss, J. (1993) The Magic of the Mall: An analysis of the form, function, and meaning in the contemporary retail built environment, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 83(1), pp. 1947. Government of Ireland (2011) Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 2011 (Dublin: Government of Ireland Stationary Ofce). Hajer, M. & Reijndorp, A. (2001) In Search of the New Public Domain: Analysis and Strategy (Rotterdam: NAI Publishers). Hall, T. & Hubbard, P. (1998) The Entrepreneurial City: Geographies of Politics, Regime and Representation (Chichester: Wiley). Harvey, D. (1989) From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: The transformation in urban governance in late capitalism, Geograska Annaler, 41(1), pp. 317. Helms, G. (2008) Towards Safe City Centres? Remaking the Spaces of an Old Industrial City (Aldershot: Ashgate). Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities (New York: Random House). Kohn, M. (2004) Brave New Neighborhoods: The Privatization of Public Space (New York: Routledge). Kooiman, J. (1993) Modern Governance, New GovernmentSociety Interactions (London: Sage). Lawton, P. (2009) An analysis of urban public space in three European cities: London, Dublin and Amsterdam, unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Geography, Trinity College Dublin. Lawton, P. (2010) Creative entrepreneurialism: The role of urban public space in urban change in Dublin, in: S. Vicari (Ed.) Brand-Building the Creative City (Firenze: Firenze University Press). Lees, L. (2003) Visions of urban renaissance: The Urban Task Force Report and the Urban White Paper, in: R. Imrie & M. Raco (Eds) Urban Renaissance? New Labour, Community and Urban Policy, pp. 6182 (Bristol: Policy Press). Listerborn, C. (2005) How public can public spaces be? City, 9(3), pp. 381388. Loand, L. H. (1973) A World of Strangers: Order and Action in Urban Public Space (New York: Basic Books). Low, S. (2006) How private interests take over public space: Zoning, taxes, and incorporation of gated communities, in: S. Low & N. Smith (Eds) The Politics of Public Space, pp. 81104 (New York: Routledge). Low, S. & Smith, N. (2006) The Politics of Public Space (New York: Routledge). MacLaran, A. & Williams, B. (2003) Dublin: Property development and planning in an entrepreneurial city, in: A. MacLaran (Ed.) Making Space, Property Development and Urban Planning, pp. 148171 (London: Arnold). MacLeod, G. (2002) From urban entrepreneurialism to a revanchist city? On the spatial injustices of Glasgows Renaissance, Antipode, 34(3), pp. 602624. Madanipour, A. (2003) Public and Private Spaces of the City (London: Routledge). McCann, E. (2011) Urban policy mobilities and global circuits of knowledge: Toward a research agenda, Annals of Association of American Geographers, 101(1), pp. 107130. McCann, E. & Ward, K. (2010) Relationality/territoriality: Toward a conceptualization of cities in the world, Geoforum, 41(2), pp. 175184. McCarthy, J. (1998) Reconstructing, regeneration and re-imaging: The case of Rotterdam, Cities, 15(5), pp. 337 344. McGuirk, P. M. & MacLaran, A. (2001) Changing approaches to urban planning in an entrepreneurial city: The case of Dublin, European Planning Studies, 9(4), pp. 438457. McNeill, D. (1999) Urban Change and the European Left: Tales from the New Barcelona (London: Routledge). Mitchell, D. (1995) The end of public space? Peoples park, denitions of the public, and democracy, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 85(1), pp. 108133. Mitchell, D. (2003) The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space (New York: Guilford). Molnar, V. (2010) The cultural production of locality: Reclaiming the European city in post-wall Berlin, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34(2), pp. 281309. Montgomery, J. (2003) Cultural quarters as mechanisms for urban regeneration (Part 1: Conceptualising cultural quarters), Planning Practice & Research, 18(4), pp. 293306. Moore, N. (2008) Dublin Docklands Reinvented: The Post-Industrial Regeneration of a European City Quarter (Dublin: Fourcourts Press). Municipality of Rotterdam (1993) Binnenstad Rotterdam: beleidskader voor verdere verdichting and beheer 19932000 (Rotterdam: Municipality of Rotterdam). Municipality of Rotterdam (2008) Binnenstad als city lounge: binnenstadsplan Rotterdam 20082020 (Rotterdam: Municipality of Rotterdam).

Downloaded by [64.231.173.6] at 20:35 20 June 2013

529

Rianne van Melik & Philip Lawton

Municipality of Rotterdam (2010) Coolsingel/Lijnbaankwartier: visitekaartje van Rotterdam. Available at www. rotterdam.nl/Tekst_VIP_gebied_03 (accessed 15 November 2010). Nappi-Choulet, I. (2006) The role and behaviour of commercial property investors and developers in French urban regeneration: The experience of the Paris region, Urban Studies, 43(9), pp. 15111535. Needham, B. (2006) Planning, Law and Economics: The Rules We Make for Using Land (London: Routledge). Peck, J. & Theodore, N. (2010) Mobilizing policy: models, methods and mutations, Geoforum, 41(2), pp. 169 174. Priemus, H. (2002) Publicprivate partnerships for spatio-economic investments: A changing spatial planning approach in the Netherlands, Planning Practice & Research, 14(2), pp. 197230. Punch, M. (2001) Inner city transformation and renewal: The view from the grassroots, in: P. J. Drudy & A. MacLaran (Eds) Dublin: Economic and Social Trends, pp. 3851 (Dublin: Centre for Urban and Regional Studies Trinity College Dublin). Punter, J. V. (1990) The privatisation of the public realm, Planning Practice & Research, 5(3), pp. 816. Raco, M. (2003) Remaking place and securitising space: Urban regeneration and the strategies, tactics and practices of policing in the UK, Urban Studies, 40(9), pp. 18691887. Rhodes, R. (1996) The new governance: Governing without government, Political Studies, 44(4), pp. 652667. Sennet, R. (1977) The Fall of Public Man (London: Penguin Books). Sorkin, M. (1992) Variations on a Theme Park: The New American City and the End of Public Space (New York: Hill & Wang). Townshend, T. G. & Madanipour, A. (2008) Public space and local diversity: The case of north east England, Journal of Urban Design, 13(3), pp. 317328. Urban Taskforce (2005) Towards a Strong Urban Renaissance: An Independent Report by Members of the Urban Task Force (London: Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions). van Melik, R. (2008) Changing Public Space: The Recent Redevelopment of Dutch City Squares (Utrecht: KNAG/Faculty of Geosciences Utrecht University). van Melik, R., Van Aalst, I. & Van Weesep, J. (2009) The private sector and public space in Dutch city centres, Cities, 26(4), pp. 202209. Ward, K. (2003) Entrepreneurial urbanism, state restructuring, and civilizing New East Manchester, Area, 35(2), pp. 116127. Ward, S. V. (1998) Place marketing: A historical comparison of Britain and North America, in: T. Hall & P. Hubbard (Eds) The Entrepreneurial City: Geographies of Politics, Regime and Representation, pp. 3153 (Chichester: Wiley). Watson, S. (2006) City Publics: The (Dis)Enchantments of Urban Encounters (New York: Routledge). Whelan, Y. (2003) Reinventing Modern Dublin: Streetscape Iconography and the Politics of Identity (Dublin: University College Dublin Press). Zukin, S. (1995) The Cultures of Cities (Cambridge: Blackwell).

Downloaded by [64.231.173.6] at 20:35 20 June 2013

530