The Role of Public Space in Urban LIfe

This article was downloaded by: [64.231.173.6]On: 20 June 2013, At: 20:35Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Planning Practice & ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cppr20

The Role of Public Space in UrbanRenewal Strategies in Rotterdam andDublinRianne Van Melik & Philip LawtonPublished online: 21 Dec 2011.

To cite this article: Rianne Van Melik & Philip Lawton (2011): The Role of Public Space in UrbanRenewal 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-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial 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 representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cppr20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2011.626681

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

ARTICLE

The Role of Public Space in UrbanRenewal Strategies in Rotterdam andDublinRIANNE VAN MELIK & PHILIP LAWTON

Abstract

Urban entrepreneurialism has been well investigated, but few publications focus directly upon therole of urban public space in renewal strategies associated with such. Although generallyacknowledged 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, publicspace was regarded as essential to urban renewal. We show how municipalities have been active inimproving public space with a view to attracting private investment. Additionally, these cases

underscore the importance of the local context in examining entrepreneurial planning agendas indifferent cities.

Introduction

In the last few decades a wide-ranging literature has appeared on the shift frommanagerial to entrepreneurial forms of urban governance (for example, Harvey,1989; Hall & Hubbard, 1998; De Magalhaes & Carmona, 2006).Deindustrialization and suburbanization caused many cities to experience adecline in both their economic circumstances and physical appearance throughoutthe 1970s and 1980s. These processes were often accompanied with a decline innational fiscal support and resulted in what Harvey (1989) refers to as thetransition from managerialism to entrepreneurial modes of urban governance.Whereas the Fordist managerialist mode had concentrated on the wider provisionof public services and welfare, the post-Fordist entrepreneurial regime is‘essentially concerned with reviving the competitive position of urbaneconomies, especially through the liberation of private enterprise and anassociated demunicipalization and recommodification of social and economiclife . . .’ (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 theorganization 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]

Planning Practice and Research, Vol. 26, No. 5,pp. 513–530, October 2011

ISSN 0269-7459 print/1360-0583 online/11/050513–18 � 2011 Taylor & Francis 513http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2011.626681

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

64.2

31.1

73.6

] at

20:

35 2

0 Ju

ne 2

013

redevelopment projects. Such strategies vary in intent, scale, and outcome.Commonly-cited examples include large-scale docklands redevelopment such asBaltimore’s Inner harbour and London’s Canary Wharf, but also inner-cityrenewal strategies such as the Potzdamer Platz in Berlin and the Temple Barquarter in Dublin.These projects have all involved an implicit redevelopment of public space.

However, the role of public space differs according the specifics of each city. Mosturban renewal projects aim (in addition to the construction of new housing,offices, and retail) at improving public space, as its importance is commonlyacknowledged (see below). Nevertheless, in practice, public space is often seen asperforming a secondary or supporting role within urban regeneration projects; onethat merely adds the finishing touches to a broader project rather than being adriving force.We critically examine the approach to public-space redevelopment in two

European cities—Rotterdam and Dublin—from the early 1990s until 2007. Thiswas a period of sustained economic growth in both The Netherlands and Ireland.These cases offer insights into the transformation of public space, which supportthe existing body of research (for example, Atkinson, 2003; Low & Smith, 2006;van Melik, 2008). Rotterdam and Dublin have embraced entrepreneurial means ofurban redevelopment in recent decades. Their local governments have not onlyfocused on the construction of prestigious iconic developments (including theErasmus bridge in Rotterdam and the Spire of Dublin), but also set aboutredeveloping public space as an inherent aspect of urban transformation. In thispaper, we address the role of public space in urban renewal strategies, theinvolvement 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 inunderstanding entrepreneurial approaches to urban planning practice. Moreover,we have compared the differing approaches to the development of public space toreveal their key significance in understanding the nature of the relationshipbetween public bodies and private actors. Thus, while public space is often used asan umbrella term for the redevelopment of those spaces that are accessible to thepublic, the form that a public space takes varies with economic, political, andhistorical 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 discussthe relationship between public space and urban regeneration strategies, and theinvolvement of the private sector in such. The research approach section followsand precedes two sections dealing with the respective case studies and theconclusion.

Public Space and Urban Regeneration

Public spaces like streets and parks are important structuring elements of urbanspace. They are places for unexpected encounters and public discourse as well asrelaxation and passage (Carr et al., 1992; Hajer & Reijndorp, 2001; Madanipour,2003; Watson, 2006). Moreover, they have a practical function in promoting the

Rianne van Melik & Philip Lawton

514

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

64.2

31.1

73.6

] at

20:

35 2

0 Ju

ne 2

013

access points of buildings, connecting different neighbourhoods, and strengthen-ing a city’s identity. Public space is therefore indispensible to a well-functioningcity.This importance of urban public space has been increasingly acknowledged in

the academic literature since the 1960s (for example, Lofland, 1973; Sennett,1977). The planning and the urban design of public space received attention as aresult of the rejection of modernist urban planning practices (Jacobs, 1961) and areturn to the creation of more people-oriented urban spaces. Such perspectivesclarify the dynamics of public space in developing more comfortable and liveablecities.The aims and ambitions of redevelopment projects have also grown over the

decades. Early strategies include the pedestrianization of town centres from the1980s onwards (such as Birmingham and Sheffield; Barber & Hall, 2008), oftencoupled with more sensitive approaches to the infill within historic urban areas.More recent interventions have focused on the development of high-profilelandmark buildings surrounded by enhanced public spaces or, as in the case ofBarcelona, the transformation of the public domain of an entire city (McNeill,1999). Indeed, there has been a leap in scope over time. For example, theredevelopment of London’s former Bankside power station into Tate Modern,coupled with the construction of the Millennium Bridge and its connection to thelarger South Bank area, has virtually transformed a large part of central London.Similarly, the transformation of Gateshead Quays through the development of TheSage, The Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art, and the Gateshead MillenniumBridge also exemplify the enhanced ambitions in regeneration projects. Thisenhancement fits in with the emergence of the Urban Renaissance (Lees,2003; Urban Taskforce, 2005; Barber & Hall, 2008), which marked a newdeparture in the aims and ambitions associated with the redevelopment of urbanpublic space:

A key message of the Urban Task Force was that urban neighbour-hoods should be vital, safe and beautiful places to live. This is not justa matter of aesthetics, but of economics. As cities compete with eachother to host increasingly footloose international companies, theircredentials as attractive, vibrant homes are major selling points. Thisdemands that ever greater significance be given to the design andmanagement of the public realm. Well designed and maintained publicspaces should be at the heart of any community . . . (Urban TaskForce, 2005, p. 5)

The quote also bears out that the regeneration of public space is often part andparcel of a wider transformation of the physical structure and social meanings ofcity centres. Since the late 1970s, city centres have faced stiffer competition—generated both externally (from other cities) and internally (from district shoppingcentres)—in their attempts to attract higher-income residents, tourists, capital, andbusinesses. Having a number of exceptional buildings and events is not sufficient:‘The public spaces which connect these buildings and activities are also importantin the decisions of the tourists. Creation of new public spaces is, therefore, part of

Role of Public Space in Urban Renewal Strategies

515

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

64.2

31.1

73.6

] at

20:

35 2

0 Ju

ne 2

013

the larger process of creating spectacles in the cities . . .’ (Madanipour, 2003,p. 225). Municipalities invest in public space to enhance their city’s ‘look andfeel’; these can play an important role in city marketing by lending a positiveimage to a city and the lifestyle within it that is being promoted. The public realmis thus increasingly seen as a weapon in the arsenal of urban competition (DeMagalhaes & Carmona, 2006).

Urban Entrepreneurialism and Privatization

In most European countries, responsibility for the development and managementof public space is vested in the municipality. Motivation stems from the public rolein the provision of basic services—such as housing and healthcare—andmaintaining public order. However, in recent years local authorities have becomeincreasingly unable to bear the sole responsibility of public goods. In theNetherlands, Ireland, and elsewhere, the result has been the privatization of state-owned services, such as waste disposal, railways, and postal deliveries. Theperception is that placing the production of goods and services in the hands of themarket is economically better practice as it should lead to maximum efficiency(Needham, 2006). Similarly, for much of the 20th century, municipal authoritieswere broadly responsible for their public spaces. However, this role has alsogradually 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 morebusinesslike, aimed at attracting investment and restricting welfare demands.Cooperation with private actors is required because of not only decreasing statepower, but also the requirements of complex contemporary society for knowledgeand resources that are only available through cooperation between government andother actors (Kooiman, 1993; Rhodes, 1996). Nevertheless, local governmentscontinue to play an important role in urban-development processes (Brenner &Theodore, 2002). According to Needham (2006), it is a common misconceptionthat markets exist independently of the state. The government (the ‘lawmaker’)creates rights and determines the rules about the way in which they may be usedand 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 owninterests (Punter, 1990). In so doing, they aim to enhance the value of a schemeand its long-term potential. There are many types of investors: banks, pensionfunds, life-insurance companies, and large stock-market-listed property compa-nies. Each has its own sources of funding, tax regime status, and behaviour in theproperty market (Nappi-Choulet, 2006). Consequently, their objectives ininvesting in public space differ: some might be attracted by the possibility ofcapital growth (that is to say, improved public space increases the value ofsurrounding property), while others might be interested in increased returns basedon retaining the property and receiving rents from occupiers who benefit fromimprovements in public space. Good-quality public space can thus enhance theproperty values (for developers) or rental potential of real estate (for investors) andgenerate higher revenues (for retailers and other occupiers).


516

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

64.2

31.1

73.6

] at

20:

35 2

0 Ju

ne 2

013

Several authors (Sorkin, 1992; Mitchell, 1995; Zukin, 1995; Kohn, 2004) assertthat the increased interest from private bodies in public space has led to aperceived decrease in openly-accessible public space, referred to as theprivatization of public space. Processes referred to as privatization can be dividedinto two inter-related sub-categories. The first is the shift to more private lifestylesand the associated urban forms, such as gated communities and enclosed shoppingcentres (Goss, 1993; Low, 2006); the second is the greater level of interest in thepublic 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 specific examples of where private investors are ableto 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 stakeholderssuch as retailers, privately-owned ‘public spaces’ are managed in a manner thatensures the dispersal of all unwanted activities or people. This is carried outthrough the enforcement of a strict set of rules and regulations, by a number ofmeasures 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-marketingstrategies, have had a profound impact on the manner in which public bodiesapproach public space (e.g. the Urban Renaissance in the UK). Furthermore, therehas been a tendency for urban municipalities to sanction the introduction of privatebodies in the promotion of ‘clean and safe’ public space (Helms, 2008). In asimilar manner to privately managed public spaces, the forms that such measurestake often include the promotion of CCTV and private management (Helms,2008). Such measures are highlighted by the designation of areas as BusinessImprovement Districts (BIDs) (Zukin, 1995; Kohn, 2004). BIDs are geographi-cally-defined areas where a group of major stakeholders—usually businessowners—have come together to control their surrounding environment. Serviceswithin a BID involve additional cleaning, marketing and the provision of (tourist)information, and the prevention of petty crime, such as graffiti. BIDs are a keyfeature of the reordering of public space according to the interests of specificcommercial bodies.For several commentators, such approaches to the management of public

space mark an aggressive turn against the most vulnerable in society, such as thehomeless and the poor (Mitchell, 1995, 2003; Zukin, 1995; Atkinson, 2003;Low & Smith, 2006). As Ward comments, ‘aggressive place marketing strategieshave been accompanied by efforts to ‘‘civilise’’ cities . . .’ (2003, p. 117). Helmsadds: ‘what constitute crimes, offences or simply undesired behaviour isinfluenced by economic growth considerations . . .’ (2008, p. 15). Consequently,there has been an increase in the regulation of public space such as ZeroTolerance Policing and laws on begging and street drinking (Mitchell, 2003;Raco, 2003; Helms, 2008). Listerborn (2005) questions whether this vigilanceimplies that public space is becoming less public. She argues that the idea oftotally-free public space is erroneous and that strategies as listed above might beexclusionary for some, but emancipatory for others. Nevertheless, fundamentalquestions arise about the nature of public space and the approach taken bypublic bodies.


517

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

64.2

31.1

73.6

] at

20:

35 2

0 Ju

ne 2

013

Research Approach

To illustrate the role of public space in urban renewal strategies and theinvolvement of the private sector, we now turn to the two case studies; one in theDutch context and the other in the Irish context. Rotterdam and Dublin have beenselected because they form useful examples of city centres that have beenupgraded with a central role for public space in the renewal strategy, and thus addto the existing body of research on the connection between urban regeneration andpublic space outside either the context of the UK or North America. Both cases(Beurstraverse and O’Connell Street, respectively) are centrally located areas,characterized by a dominant retail function. Both serve as important public spacesfor the functioning of the respective cities: as places for encounters, access routesfor 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), thisdifference is not remarkable: ‘While places in different cities, or even in the samecity, may be subject to similar forces, their particular histories make them unique.Each will have its own stories, associations, uses and configurations . . .’ Themanner in which urban transformation impacts on specific places is related to awide set of processes that are both internal and external to them. For example, inexamining policy transfer, Peck and Theodore (2010) and McCann (2011), stressthe continued relevance of the local in understanding the adoption andimplementation of policies and strategies that are global in their reach. Thecomparison of Rotterdam and Dublin has enabled us to research these localparticularities.Our research is limited in that it focuses on the transformation of public space

according to entrepreneurial means from a policy and practice perspective. Wetherefore do not address the everyday use and activities in public space, althoughwe acknowledge that an analysis of these topics would play a key role inunderstanding 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 inRotterdam and Dublin. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysedby the authors, who also translated the quotations cited. For the sake of anonymity,the quotations are linked to respondents’ affiliations and not their names.Additionally, we investigated policy documentation regarding the redevelopmentof public space.

Rotterdam

Rotterdam is well known for its long-term processes of reconstruction andregeneration (McCarthy, 1998). During the Second World War, the historic coreof the city was destroyed. After reconstruction, Rotterdam was given a moderncity 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 1985city-centre plan was set up to create a compact city in which people could work


518

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

64.2

31.1

73.6

] at

20:

35 2

0 Ju

ne 2

013

and live. The plan triggered a number of changes in public space, but these provedto be inadequate. In 1993 a new plan was presented. The aims included theimprovement of the quality of the city centre and a coherent management of publicspace (Municipality of Rotterdam, 1993). The focus on public space was acondition for creating a city centre that showcased Rotterdam as an internationalcentre 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 finished, the train station and the Museumpark areas are stillexcavated building sites. The municipality continuous to formulate redevelopmentplans. Its most recent city-centre plan (2008–2020) describes the aim to create acity lounge: a city centre that functions as a place for inhabitants, companies, andvisitors to meet, spend time, and be entertained (Municipality of Rotterdam, 2008).The ambitions are to offer more culture, leisure, and shopping opportunities in thecity, as well as reviving street life and connecting neighbourhoods by means ofwell-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 foreconomic development in the city (Municipality of Rotterdam, 2008). Public spaceis seen as an important aspect of urban renewal rather than its by-product orclosing entry. Nevertheless, the upgrading of public space in Rotterdam is nearlyalways combined with real-estate development, which can be explained by thepresence of the private sector in the redevelopment process. Research has shownthat real estate—notably retail—is a vital precondition for the involvement of theDutch private sector in the redevelopment of public space (van Melik, 2008).Beurstraverse exemplifies this trend.

Beurstraverse

Rotterdam has been a pioneer in involving the private sector in the upgrading of itscity centre. Uniquely, the local government not only cooperates with the privatesector in redevelopment projects, but also actively participates as a private actor.The redevelopment of Beurstraverse is an example of a far-reaching cooperationbetween the local government and private parties including ING bank and Focas, apension fund of the Dutch retail conglomerate C&A. This project, which openedin 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 spacedivided among 95 shops, as well as 450 parking spaces and 106 apartments. Costs,revenues, risks, and authority are shared amongst the local government and theprivate parties. The daily maintenance and supervision is contracted out to Actys, aprivate 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 thedeveloper Multi. They considered that the entire neighbourhood neededupgrading, turning the reconstruction of a single building into a largeredevelopment project. The local government soon became interested in the


519

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

64.2

31.1

73.6

] at

20:

35 2

0 Ju

ne 2

013

plans, acknowledging that strengthening the city centre’s retail function wasnecessary in the competition with other cities and peripheral shopping centres. Thelocal authority subsequently took the lead in setting up the public–privateconsortium. A local-authority representative explained the underlying rationale:

We wanted to safeguard the level of ambition. We could have sold theland . . . , and then we would have earned money. But instead wethought: we might as well stay in the project for some length of time. Itis such a crucial place in the city.

The risk that a private party would barter away this important part of the citycentre was unacceptably high: ‘Thus, the argument ran, the city would have toplay an important and permanent role in this project; only then could the area’senvisioned contribution to the revitalization of the downtown commercial centrebe safeguarded . . .’ (Bergenhenegouwen & Van Weesep, 2003, p. 81). Anadditional reason was the presence of a metro station in Beurstraverse. The localauthority wanted to ensure that the metro (a public good) would remain accessiblefor everybody.The main motive of the private parties’ involvement in the consortium was

financial. According to the developer, the creation of a well-functioning publicspace is essential for the performance of the surrounding retail businesses: ‘Peoplewould rather live, work or shop on a good street or nice square than on a miserable

FIGURE 1. Beurstraverse, Rotterdam.


520

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

64.2

31.1

73.6

] at

20:

35 2

0 Ju

ne 2

013

street or wretched square’. Public space of good quality thus facilitates the sale orlease of the developed property. Consequently, the private sector is willing toinvest 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 difficultiesgenerating money from the market. However, when property develop-ment occurs, there’s 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 inthe redevelopment of public space when the total project involves new (preferablyretail) constructions rather than the mere beautification of public space. Thisattitude leads also to a potential downside: the involvement of the private sector atone location and its absence at another might lead to a differentiation of qualitybetween urban spaces in terms of investment. This differentiation did not occur inRotterdam, because the redevelopment was not limited to Beurstraverse, butformed part of the 1993 urban-regeneration strategy to improve the entire citycentre.Another risk of private-sector involvement is access restriction (Kohn, 2004;

Low & Smith, 2006). The Beurstraverse consortium subjects users to tightrestrictions: no alcoholic beverages, no street vendors, no bicycles, no loitering,and so forth. At the entrances the rules are clearly displayed; they can be enforcedby the numerous cameras and private security guards in place. In contrast, most ofthe adjacent area is entirely in the public domain, so it is operated and maintainedby municipal services. However, the responsible cabinet member refuted the ideathat these differences in rules and regulations are problematic:

If you ask what an average person from Rotterdam thinks aboutBeurstraverse, the answer will be that it is fantastic. I believe that youhave to look very hard to find anyone who feels controlled or whosefreedom of action is restricted in that area.

Interestingly, he focuses on the people that are present and are not excluded by themeasures discussed above rather than those that are absent. From this point ofview, the redevelopment of Beurstraverse is a success. Many people visit itfrequently and feel that the passage is intimate, clean, and inviting. Visitorsperceive Beurstraverse as a typical type of space found in Rotterdam. The localauthority is currently in the process of developing another Koopgoot close toBeurstraverse. Koopgoot II will combine retail with housing and offices; itsground floor will be publicly accessible. Despite the current economic crisis, thedevelopment plans have not been cancelled or delayed; the projected finish date is2013. However, some slight alterations have been made to the design andfunctions, placing a greater emphasis on housing and less on office space. The planserves part of the local authority’s aim to create a VIP area near Beurstraversewith a good mix of retail, culture, housing and offices, and with public spaces ofhigh quality (Municipality of Rotterdam, 2010).


521

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

64.2

31.1

73.6

] at

20:

35 2

0 Ju

ne 2

013

Overall, the case of Beurstraverse illustrates the extent to which theMunicipality of Rotterdam has actively embraced entrepreneurial forms ofinteraction with the private sector in its urban-regeneration strategies. According toMcCarthy (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 acatalyst for development . . .’ He regards this approach as municipal leadership,illustrated by the local authority’s role to set out detailed criteria for development,invest in accessibility and infrastructure, and—if necessary—canvas the local eliteto subvert potential protest (McCarthy, 1998). The Beurstraverse also illustrateshow public space is seen as an important element in urban-renewal strategies byboth the public and private sectors. Although public–private cooperation has beenbeneficial in some regards (increasing the budget for public-space design, forexample), there is also a risk of increased regulation and differentiation in thequality of public spaces (van Melik et al., 2009).

Dublin

Since the late 1980s, Dublin has undergone significant transformation. High levelsof economic growth throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s, combined with ashift from managerial to entrepreneurial forms of urban governance and theattendant tax-driven regeneration programmes, have resulted in a markedtransformation of the physical and social structures of Dublin’s city centre(McGuirk & MacLaran, 2001; Punch, 2001; MacLaran & Williams, 2003).Examples include the regeneration of much of the docklands area to become apost-industrial financial services and residential district (Moore, 2008) along withthe creation of the Temple Bar area as a Cultural Quarter in the early 1990s(Montgomery, 2003).To a large extent, the transformation of Dublin’s public realm is directly

influenced by what may be referred to as the European city model (McNeill,1999). While the first phases of development in the Irish Financial Services Centrein the Docklands were influenced by the North American docklands or festivalstyle of development, the transformation of Temple Bar and, later, the secondphase of the Irish Financial Services Centre were directly influenced byarchitectural and design philosophies associated with a more European traditionof urban space (Lawton, 2009), thus paralleling the interest in the European modelof public space then being pursued in the UK through the Urban Renaissanceagenda (Atkinson, 2003). This tradition includes an emphasis on pedestrian-oriented public space, mixed-use urban areas, and renewed interest in the historiccity (Molnar, 2010).In contrast, the management and control of these public areas in Dublin have

been more influenced by a North American model where private forces have takenon an important role in the development and management of public space (Zukin,1995; Mitchell, 2003). For example, the main public spaces within Temple Bar arecontrolled and managed by the Temple Bar Cultural Trust, a quasi-private body.Furthermore, the establishment of the Dublin Docklands Development Authorityhas resulted in large parts of the docklands area becoming controlled by private


522

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

64.2

31.1

73.6

] at

20:

35 2

0 Ju

ne 2

013

management companies. The influence of such approaches on the redevelopmentof public space has had a significant impact on other high-profile publicregeneration projects in Dublin. The transformation of Dublin’s O’Connell Streetis a noteworthy example of such an approach.

O’Connell Street

O’Connell Street is widely renowned as both the commercial and symbolic centreof Dublin (Whelan, 2003). Although originally developed in the 18th century as aresidential street, it has become a wide boulevard dominated by commercial uses.In the 1980s O’Connell Street became a focal point of negative media attentionregarding the physical and social decline of Dublin’s city centre. Throughout thesecond half of the 1990s, Dublin Corporation (renamed Dublin City Council in2001) began to seek ways of altering the image of the street and its surroundingarea. This search involved looking towards a European model of public space, bydrawing 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 ofthe increased attention paid to international competition between European cities.While desiring to create a more comfortable pedestrian environment, the broadersignificance of the street’s transformation was expressed by a representative of theDublin City Council’s Planning Department as follows:

As part of regenerating the city it was considered absolutely essential toregenerate the public realm. You couldn’t take one away from the other.And we wanted Dublin to become a competitive European city . . . [sowe] had to create a public realm of European quality.

The transformation of the street was implemented through the O’Connell StreetIntegrated Area Plan (IAP) (Dublin Corporation, 1998). The physical dimensionsof the IAP involved altering the layout of the street by widening the pavements,installing standardized street furniture, and planting new trees in a uniformalignment. The plan also proposed the construction of a new monument to beplaced at the centre of the street on the axis with the adjoining North Earl Streetand Henry Street. This transformation was carried out through the launch of aninternational design competition by Dublin Corporation and the Royal Institute ofArchitects in Ireland. As summarized in the competition brief, ‘the monumentshould be a new symbol and image of Dublin for the 21st century (such as theEiffel Tower is for Paris and the Statue of Liberty is for New York) . . .’ (DublinCorporation, 1998, p. 4). Thus, the new monument was destined to become adistinguishing feature in re-positioning Dublin in the pecking order ofinternational urban competitiveness. Ian Ritchie Architects’ winning design wascompleted in 2003; it is a 120-metre tapering metal spire called the ‘Spire ofDublin’. As originally intended, it has been used as a symbol in the marketing ofDublin.Throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s, the regeneration of O’Connell Street

was aimed at transforming the use-culture of the street, which was directly


523

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

64.2

31.1

73.6

] at

20:

35 2

0 Ju

ne 2

013

associated with its prevailing land use. The alterations to the physical appearanceof the space were therefore seen to be a driver of its social transformation towardshigher-end consumption-orientated uses. As previously discussed by Lawton(2010), in an effort to achieve this ambition, the street and its surroundings weredesignated as an Architectural Conservation Area and, directly connected to this, aScheme of Special Planning Control (SSPC) (Dublin City Council, 2003). Aplanner working with Dublin City Council summarized the strategy:

Part of the strategy, part of the thinking, was that by raising the bar interms of environment and design for what the City Council had controlof—which is the public domain, the street, the streetscape, the planting,the lighting—that the quality of the businesses would follow. So wedon’t have the power to kick someone out of a business, or to change abusiness, or to tell them to change, as a City Council, or as a PlanningAuthority. We do have the power to direct the planning intentions in acertain way. So the Architectural Conservation Area and the Area ofSpecial Planning Control are two tools to direct the planning in a certainway.

Such measures are therefore used as a means of enticing the private sector to investin the street, and thereby respond and add to the newly-created image. The outlineof the SSPC was to introduce ‘higher-order retail outlets’ on the ground flooralong with ‘lifestyle’, ‘flagship stores’, and ‘niche retailers’, which includedbookshops, jewellery, and camera shops. The promotion of cafes, restaurants, andbars instead of outlets such as fast food or other forms of convenience food furthercomplements this desired land use. Policy has therefore been orientated towardsthe 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 toredevelop the area occupied by the former Carlton cinema (a large area of 2.17hectares on the north-west side of O’Connell Street) into a mixed-use developmentcomprising retail, commercial, residential, and recreational uses (DublinCorporation, 1998). According to the planning department of Dublin CityCouncil, the construction of this project was to have a direct impact on the rest ofO’Connell Street in that it would provide a new focus on the street and attractfurther investment. As discussed in Lawton (2010), the logic for Dublin CityCouncil 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 attractionof other new ‘higher-order’ uses (including cafes and restaurants spilling out ontothe pavement). Two particular issues arise. First, the degree to which there is aconnection between ‘more desired’ land uses and their ability to pay higher rents isperhaps over-emphasized, and the ability of ‘undesirable’ land uses to pay higherrents seems to be underestimated. Second, and more importantly, such logicreflects the assumption that prevailed in Ireland throughout the years of theeconomic boom; namely that rents and land values would continue to rise. Indeed,such logic was reinforced by the existence of upwards-only rent reviews, whichhave recently been banned from new lease agreements in Ireland. The current


524

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

64.2

31.1

73.6

] at

20:

35 2

0 Ju

ne 2

013

economic crisis in Ireland exemplifies the limitations of over-reliance on themarket 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 directlyrelated to an ideology of transforming the social dimensions of public space. Theimplicit logic of the change of land use is that newly-promoted activities lead to aform of consumption that is deemed more acceptable to, and befitting, the physicalimage of the street. However, whereas in the Rotterdam case the municipality hashad a direct involvement with the redevelopment of the commercial elements ofBeurstraverse as a part shareholder in the land, in the Dublin example the CityCouncil’s role was that of facilitator. The street itself remained under publicmanagement and control. This situation is indicative of the degree to which theimplementation of entrepreneurial planning mechanisms are dictated by factorsthat are specific to particular places (Townshend & Madanipour, 2008). Moreover,in contrast to the Rotterdam example, mechanisms associated with theprivatization of public space (Zukin, 1995; Mitchell, 2003) in this example arerelated primarily to increased interest from private parties in the management andcontrol of what is still maintained as public space, along with the willingness ofpublic bodies to cede such duties to private interests. These roles are highlightedby 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 toissues related to safety in public space (Helms, 2008), as was also the case inRotterdam’s Beurstraverse. The increased attention to such factors was outlined bya representative of the architects division in Dublin City Council as follows:

Now you have created spaces, you have created expectation and youcan’t let them deteriorate. Then it backfires on you, somebody says theywent to Dublin, walked on the boardwalk, ‘everybody shooting up, allsorts of drugs problems, I saw one young woman being raped and therewas sick all over the place.’ Now you have just cut your own throat, youwere better off without it, so you have to follow through; you know youmust maintain it.

While the desire to promote more upmarket forms of consumption in the citycentre has been severely impacted by the current economic crisis, the emphasis onthe promotion of clean and highly-regulated city-centre spaces has continuedapace. In line with a desire to maintain the image of public space, the Irishgovernment introduced legislation (Department of Environment and LocalGovernment, 2006) that allowed for the provision of BIDs. The introduction ofthe BID legislation has been influenced by global circuits of knowledge, in theform of policy transfer (McCann & Ward, 2010), along with the local desires ofthe business community and the City Council to regulate the public domain in thecity centre.In January 2008, the area encompassing much of the central retail core of

Dublin, including O’Connell Street, was formally established as a BID through thecreation of the Dublin City Centre Bid Company (2007). In line with recent


525

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

64.2

31.1

73.6

] at

20:

35 2

0 Ju

ne 2

013

thinking in the City Council, as outlined above, the BID has included an increasedlevel of cleaning, the introduction of Street Ambassadors, and the removal ofgraffiti from the city centre through a zero tolerance approach. The role of theStreet Ambassadors is to monitor issues of personal safety and crime prevention,through interaction with the Irish police force, the Garda Sıochana.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),

FIGURE 2. O’Connell Street, Dublin.


526

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

64.2

31.1

73.6

] at

20:

35 2

0 Ju

ne 2

013

making it illegal to beg within a certain distance of shop entrances, was activelysupported by Dublin City Council and the Dublin City BID Company (DublinCity Council, 2010). Indeed, to a certain extent, such bodies perceive theelimination of activities such as begging as a key element in the economicrecovery of the central retail area of Dublin (Dublin City Council, 2010). Thus, theDublin example fits in with the desire to create the ‘clean and safe’ public spacesthat 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 ofRotterdam and Dublin as entrepreneurial cities. Between the early 1990s and late2000s, both cities have undergone significant alterations to their city centres, inways which resemble the enhancement of aims and ambitions in public-spaceredevelopment observed in the UK (Lees, 2003; Urban Taskforce, 2005). Variousbodies in Rotterdam and Dublin have not only acknowledged the importance ofpublic space, but also acted on this notion by regarding the redevelopment ofpublic space as an essential part of their urban-renewal strategy rather thanperforming a secondary or supporting role. Importantly, when taken incombination, the case studies have pointed to the importance of understandinglocal specificities (Peck & Theodore, 2010; McCann, 2011) in examining bothentrepreneurial modes of planning and public space. While the paper hasillustrated the direct connections between the redevelopment of urban publicspace, private interests, and city promotion, the local specificities of each spacehave 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 promotingcommercial investment. By drawing on the example of Beurstraverse, we showedhow local authorities have teamed up with private actors such as the ING bank inthe redevelopment of public space. However, the example of Rotterdam isexceptional in the Netherlands. Previous research in other Dutch cities (includingAmsterdam, Dordrecht, Enschede, and ’s-Hertogenbosch) shows that the privatesector plays a more limited role in redevelopment processes elsewhere: thedevelopment and management of public space remains the domain of the publicsector (Lawton, 2009; van Melik et al., 2009). The Dutch spatial planning traditionattaches a central role to the (national) government (Priemus, 2002). Needham(2006) confirms that Dutch authorities rarely structure the voluntary interactionbetween private parties. Instead they prefer to regulate or stimulate the market,even taking the initiative themselves if the private sector does not initiate thedesired action.Unlike the Dutch example, where there was a direct involvement in the physical

redevelopment of commercial space by the municipality, the example ofO’Connell Street showed how investment in the public realm was used in anattempt to entice further investment from private sources. Pointedly, this caseillustrates the shortcomings of focusing the regeneration of public space upon the


527

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

64.2

31.1

73.6

] at

20:

35 2

0 Ju

ne 2

013

attraction of further investment in the surrounding area. While the public havegained an upgraded street, and a more comfortable space in which to walk, otherexternalities were perhaps more dominant in dictating the reality and pace ofprivate investment in the street. Future research might therefore examineopportunities offered by forms of investment within the public domain that arenot focused on the fragility of property investment and the whole-sale alteration ofthe 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 publicspace. Again, each of the case studies has illustrated the importance of localcontext in examining questions about the nature of public space and its connectionto entrepreneurial modes of urban planning. On the one hand, the O’Connell Streetexample has illustrated the increased involvement of private forms of managementand control within public space, thus leading to questions of who has the right todictate what is tolerated within city-centre environments. Moreover, the exampleof Beurstraverse illustrates how, although developed with a considerable inputfrom the local authority, the resultant space became strictly controlled akin to aprivate space. While we have not been able to examine the impact of these factorson everyday public usage in any great detail, it is still posited that the over-extension of and reliance on the private sector in the development of public urbanspace raises questions for urban policy-makers and practitioners alike about therole of public space within the planning and development of cities. Followingauthors such as Helms (2008) and Mitchell (2003), future work might thereforeconcentrate on the specific impacts of such policies on the accessibility ofredeveloped public space for different social groups.

ReferencesAtkinson, 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. 1829–1843.Barber, A. & Hall, S. (2008) Birmingham: Whose urban renaissance? Regeneration as a response to economic

restructuring, Policy Studies, 29(3), pp. 281–292.Bergenhenegouwen, G. & Van Weesep, J. (2003) Manipulated space: The Beurstraverse retail complex in

Rotterdam, Belgeo, 3(1), pp. 79–86.Brenner, N. & Theodore, N. (2002) Cities and geographies of actually existing neoliberalism, Antipode, 34(3),

pp. 349–379.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 Office).De Magalhaes, C. & Carmona, M. (2006) Innovations in the management of public space: Reshaping and

refocusing governance, Planning Theory & Practice, 7(3), pp. 289–303.Dublin City Centre BID Company (2007) Dublin City Centre BID Proposal (Dublin: Dublin City Centre BID

Company).Dublin City Council (2003) O’Connell 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/HurryUpWithNewLawtoPreventBeggingontheStreetsofTheCapital.aspx (accessed 4 November 2010).


528

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

64.2

31.1

73.6

] at

20:

35 2

0 Ju

ne 2

013

Dublin Corporation (1998) O’Connell 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. 19–47.Government of Ireland (2011) Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 2011 (Dublin: Government of Ireland

Stationary Office).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, Geografiska Annaler, 41(1), pp. 3–17.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 Government–Society 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. 61–82(Bristol: Policy Press).

Listerborn, C. (2005) How public can public spaces be? City, 9(3), pp. 381–388.Lofland, 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. 81–104 (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. 148–171 (London: Arnold).MacLeod, G. (2002) From urban entrepreneurialism to a ‘revanchist city’? On the spatial injustices of Glasgow’s

Renaissance, Antipode, 34(3), pp. 602–624.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. 107–130.McCann, E. & Ward, K. (2010) Relationality/territoriality: Toward a conceptualization of cities in the world,

Geoforum, 41(2), pp. 175–184.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. 438–457.McNeill, D. (1999) Urban Change and the European Left: Tales from the New Barcelona (London: Routledge).Mitchell, D. (1995) The end of public space? People’s park, definitions of the public, and democracy, Annals of

the Association of American Geographers, 85(1), pp. 108–133.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. 281–309.Montgomery, J. (2003) Cultural quarters as mechanisms for urban regeneration (Part 1: Conceptualising cultural

quarters), Planning Practice & Research, 18(4), pp. 293–306.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

1993–2000 (Rotterdam: Municipality of Rotterdam).Municipality of Rotterdam (2008) Binnenstad als city lounge: binnenstadsplan Rotterdam 2008–2020

(Rotterdam: Municipality of Rotterdam).


529

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

64.2

31.1

73.6

] at

20:

35 2

0 Ju

ne 2

013

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 Frenchurban regeneration: The experience of the Paris region, Urban Studies, 43(9), pp. 1511–1535.

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) Public–private partnerships for spatio-economic investments: A changing spatial planning

approach in the Netherlands, Planning Practice & Research, 14(2), pp. 197–230.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. 38–51 (Dublin: Centre for Urban and RegionalStudies Trinity College Dublin).

Punter, J. V. (1990) The privatisation of the public realm, Planning Practice & Research, 5(3), pp. 8–16.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. 1869–1887.Rhodes, R. (1996) The new governance: Governing without government, Political Studies, 44(4), pp. 652–667.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. 317–328.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. 202–209.Ward, K. (2003) Entrepreneurial urbanism, state restructuring, and civilizing ‘New’ East Manchester, Area, 35(2),

pp. 116–127.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. 31–53(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).


530

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

64.2

31.1

73.6

] at

20:

35 2

0 Ju

ne 2

013

http://www.rotterdam.nl/Tekst_VIP_gebied_03

http://www.rotterdam.nl/Tekst_VIP_gebied_03

Documents

The Role of Public Space in Urban LIfe