Private Sector-led Urban Development Projects

04 2012 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects Management, Partnershps & Effects n the Netherlands and the UK Erwn Heurkens

Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects Management, Partnershps & Effects n the Netherlands and the UK E.W.T.M. Heurkens Delft Unversty of Technology, Faculty of Archtecture, Department of Real Estate & Housng

Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects Management, Partnershps & Effects n the Netherlands and the UK Proefschrft ter verkrjgng van de graad van doctor aan de Technsche Unverstet Delft, op gezag van de Rector Magnfcus prof. r. K.C.A.M. Luyben, voorztter van het College voor Promotes, n het openbaar te verdedgen op dnsdag 2 oktober 2012 om 12.30 uur door Erwn Wlhelmus Theodurus Martnus HEURKENS bouwkundg ngeneur geboren te Oss

Dt proefschrft s goedgekeurd door de promotor en copromotor: Prof. r. H. de Jonge Mr. dr. F.A.M. Hobma Samenstellng promotecommsse: Rector Magnfcus, Voorztter Prof. r. H. de Jonge, Technsche Unverstet Delft, promotor Mr. dr. F.A.M. Hobma, Technsche Unverstet Delft, copromotor Prof. V. Nadn, Technsche Unverstet Delft Prof. dr. D. Adams, Unversty of Glasgow Prof. dr. r. L. Boelens, Unverstet Utrecht Prof. dr. E. van der Krabben, Radboud Unverstet Njmegen Prof. dr. M.J.W. van Twst, Erasmus Unverstet Rotterdam Prof. mr. W.T.C.F. de Zeeuw, Technsche Unverstet Delft, reserveld abe.tudelft.nl Ontwerp: Srene Ontwerpers, Rotterdam ISBN 978-1479198993 ISSN 2212-3202 2012 Erwn Heurkens

Ge moet ne zo veul leren, straks wtte alles My grandma, a nature lover

Contents (concse) Preface 9 1 Introducton 21 2 Theores 45 3 Methodology 111 4 Urban Development n the Netherlands 131 5 Cases n the Netherlands 161 6 Urban Development n the UK 229 7 Cases n the UK 259 8 Emprcal Lessons & Implcatons 335 9 Concluson 365 10 Eplogue 369 7 Contents (concse)

8 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Preface Ths research has been qute an adventurous journey. Four years of dedcaton to a sngle subject felt smultaneously lke a drudge and dscovery, wth moment of doubts and Eurekas. I developed myself both academcally and personally, often nter-locked n a process cycle of self-mposed deadlnes and followng holdays. Some had the mpresson that I was always travellng and often asked when I was ready. Indeed, ths research has brought me both the ndescrbable freedom to explore, to thnk, to nterpret, and to learn. However, t also often resulted n a restless state of mnd, as thngs were never fnshed n my head. For myself, I dscovered what was really needed to succeed wth such a project: determnaton, lots of curosty, some structure, and most of all relatvsm. It s not that you are gong to change the world wth a sngle book. At the end of ths journey, I can say that I defntely recommend others to go walkabout. Start a PhD journey, but be aware of gettng lost. In retrospect, t has been as much as an academc quest as a lfe-changng personal experence. My academc lfe has been made much easer wth the help and support of some of my fnest colleagues. I would lke to thank the Department of Real Estate & Housng and Hans Wamelnk n partcular, for the opportunty, trust, and fnancal means gven to me to carry out ths PhD research n the frst place. Especally, I would lke to menton the postve cooperaton and relatonshp wth my supervsory team. My promoter Hans de Jonge nspred and challenged me to go the extra mle, to ask the queston behnd the queston, to reflect on my fndngs wth occurrng trends n practce. He gave me the absolute freedom to dscover the heart of the subject myself, wth my own lens, whch s a great good. My daly supervsor Fred Hobma guded me through the process by makng me feel that I always had someone researchng along. He commented on all my draft versons throughout the years wth ncredble eye for detal, sharp as a knfe, realstc when needed. Thank you both for your optmstc atttudes and our numerous postve dscussons. Also, other colleagues have been of tremendous support over the last years. Ineke Brul, Peter Paul van Loon and Wout van der Toorn Vrjthoff; thank you for ntroducng me to scence, for teachng me what t takes to be an academc, and for gvng me necessary advce. I would lke to thank Tom Daamen, Graham Squres, and Vncent Nadn for ther reflectons on, and conversatons about my work. Also, Esra, Phlp, Jelle and Monque, I really enjoyed our personal chats over smooth cappucnos whch eased my mnd. And last but not least, Laura, I really enjoyed our daly talks about all sorts of thngs; you have been such a supportve frend n many ways. Of course, ths research would not have been conducted wthout the enthusastc cooperaton of and valuable professonal knowledge from all the Dutch, UK and US ntervewed practtoners whose names can be found n the Appendx. Thank you for your wllngness to share your project experences. Wthout your effort ths dssertaton would not have been as rch wth emprcal materal as t s. My research companons n the Dutch case studes, Rck Gjzen and Bastaan Peek, I value our enthusastc reflectons on the ntervews we conducted for our parallel research projects. 9 Preface

My warm thanks go to my colleagues at the Unversty of the West of England, Janet Askew, Chrstne Lambert, Mcheal Short, and Nck Smth. Thank you for hostng me at your department, and for gvng me the opportunty to study my UK cases. Also, my acknowledgements go to my PhD defence commsson members, whose detaled and constructve comments proved to be very helpful for further mprovng ths book. As ths research manly was a sole undertakng, I felt the urge to work together on other projects than my own. My grattude goes to the Master Cty Developer colleagues who had to endure my absence once n a whle. Therefore, I would lke to thank Geurt, Tom, Peter, Jeroen, Jeroen, Eva, and Marles, for ther nterest n my research and my well-beng. Moreover, I have ntensely enjoyed collaboratng wth some graduaton students durng my research. It s often underestmated how much nspraton and new nsghts come from young enthusastc people who are wllng to explore new drectons n our feld. Sjoerd Louwaars, Sandra Straub, Merel Putman, Judth Wcherson, Ra van Djk and Huub van der Post; I really enjoyed us exchangng so many deas. My valuable socal lfe suffered at some occasons, but n the end I found the balance to not become a hermt for a number of reasons. Maybe t s a lttle unusual to hghlght my lesure actvtes, but I mmensely value the postve effects they had on my mnd state. Wthout beng aware of t I followed my grandma s wsdom by enjoyng nature. I found dstractons to break away from my often over-loaded bran and came to realze that t s the beauty and soltude of hkng through mountan landscapes that provded me the natural room for reflecton and the energy to contnue workng on my research. Many thanks go to Interpol, Björk, Edtors, the Natonal, Customs, Jamroqua, Queen, Bløf, and the Boss for ther soundscape that repeatedly put me n my wrtng trance. Of course, my closest frends have seen me walk my sometmes bumpy road. As you know how much I value your company, I often struggled to gve work prorty over meetng you at some moments. Stjn, Susse, Jaap, Maarten, Maarten, Jeroen, Rute, Peter, Remco, Janne, Iljoesja, Marska, Govert, Meke, Jaap, and Petra, thanks for your nterest n my well-beng and work, and the great tmes we keep sharng together. And, Wetske and Yvette, thanks for your patence durng my seemngly endless trp and my nocturnal nsomna moments. My deepest apprecaton goes to the ones close to me. Sweet Katja, your sncere nterest, encouragements, enthusasm, care and love, gves me confdence and the confrmaton that what I do matters. I chersh the day you walked nto my lfe, that we found each other, and I look forward to share our lves together. Smone and Frank, Wouter and Sandra, I am prvleged to have you as my sster, brother, and aanhang. In both good and bad tmes you were there to show me the relatvty of t all, as you taught me some true lfe lessons. And of course, pap en mam, ths book would not have been here wthout you. You gave me the opportunty to explore lfe as I pleased, to go to unversty whle no one n your famles had ever done ths before. Your shared values of beng true to yourself, to pursue your own destny, to work hard, and to be good to others n lfe, helped me to become the person I am. Your amazement about what I do, encouragements and uncondtonal care, are a great stmulus for me. Thank you for provdng me the tranqul place to fnalze crucal parts of ths book at a tme I needed t the most. I dedcate ths book to you. Erwn Heurkens Rotterdam, August 2012 10 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

11 Preface To my parents

12 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Contents (extensve) 1 Introducton 21 1.1 Problem Defnton 22 1.2 Research Motves 23 1.2.1 Changng State-Market Relatons n Dutch Socety 23 1.2.2 Prvate Influences n Urban Plannng & Development 26 1.2.3 EU s Neolberal-orented Publc-Prvate Partnershp Legslaton 29 1.2.4 Dffcult Experences wth Jont Venture Partnershps 30 1.2.5 Economc Crss & Fnancal Consequences for Actors 33 1.3 Research Objectves 37 1.4 Central Research Queston 38 1.5 Structure of the Book 39 PART 1 Concepts 2 Theores 45 2.1 Introducton 45 2.2 Postonng the Research 46 2.2.1 Urban Development Projects 46 2.2.2 Management, Influencng & Steerng 48 2.2.3 Conceptual Integratve Urban Management Model 52 2.2.4 Conceptualzng Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects 57 2.3 Context of Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects 63 2.3.1 Economy & Poltcs: The Anglo-Saxon Model & Neolberalsm 63 2.3.2 Urban Governance: State-Market Relatons 73 13 Contents (extensve)

2.3.3 Plannng Systems & Polces 77 2.4 Organzaton of Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects 89 2.4.1 Publc-Prvate Relatonshps 89 2.4.2 Publc-Prvate Partnershps 94 2.4.3 Insttutonal Aspects & Inter-organzatonal Arrangements 96 2.5 Management of Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects 99 2.5.1 Competng Urban Management Concepts 99 2.5.2 Project Management Actvtes 103 2.5.3 Process Management Actvtes 103 2.5.4 Management Tools 103 2.5.5 Management Resources 104 2.5.6 Conceptual Publc-Prvate Urban Management Model 104 2.6 Effects of Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects 107 2.6.1 Effectveness 107 2.6.2 Effcency 108 2.6.3 Spatal Qualty 108 2.7 Conclusons 110 3 Methodology 111 3.1 Introducton 111 3.2 Methodologcal Framework 112 3.3 Phlosophy: Systems Thnkng & Approach 116 3.4 Concept: Analytcal Case Study Model 117 3.5 Methods: Case Studes & Lesson-Drawng 119 3.5.1 Crtcal Issues n Case Study Research 119 3.5.2 Crucal Methodologcal Choces for ths Research 120 3.6 Technques 125 3.7 Conclusons 127 14 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

PART 2 Practces 4 Urban Development n the Netherlands 131 4.1 Context of Dutch Urban Development 131 4.1.1 The Anglo-Saxon Western Wnd 131 4.1.2 Urban Plannng System 133 4.1.3 Urban Area Development 137 4.1.4 Changes n Dutch Urban Area Development snce 2010 138 4.2 Organzaton of Dutch Urban Development 141 4.2.1 Role of the Publc Sector 141 4.2.2 Role of the Prvate Sector 144 4.2.3 Publc-Prvate Relatonshp & Partnershps 148 4.2.4 Concessons: Dutch Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Form 154 4.3 Conclusons 159 5 Cases n the Netherlands 161 5.1 Case Study Framework 161 5.2 Amsterdam, Park de Meer 164 5.3 Den Haag, Ypenburg Deelplan 20 168 5.4 Enschede, De Laares 173 5.5 Maasslus, Het Balkon 178 5.6 Mddelburg, Mortere 182 5.7 Naaldwjk, Woerdblok 187 5.8 Rotterdam, Neuw Crooswjk 192 5.9 Tlburg, Wagnerplen 197 15 Contents (extensve)

5.10 Utrecht, De Woerd 201 5.11 Velsen, Oud-IJmuden 205 5.12 Cross Case Analyss 210 5.12.1 Organzaton 210 5.12.2 Management 215 5.12.3 Effects 219 5.12.4 Experences 222 5.13 Conclusons 227 6 Urban Development n the UK 229 6.1 Introducton 229 6.2 Context of UK s Urban Development 230 6.2.1 Urban Plannng System 230 6.2.2 Urban Regeneraton 233 6.2.3 Entrepreneural Regeneraton n the 1980s 235 6.2.4 New Labour Regeneraton snce the Late 1990s 239 6.3 Organzaton of UK s Urban Development 242 6.3.1 Role of the Publc Sector 242 6.3.2 Role of the Prvate Sector 248 6.3.3 Publc-Prvate Relatonshp & Partnershps 252 6.4 Conclusons 257 7 Cases n the UK 259 7.1 Case Study Framework 259 7.2 Brstol Harboursde 262 7.2.1 Context 263 7.2.2 Plannng & Development Process 266 7.2.3 Organzaton 279 7.2.4 Management 282 7.2.5 Effects 286 16 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

7.2.6 Experences 288 7.2.7 Conclusons 290 7.3 Lverpool One 290 7.3.1 Context 292 7.3.2 Plannng & Development Process 294 7.3.3 Organzaton 307 7.3.4 Management 310 7.3.5 Effects 314 7.3.6 Experences 316 7.4 Cross Case Analyss 319 7.4.1 Context 319 7.4.2 Organzaton 321 7.4.3 Management 322 7.4.4 Effects 326 7.4.5 Experences 328 7.5 Conclusons 330 PART 3 Synthess 8 Emprcal Lessons & Implcatons 335 8.1 Introducton 335 8.2 Lessons from Dutch & UK Prvate Sector-led Cases 336 8.2.1 Dutch Issues & UK Solutons 337 8.2.2 Dutch Recommendatons & UK Support 344 8.3 Inspraton from UK Prvate Sector-led Cases 349 8.3.1 Inspratonal Lessons from the UK for the Netherlands 349 8.3.2 Context-dependent & Context-ndependent Lessons 356 8.4 Conclusons 362 17 Contents (extensve)

9 Concluson 363 9.1 Answerng the Research Queston 363 9.2 Usefulness of Concepts for Emprcal Cases 364 9.3 Recommendatons for Further Research 366 10 Eplogue 369 10.1 Safeguardng Publc Interests 369 10.1.1 Defnng Publc Interests 370 10.1.2 Theoretcal Safeguardng Mechansms & Approaches 372 10.1.3 Publc Interests n Urban Plannng & Development 376 10.1.4 Safeguardng Strateges n Prvate Sector-led Urban Development 380 10.1.5 Safeguardng Instruments for Prvate Sector-led Urban Development 384 10.2 Alternatve Fnancng Instruments 386 10.2.1 Current Economc & Fnancal Realty 386 10.2.2 Promsng Alternatve Fnancng Instruments 388 10.2.3 Fnancng Instruments for Prvate Sector-led Urban Development 397 Summary 401 Samenvattng 413 Lst of Tables & Fgures 427 References 431 PART 4 Appendces A I Case References 451 A II Survey Spatal Qualty 459 A III Case USA - Seattle South Lake Unon 464 Currculum Vtae 479 Lst of Publcatons 480 18 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

19 Contents (extensve)

20 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

1 Introducton Ths PhD research has been carred out aganst the background of economc and socetal changes. In 2008, accordng to Florda (2010) the Western world entered nto the Great Recesson, a perod n whch global establshed economc systems reached ther pershable date. In order to follow a path to sustanable economc growth Florda pledges for a Great Reset. A reset that equals the structural system changes that took place n the aftermath of two prevous perods of global recessons; the Long Depresson (1873) and the Great Depresson (1929). Also, now we are n the mddle of an economc cyclcal change, but we entered a perod of structural changes to our daly lves. In North Amercan and European countres, decades of lmtless economc growth on based on everlastng consumer spendng has turned nto slower economc growth or even declne based on structural changed needs. Accordng to Robles- Duran (2011) currently two parallel urban practces n the Western world enfold; one that s based on neolberal top-down publc-prvate urban projects and one that focuses on local bottom-up multdscplnary urban collectves. In our opnon, as an academc researcher, the challenge s to understand these structural changng needs of socety and unfoldng practces and to contrbute knowledge to urban practces. However, ths contrbuton takes place wthn the lmted boundares of a PhD research. Therefore, ths research focuses on understandng and explorng the neolberal urban practce mentoned above. Furthermore, ths research focuses on our own specfc feld of expertse; urban development projects. Nevertheless, the challenge to contrbute valuable knowledge to the doman of urban development remans. The recesson has revealed that establshed ways of thnkng and actng n urban development practce are beng questoned. In partcular n the Netherlands, the academc and professonal doman of urban development has become subject to structural reflecton. Ths s what we would lke to call the doman change; the nature of the assgnment s somewhat dfferent from ts prevous perod. Ths doman change and other factors pose condtons on the roles of publc and prvate actors n urban development projects, whch s of partcular focus to our research. The second change therefore can be defned as the role change; local authortes and project developers are adaptng new ways of collaboraton n managng urban development projects. Ths ntroducton chapter bulds upon these mportant fundamental notons. It postons the research wthn the feld of urban development and provdes nsght nto the choces that have been made to make ths study researchable. Secton 1.1 sets out the problem ths research faces, whch relates to a management assgnment n contemporary urban development. Secton 1.2 elaborates on fve related arguments that form the basc reasons for carryng out ths research. These sectons provde opportuntes to defne the research objectve (Secton 1.3) and to pose the man research queston (Secton 1.4). Fnally, we relate the research desgn and thess structure nto a coherent scheme (Secton 1.5). 21 Introducton

1.1 Problem Defnton Central to ths research lays a management problem wthn urban (area) development projects n the Netherlands. Practsng professonals (Van de Klundert, 2008; Van Rooy, 2009) and academc scholars (De Zeeuw, 2007; Daamen, 2010; Van der Krabben, 2011a) argue that urban development n the Netherlands s characterzed by a growng sense of neffectveness and neffcency. It seems that establshed organzatonal, legal and fnancal arrangements used for urban projects no longer match shftng publc-prvate relatons and nteractons. Ths dscusson fts wthn several contemporary debates whch focus on new ways for publc and prvate actors to collaborate on, fnance and manage urban development projects. Several practcal debates, recent academc theses (e.g. Putman, 2010; Bakker, 2011; Dekker, 2011; Louwaars, 2011; Spakman, 2011; Wcherson, 2011; Trp, 2011) and publc opnon (e.g. Stronk, 2012), often nclude questons about new roles of publc, prvate and cvc nsttutons n realzng urban projects. Most research and debates focus on solutons related to organzatonal and legal arrangements between publc and prvate actors. In addton, our research ams at provdng nsght nto how these actors actually can manage or nfluence projects. Hence, n search of new publc-prvate relatons and roles t seems crucal to gan more nsght n the nsttutonal characterstcs and actor nteractons nvolved wth urban development projects. But, we are not nterested n provdng a theoretcal understandng of state-market relatons n urban plannng as a whole. Rather, ths research bulds on recommendatons set by Daamen (2010) who argues that t s crucal to research how the ntegraton of actvtes between nvolved actors takes place n practce. Thus, n ths research, the ntegraton of actvtes s vewed as a management assgnment, whch looks at opportuntes for local authortes and developers to nfluence the outcome of projects. Ths s n lne wth Van der Krabben s (2011a) suggeston that one of the mportant ssues n contemporary plannng research agenda s to provde answers to such manageral questons. In specfc, ths research s nterested n a leadng role for prvate actors and facltatng role for publc actors wthn urban development projects. A concept we descrbe as prvate sector-led urban development projects. Ths concept can be seen as the applcaton of more market-drven concepts n urban plannng, a trend that characterzes contemporary Dutch urban development practce. Behold, we do not neglect the ncreased role of cvc actors n projects, but rather vew ncorporatng ther nterests as a condton for publc and prvate actors to create sustanable developments. Thus, we are nterested n the knd of publc-prvate collaboraton and management that takes place wthn prvate sector-led urban development projects. Importantly, ths changed stuaton shfts the management perspectve of publcprvate collaboraton n urban development projects whch nvolves some crucal ssues. At frst, the new publc-prvate relatonshp rases concerns by publc actors about the possble lack of control (Dutch: rege ) over development projects. Furthermore, the stuaton rases questons about what s requred for prvate actors to manage projects more promnently, to handle new responsbltes, to carry out new tasks. Moreover, t s unclear how publc-prvate collaboraton and nteracton n prvate sector-led urban development projects actually takes shape n practce. Fnally, t s nterestng to study the project effects of such publc-prvate nteractons. These are problematc ssues the research tres to make sense of, amongst others. 22 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

The problem of ths research therefore s: There s lttle scentfc and practcal understandng about how publc and prvate actors collaborate on and manage prvate sector-led urban development projects and what the project effects of ther nteractons are. The followng secton sets out varous motves underlyng the research problem. These motves are derved from a wde varety of sources. It ncludes a study of academc and professonal lterature and provdes mportant arguments for conductng ths research. 1.2 Research Motves Foremost, the motves for conductng ths research are derved from a Dutch perspectve on urban development practce. However, some motves also relate to more nternatonally orented urban plannng and development ssues. The motves to a certan extent relate to each other, they are nterconnected on several levels of abstracton. But n essence they refer to changes n the Netherlands that have ultmately shfted the day to day relatonshp between publc and prvate actors n urban development projects. They provde condtons for the way local authortes and project developers can cooperate wthn projects. More mportantly, they affect the way urban development can be managed or nfluenced. To put t n other words, the changes have created a new realty whch poses new requrements for the roles of publc and prvate actors n these projects. The followng changes n fact can be seen as the major motves for conductng ths research, and are brefly descrbed below. In the followng sectons we brefly descrbe four man motves for conductng ths research on prvate sector-led urban development projects. 1.2.1 Changng State-Market Relatons n Dutch Socety The relatonshp between publc and prvate actors n Dutch urban development practce snce the 1980s, and partcularly snce the 2000s, has shfted fundamentally. Central to ths fundamental shft lays a dscusson about State-Market relatons on a socetal level. The former herarchcal relatonshp between the two has shfted to a more network-orented relatonshp (see Boelens, 2009; 2010). Vewed more bluntly, ths shft nvolves a decreasng role of the publc sector and an ncreasng role of the prvate (and cvc) sector n socetal decson-makng. Actually, ths shft fnds ts roots n fundamental developments wthn our Western socety. 23 Introducton

Neolberalzaton: The Anglo-Saxon Western wnd Such development can be postoned wthn the acceptance of more neolberal or Anglo-Saxon deologes throughout the European contnent, and subsequently Dutch socety and spatal plannng snce the 1980s. On the poltcal and economc level authors lke Albert (1998), Gddens (1998), Hall & Soskce (2001), Hackworth (2002) and Rfkn (2004) refer to two dfferent types of captalsm that exst n Western countres. These are the Anglo-Saxon model applcable to the USA, UK and Canada (and others), and the Rhneland model applcable to most Contnental European countres. These two deal type models exst wth dfferent nterpretatons of the roles of the State and the Market. In short, the Anglo-Saxon model consst of free market economes wth lmted government control and legslaton based upon Case Law, whle n the Rhneland model s emphass les on regulated market economes wth some sort of government control and legslaton based upon Cvc Law. Hence, n regard to ths research, we hghlght that the Anglo-Saxon deology nvolves a favorng role of the Market (or prvate sector) over the State (or publc sector) wthn socety. Nevertheless, the Netherlands s mostly rooted wthn the Rhneland model. But t has ncreasngly become under nfluence of the characterstcs from the Anglo-Saxon model (see also Heurkens, 2009). Ths, not n the last place, has been accelerated by the global nterconnectedness of economc and socal systems around the world. In poltcal respect, Dutch Rhneland values gradually are beng replaced by Anglo-Saxon ones. In the Netherlands, ths started wth structural government retrenchments and rounds of prvatzatons n the 1980 s (Van der Cammen & De Klerk, 2003). Also, on an organzatonal level Brouwer & Moerman (2005) and Godjk (2008) ndcate that there are obvous nfluences of Anglo-Saxon prncples n the Netherlands. Here, they argue that Anglo-Saxon thnkng s becomng more domnant. We see ths n government polces, n the way frms and ther managers thnk and act, and even n the content of current management courses (Bakker et al., 2005). Market-orented plannng In ths regard, De Jonge (2007) recognzed a fundamental shft of socetal values and power. He states that n the second half of the 20th century Dutch socety, as many other countres n the developed world, has grown towards a socety n whch on the one hand ndvdualsm, selectve access to servces, and nequalty (socetal values), and on the other hand the prvate sector or market (power) has ganed more nfluence. Ths value and power shft n the context of Dutch urban development s represented n Fgure 1.1. Behold that De Jonge constructed ths model before the current economc recesson took place. However, the model stll functons as a somewhat smplfed devce to explan recent shfts n socety. De Jonge s noton s supported by Boelens et al. (2006) and Boelens (2010) who argue that the herarchcal role of the State has reached ts lmts, not n the last place wthn urban plannng. Not only does the prvate sector gan a more powerful poston wthn socety, also formal and nformal cvc organzatons have flled the gap left behnd by governments. However, ths does not mean that governments are losng power. Accordng to Boelens (2010) government needs to reposton themselves wthn publc-busness-cvc communty networks. He argues that publc sector-led cvc coalton-buldng needs to radcally change nto the acceptance of a publc sector poston as part of an actor-network, rather than beng postoned herarchcally outsde of such networks. 24 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

The State Collectvsm Collectve Servce Access Equalty socetal values Indvdualsm Selectve Servce Access Inequalty power The Market Fgure 1.1 Value & power shft n context of Dutch urban development (based on De Jonge, 2007) From a plannng perspectve, Alexander (2001) and Adams et al. (2010) argue that t s even a fallacy to poston the State versus the Market. They explan the mpossblty to separate Plannng and Markets. Rather they argue that government nsttutons have become part of a market system. For nstance, Alexander (2001) and Lnd (2002) have ndcated several forms of market-drven, market-orented types of plannng. Here, the basc perspectve s that governments are part of a market envronment, and should act accordngly. Determnng what s publc or prvate n a complex network envronment has become more dffcult as boundares between these sectors are blurrng; t s not always clear n whch doman actors operate (see Tesman, 2008; Nadn, 2011). Thus, despte the recent (legtmate) call for more government nterventons wthn the falng market economy t does not nvolve a return towards a powerful State (see Boelens, 2009). As stated above, t has become part of a larger system tself, as a vtal actor wthn that network. Thus, publc nterventon becomes a rather logcal acton based on ts network role. Therefore, Van der Krabben (2011a) argues that ths stuaton represents an economc cyclcal change resultng n a temporal shfted publc-prvate power equlbrum whch can be notced optcally and experenced daly. But as Florda (2010) explans t s rather the structural change of a whole economy that truly matters for our future socety. He argues that necessary fundamental choces for a new sustanable economy and way of lfe wll lkely come from market nnovatons, as governments are not the prme mover (Florda, 2010: 181) n tmes of recesson. In short, here we ndcated that a new equlbrum n State-Market relatons s founded wthn changng socetal values. Ths socety-based trend has been pontng towards more prvate sector nfluences n Western countres for several decades now. Surely, State-Market relatons can be subject to changes n the economy. But, despte the current economc recesson and ts dffcult predctve outcomes for State-Market relatons n specfc countres, the most fundamental ndcators pont towards a structural strengthened poston of the prvate sector, also n the Netherlands. 25 Introducton

1.2.2 Prvate Influences n Urban Plannng & Development Development plannng Contextual changes most often determne changes n daly practce. Partcular for ths research, spatal plannng polcy formaton represents a reacton to the changes n socety descrbed above. Van Rooy et al. (2006) argue that urban plannng n the Netherlands s faced wth changed spatal assgnments and relatonshps. The Natonal Spatal Plannng Polcy s emphass on the development plannng (Dutch: ontwkkelngsplanologe) concept n plannng lterature also referred to as communcatve plannng, nteractve plannng and consensus plannng nstead of the former used restrctve plannng (Dutch: toelatngsplanologe) ndeed can be seen as reacton to changed crcumstances. The relatve smplcty of spatal plannng polcy under government leadershp s beng replaced by plurformty and changeableness, wth more dfferent actors nvolved and less fxed relatonshps. The rse of development plannng can be attrbuted to dssatsfacton wth the vsble shortcomngs of the classcal permtted plannng (Hobma, 2005). The Dutch Natonal Spatal Plannng Act (VROM, 2006) refers to ths as a shft from government towards governance; Collaboraton between publc actors, socetal organzatons, ctzens and companes s needed to effectvely handle problems and to seze opportuntes. Urban area development It s ncreasngly acknowledged that the power and value shft also effects publc and prvate actors roles and relatonshps n urban development practces all over the world. Daamen (2010) argues that the Dutch answer to changng roles and relatonshps n ts spatal plannng practce s called gebedsontwkkelng, translated most lterally as urban area development. It can be seen as the practcal equvalent of the development plannng concept. Accordng to Daamen (2010) urban area development stands for: A way of workng n whch government bodes, prvate partes, and other actors nvolved reach an ntegraton of plannng actvtes and spatal nvestment, eventually resultng n the mplementaton of spatal projects (Daamen, 2010: 3). Ths defnton emphaszes the role of dfferent actors n developng urban areas. Daamen (2010) argues that governments have found themselves not above but between the other actors concerned, sgnfyng a defnte shft n ther power to enforce and regulate partcular land uses and plannng actvtes. In urban development practce we most profoundly notce ths shft n the way plans are made. Land use plans that have been unlaterally drawn up by the publc sector do not gve any guarantee that development takes place n the manner ntended; prvate sector nvestments and nvolvement ndeed are needed. Unmstakeably, both actors are nterdependent n realzng publc and prvate development nterests and objectves. 26 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

They cooperate on polcy matters, the route to be followed by the process, and budget matters to secure development. In other words, urban development practce nowadays combnes spatal plan formaton wth agreements about spatal nvestments. Therefore, the role of plannng n the development process cannot be reduced to smply an nstrument of mplementaton, plannng seemngly functons more and more n nteractve arenas n whch negotatons take place and decsons are made (Van Loon et al., 2008: 17). Prvate nfluences Thus, spatal polces, plans and projects are the result of a negotaton process n whch governments are no longer obvously n the lead. Prvate actors, communty groups and other publc bodes have all become partcpants n an on-gong quest for mprovng the way land s beng used and developed. As a result of ths trend and subsequent publc plannng polces, the prvate sector gradually ganed more nfluence over urban development projects. In the Dutch urban development practce, De Zeeuw (2007) descrbes that these trends resulted n the forward ntegraton of market partes n the development process. Project developers gradually replaced local authortes n ther task as ntators of urban development projects. In the Netherlands, ths was based on ther nterest to develop large amounts of acqured land for development. Furthermore, we can state that the polcy shft from restrctve towards development plannng concepts mpacts the way publc and prvate actors organze urban development projects. Indeed, as a result of polcy changes we see that Publc-Prvate Partnershps (PPP) ganed ground as an organzatonal and legal nstrument for actors to cooperate on spatal developments. In the Netherlands, most profoundly we notced an evoluton n the exstence of PPP models towards more prvate sector nvolvement. Ths s due to several reasons related to fnancal postons, the avalablty of means, and the status of competences (amongst others) of the publc and prvate sector. Dutch PPP models evolved from publc sector-led urban development (buldng rghts model) towards publc-prvate sector-led urban development (jont venture model) nto prvate sector-led urban development (concesson model). However, ths does not mean that former models have dsappeared; they stll exst and are used for projects. But, the publc-prvate spectrum changes constantly, whch automatcally changes the roles of both actors n urban development projects and processes. In other words, market partes are operatng more often and further nto the classc government doman, due to the ncreased number of prvate ntatves and nvestments. Notce that n hstorcal perspectve, urban plannng n the Netherlands always has been characterzed by forms of publc-prvate collaboraton, n whch prvate ntatves went along wth publc spatal gudelnes. Snce the 12th century polders for example were made on the bass of concesson agreements (see De Klerk n Bjsterveld, 2009). Also the spatal composton of nner ctes n the Netherlands was based on a plannng framework provded by local plannng authortes, wthn whch prvate entrepreneurs developed buldng blocks. In ths regard, Boelens (2009; 2010) argues the perod from the Second World War and especally n the 1960 wth a leadng government n the countres reconstructon and spatal plannng can be consdered to be not more than a temporary hccup n a longer hstory of cvc and prvate entrepreneurshp. 27 Introducton

From the 1980s on, we see a gradual return towards the normal stuaton n the Netherlands. The prvate sector became more nvolved n plannng wth nvestments n development projects through PPP projects. And, snce the early 2000s, the ncreased use of the concesson models n daly development practce has ncreased the prvate role even more. Despte ths evoluton, De Klerk n Bjsterveld (2009) emphaszes that the phase from the 1980 s untl now can be characterzed by a dffcult relatonshp between the State and the Market. A clear concepton on the roles of publc and prvate sector s lackng. In the pragmatc Dutch clmate, he argues that we owe ths stern relatonshp manly to a defectve poltcal fundament between the Market and Poltcs. The lack of drecton n the academc and practcal dscussons and debates on the fundamental publc and prvate roles n plannng seem to be rooted wthn ths pragmatc atttude. Entrepreneural rsk-takng governments Moreover, Van der Krabben (2011a) emphaszes that Dutch urban development n nternatonal perspectve has a unque character that somewhat colours the perspectve on publc and prvate roles. Urban development has developed tself as an establshed doman, both professonally ánd academcally, far more than n other countres. More mportantly, the actve rsk-takng entrepreneural role of local authortes n land development can be consdered as an excepton to the nternatonal rule. Actve publc land polcy as an nstrument for local authortes to realze ambtons, n other countres does seldom exst. In most other countres, prvate developers are actng as rsk-takng and nvestng actors wthn land and real estate development. For reasons explaned later, ths type of development approach s becomng less and less defendable. Behold, for a new cooperatve publc-prvate balance n Dutch urban development practce, few grounded prncples are avalable at the moment. De Klerk n Bjsterveld (2009) emphaszes that ths s a problem that can be solved by determnng whch fundamental responsbltes both domans could have. Ths research can be vewed as a contrbuton to such a publc and prvate roles clarfcaton. However, ths wll not be dsputed on a poltcal level but clarfed by analyzng operatonal urban development projects, as wll be outlned n Chapter 2. In concluson, ths secton provded three fundamental notons that are of most mportance for contemporary debates on Dutch State-Market relatons consderng plannng polces and urban development practce: The structural trend towards more prvate sector nfluences n polces and practce; The hstorcal fact that the role of government was lmted wthn spatal plannng; The nternatonal excepton of an actve rsk-bearng publc land development role. 28 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

1.2.3 EU s Neolberal-orented Publc-Prvate Partnershp Legslaton Tenderng prncples: Competton, transparency and role dvson From a legal perspectve other changes nfluence the way publc and prvate actors cooperate n urban development; tenderng procedures based on European Law are becomng ncreasngly coercve. The applcaton of European tenderng procedures for Publc-Prvate Partnershps n urban development s a reoccurrng ssue n the Dutch plannng debate and practce. The European Commsson (2004) expresses ther concerns about the somewhat non-transparent publc-prvate cooperaton n Dutch urban development practce. They prefer a clear publcprvate role dvson and a government that mnmzes potental rsks for development, e.g. a more neolberal-orented development approach (e.g. based on Anglo-Saxon characterstcs). In partcular, the often used nsttutonalzed Dutch PPP jont venture model wth a sngle corporate body commonly chared by both publc and prvate board members s a cooperaton model for whch crtcal comments are formulated, looked at from European tenderng prncples perspectve. Frst, publc-prvate enttes lke the sngle corporate body n the jont ventures n the Netherlands n the ntatve phase of a development often are formed wthout a clear competton among property developers. Prvate partes are selected based upon ther concdental nterest n a development and on the bass of land ownershp n the area, and thus obtan a favored poston n relaton to other prvate partes, by whch the European competton prncple may be volated (ICER, 2008). The second reason why the jont venture model n relaton to the selecton of prvate partes s doubtful s the unclear defnton of the subject of the tender formulated by the publc body at the early stage of an urban development. The European Commsson (2004) has frequently dagnosed that the tasks apponted to publc and prvate partes wthn the sngle corporate body are defned naccurately and n some case are totally absent n the contract. Ths leads to problems wth the transparency and equalty prncples and the detrment of the objectves of common nterest by publc bodes. Thrdly, n the realzaton phase, the hybrd role of publc actors wthn the sngle corporate jont venture body creates the so-called double hat problem. Ths problem occurs when publc organzatons gan fnancal profts out of a development under prvate law, but at the same tme act as the guardan of common nterest. They have specfc qualtatve wshes whch n ther turn may be dsadvantageous for the development fnancal result of the sngle corporate entty (Woltng, 2006). Ths creates frctons wth European Unon prncples, because t threatens publc legtmacy, and brngs along unnecessary publc fnancal rsks. A fourth ssue ncludes the consequences of the Auroux-judgment for the practce of urban development n the Netherlands. Current Dutch PPP practce can be contradctve to the statement of the European Court of Justce (C-220/05) that close fnancal nvolvement of muncpaltes n urban development projects whch are meant to be brought on the market, may well be n conflct wth publc procurement rules. Ths stuaton asks for a tenderng framework wth clearly defned expectatons, tasks, competences, responsbltes, and rsks nvolved for the tender undertaker. 29 Introducton

Furthermore, accordng to Bregman (2010b), the more recent Müller-judgment by the European Court of Justce (C-451/08) mplcates that future urban development PPPs wll be based on a clear role dvson by law, n whch publc bodes operate wthn the publc doman and developers wthn the prvate doman. Bregman foresees that future PPP models wll be new style jont venture and concesson models rather than the buldng rghts model. Ths results n more market freedom and less detaled government control. Thus, n the near future, based on these legal arguments, a more prvate sector-led development approach (wth a government avodng fnancal development rsks) based on a clear publc-prvate role dvson can be expected. 1.2.4 Dffcult Experences wth Jont Venture Partnershps Inter-organzatonal partnershp problems The experences of publc and prvate actors wth the applcaton of the jont venture model as a form of Publc-Prvate Partnershp (PPP) n the Netherlands n general s consdered as postve. However, some crtcal notes to these postve experences can be made as well. In a jont venture model, publc and prvate actors set up an organzatonal body wth a sharng prncple; nvestments, rsks, revenues and responsbltes are shared among the partes. The man reason from both publc and prvate actors to choose ths type of cooperaton model s the convcton that the contrbuton of both partes brngs about an added value for urban development (Kljn & Twst, 2007). The added value s, on the one hand, to be found n more effcency, effectveness and nnovaton due to the contrbuton of prvate partes n the form of fnancal means and market knowledge, a thought based upon the New Publc Management theory. On the other hand, the nvolvement of the publc sector n the whole lfe cycle of the development process could contrbute to more flexblty to react on changed poltcal, envronmental, and socetal crcumstances, a thought based upon the Governance theory. Kljn & Twst (2007) conclude that experences n Dutch practce show that the expected advantages are not obtaned easly. Tesman (2008) argues the followng. The majorty of partnershps n the Netherlands seem to face ( ) nter-organzatonal partnershp problems. The partes nvolved have dffcultes n combnng the demands of partnershp wth ther nternal demands. It seems that the nter-organzatonal capacty s just too weak to acheve added value, even f ths value can be verfed on paper (Tesman, 2008: 323). In addton, Kljn & Tesman (2003) argue that partners have dffcultes wth jont decsonmakng and organzaton, and tend to revert to tradtonal forms by contractng out and separatng responsbltes. As a result n urban development, for example, we see a growng nterest n the concesson model. Ths collaboraton model s based on a strct dvson of publc and prvate roles by contract, also propagated for as a manner to reduce the complexty of publc-prvate cooperaton by separatng both domans. De Jonge n Harms (2008) more profoundly states that PPP n the Netherlands has had a chance for about 15 or 20 years, but 30 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

actually just a few real successful projects have been realzed. In summary, the man reasons for mxed experences wth the jont ventures are summarzed here. Hybrdsm: Incompatble value systems Frst, the expected advantage of more effcency and effectveness s not always met whch s caused by the dfferences n objectves and nterests. The publc sector s vewng urban development projects n terms of safeguardng publc nterests. The prvate sector s manly nterested n obtanng a decent proft safeguardng the contnuaton of the frm. On top of these organzaton-dependent objectves, common objectves have to be found wthn the nter-organzatonal PPP entty. Here, the lack of a clear role descrpton of both partes often results n a dscusson whch actor actually s accountable for what ssues. Tesman (2008) argues that actors wthn these partnershps are actng on the edge of publc and prvate domans. Ths creates stuatons of hybrdsm, especally wthn formal nter-organzatonal partnershp arrangements such as PPP jont ventures. Tesman (2008: 319) contnues by statng that despte attempts to clearly dvde the publc and prvate doman, n realty (e.g. urban development practce) the borders between what s publc and prvate become blurred. Ths poses challenges for the management of urban development processes and projects. For nstance, throughout the ntatve and plan development stage of PPP jont ventures a lot of effort s put nto the negotaton process to reach agreements on sharng rsks and revenues. The hgh number of organzed meetngs and paperwork nvolved n ths process can be vewed as a way of safeguardng nterests. In ths regard, Tesman (2008) argues that economsts crtcze the hgh transacton costs of hybrd arrangements, whch are attrbuted to the tme-consumng task of streamlnng the ncompatble value systems of publc and prvate domans. General speakng, publc actors exst to serve publc nterests (democracy, safety, health) whle prvate actors exst to serve prvate nterests (profts, busness contnuaton). In the lght of PPP jont ventures, De Jonge n Harms (2008) hghlghts the dffculty wth hybrdsm as a management problem: a smple rule apples; the one that pays also lkes to decde. As both publc and prvate actors have a fnancal stake, and basc publc and prvate objectves often are hard to match, negotaton and decson-makng processes are seldom effcent and effectve. Moreover, the compromsng nature of decsons could possbly harm process and product nnovatons. Flexblty: Inablty to cope wth dynamcs Second, the expected flexblty to react on changed crcumstances through publc sector nvolvement throughout the whole lfe cycle process of the development s not always vewed as an advantage from a prvate sector perspectve. Because of the long project tme span, often a characterstc for jont venture urban developments, projects face several poltcal electons. Ths sometmes s referred to as the problem of poltcal dscontnuty as poltcal prortes change, often resultng n the adaptaton of functonal spatal programs. Laborous acheved common objectves become subject to a repettve stuaton of reframng them n the realzaton stage, when urban development projects are already underway. Furthermore, Yescombe (2007) argues that PPP projects also are subject to technologcal and economc 31 Introducton

changes, whch PPP contractual agreements often lack the flexblty to respond to. However, projects wth a stable long-term plannng horzon such as roads or other transport facltes ft well wth the PPP approach (Yescombe, 2007: 27). One can queston f complex and dynamc urban development projects are characterzed by such stable long-term plannng perspectve and horzon. Nonetheless, dealng wth changed crcumstances s mportant for the publc-prvate relatonshp. Not respondng to changng publc objectves s not an opton for prvate actors, because t could damage the socal and professonal relatonshp between both partners. Furthermore, t could create a stuaton of dstrust wthn the common development entty. The rsk of not beng able to proceed wth the cooperaton s obvously, from a prvate sector perspectve, but also from a government pont of vew, an undesred stuaton. Already substantal nvestments n the project have been made. It can be stated that changng local poltcs have a major mpact on a development because of the shareholders poston of publc enttes n jont ventures. Accordng to De Zeeuw (2007), a way of copng wth the nflexblty ssue s to look at organzatonal models n whch poltcs are more clearly separated from daly urban development project organzatons. Msconceptons: Dstrust between actors Thrd, the cooperaton between publc and prvate actors n jont ventures s hndered by msconceptons from publc and prvate actors towards one another. An evaluaton of Publc- Prvate Partnershps n Dutch urban development projects by Delotte (2008a) reveals the bas towards one another on the roles and motves of partes (Table 1.1). Ths bas can be consdered as a major soco-cultural characterstc of urban development; ths msconcepton n general creates dstrust between publc and prvate actors. The man reason for ths s the hdden agenda used by both actors wthn the jont venture cooperaton. Further on, n general we clam that such atttudes towards one another are often contra-productve for publcprvate cooperaton. They encompass a vew buld upon States versus Markets (or publc versus prvate actors), rather than ther recognzng ther nterdependent nature. Publc Sector Prvate partes only want to make a proft We frst explore the fnancal possbltes wthn our publc organzaton, and f we can t manage t we brng n the prvate partes to close fnancal gaps If we brng n prvate partes we lose control Land postons are only taken by prvate partes to buy cooperaton from the government Table 1.1 Publc & prvate sector bas n PPP jont ventures (based on Delotte, 2008a) Prvate Sector Local authortes never decde and stack ambton on ambton After four years faced wth another alderman wth other vews, the whole crcus starts agan, f they don t already retreat n the meantme We are not asked to brng n our knowledge and expertse, but only support development wth money Local authortes create expectatons, start by makng m odels, but don t have a clue of the costs nvolved 32 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Furthermore, the lack of transparency often creates unnecessary negatve energy n projects. A possble soluton not only les n the constructon of sold agreements, t s the culture that needs to change as well. For nstance, Bult-Sperng & Dewulf (2006) argue that soft socologcal aspects n PPPs n general have been overlooked by hard economc and spatal aspects. For ths research t means that a soluton for a publc-prvate role defnton also should also consder takng nto account the relatonal aspects of mutual dependences. On the bass of these fndngs, we conclude that the cooperaton experences wth jont ventures have not yet resolved n a fully mature and professonal publc-prvate cooperatve relatonshp. Therefore, possbly, experments wth other models proofed to be promsng. 1.2.5 Economc Crss & Fnancal Consequences for Actors The latest economc recesson has put several urban development projects n the Netherlands, but also elsewhere n Europe and North Amerca, on hold or under reconsderaton. One can say that the economc crss started n 2008 has confronted professonals and academcs wth the short-comngs of contemporary urban development practce. For ths research t s nterestng to look more closely at reasons beyond the need for a redefnton of the roles of local authortes and property developers. Here, we explore some reasons, consequences, and future condtons for Dutch urban development and the actors nvolved. Economc downturn: Shortcomngs of contemporary urban development The begnnng of the economc crss marked the end of a perod of urban growth and substantal demand for offces, housng, and retal n the Netherlands. Van der Krabben (2011a: 9) argues that Dutch spatal plannng and development at the moment s at a turnngpont. Ths s a statement that also s supported by Amercan academcs such as Florda (2010) and Glaeser (2011) who argue ths s a matter occurrng on a global scale. Especally decreasng development demand from rsk-avodng consumers and ncreased bank loan restrctons to fnance development, have put the development market under pressure. Most lkely, we are enterng a perod of margnal growth and a shft from a supply market towards a demand (buyers) market n urban development. In 2011, the Dutch housng market has seen housng prces fall substantally, whle n the offce market vacances are consdered as structural. Both publc and prvate organzatons have both contrbuted to the current oversupply wth growth polces and ambtous development proposals. At frst glance, ths stuaton seems to be of cyclcal nature. However, as the Dutch demographc growth and welfare levels also stablze, ths stuaton seems to be of a more structural nature. Moreover, snce the economc crss, Dutch urban development projects face substantal fnancal feasblty df fcultes. It s commonly acknowledged that the prevous growthorented ways of developng ctes and areas s no longer sutable for current and future demands. Van der Krabben (2011a) argues that the man assgnment for urban development wll focus on urban transformaton of the exstng urban landscape and real estate stock (see also Peek, 2011). However, brownfeld development and transformaton wthn ctes, wth 33 Introducton

exstng fnancal development models and supply-drven development strateges, seem hard to realze. The reason for ths s that fnancal margns on land and real estate development n those locatons are low. Ths s a result of hgh land development costs on the one hand, and low real estate proft margns on the other hand. However, densfyng ctes and makng them more attractve s the sustanable way forward, a course supported by the Dutch government (see VROM, 2008; VROM-raad, 2010). Ths poses a great challenge for both publc and prvate actors wth regard to ther current nternal fnancal stuaton. Fnancal consequences for prvate actors Property developers have frst felt the consequences of structural changng economc crcumstances. Before the economc recesson, prvate sector nvolvement n urban development practce ncreased as a result of central government s spatal VINEX polcy for large greenfeld housng development locatons (see VROM, 1991), and the fact that market demand for real estate often seemed lmtless. Ths eventually resulted n a larger share of prvate nvestment and management of developng the bult envronment. For nstance, a new Publc-Prvate Partnershp model n the Netherlands called the concesson model occurred. Ths was a result of a retreatng government and the urban plannng polcy emphass on large scale greenfeld developments. In essence, publc means for development, beng land, captal and knowledge, were gradually superseded by prvate ones. Furthermore, development was so boomng that local authortes smply dd not have enough labor capacty to manage all urban development projects wthn a cty. Therefore, they chose to let the prvate sector develop potentally less (poltcal) rsk barng developments. However, then the economc crss occurred n 2008. As a result, property developers n urban development practce face severe dffcultes to secure nvestment for new projects. As market demand for real estate s partcularly low, nvestment loans from banks for development are accompaned by tghtened rsk-avodng condtons. Therefore at the moment, the prvate sector s appette for rsk-bearng nvestments n projects s low as argued by Heurkens (2010). Along wth the lack of external fnancal means for development comes a lack of nternal fnancal lqudty wthn development companes. They own substantal amounts of land watng for development. And at the same tme real estate sales and land prces are low due to low market demands. Ths has led to reorganzatons and redundances wthn the development ndustry and sellng off land postons to local authortes. Furthermore, at the moment, a fundamental revew on development strateges of developers n urban development s taken place. A strategy that s bult upon a demand-drven approach focusng on end-users and ntroducng sustanable development concepts, rather than supplydrven mass producton developments and economy-focused concepts. In essence, one can state that the current changng role of prvate sector s part of a cyclcal change hghlghted by the recesson economy (see Van der Krabben, 2011a). Ths vew s supported by a study by Joolngen et al. (2009) on the consequences of the economc crss for the Dutch urban development practce. They ndcate that prvate actors have focused on mtgated the fnancal problems on the short term. They have started to sell owned land, spread development rsks, phase development projects, prortze the number of projects n preparaton, and focus on collaboraton nstead of selecton, and rsk aversons. 34 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Fnancal consequences for publc actors Ths stands n sharp contrast wth the consequences of the crss for muncpaltes nvolved n urban development. Joolngen et al. (2009) emphasze that local authortes at the begnnng of the crss dd not oversaw the long term consequences of the crss. A study by Wcherson (2011) nvolvng the recent fnancal poston of seven major Dutch local authortes, reveals that snce 2010 all local development authortes are faced wth serous problems. Ths s a result of decreasng land revenues from urban development on the one hand, and substantal decreasng central government subsdes for urban development on the other hand. And more mportantly, ths seems to be a structural stuaton, fuelled by the emergng soveregn debt crss of natonal governments. Before we go nto ths, here, t s mportant to menton the role of local development authortes n land development n relaton to the major consequences of the economc crss for the role of the publc sector n urban development. Van der Krabben (2011a) explans that actve land polces have been a successful development strategy for local authortes for decades. By combnng regulatory plannng powers n the form of land use plans and a fnancal and cooperatve role wthn land development, local development authortes were able to hold control over urban development. Furthermore, by actng as a market actor on the land market, local plannng authortes could earn substantal revenues whch accounted for substantal muncpal ncome. Moreover, large amounts of proft could be renvested n publc works. Van der Krabben (2011a) even argues that land development authortes acted as cash cows for many Dutch muncpaltes. Also ths strategy helped to even fnancally unvable projects wth fnancally unvable ones. In economc growth scenaros ths development strategy worked partcularly well and unmstakably has resulted n hgh qualty envronments. However, the crss has revealed that ths development strategy has serous drawbacks once demand drops; t mposes serous fnancal rsks to the publc sector as a whole. Reconsderng actve land development polces The publc fnancal stuaton s supported by hard facts. A study by Delotte (2010a) on the fnancal effects of the crss on the land revenues from urban development undertaken by publc land development agences, show a substantal future defct for a substantal number of the local authortes. Table 1.2 shows the decreasng balance of land development revenues from local development authortes as part of muncpal budgets snce 2009. It also shows that n the perod before the crss land development balances grew more postve over the years. Korthals-Altes (2008) argues that ths s entrely due to actve land development polces. Accordng to Van der Krabben (2011a), he rghtly argues that these results would not have been obtaned wth passve or facltatng land development polces. For the near future t s expected that due to ncreasng land rent costs the land development balances of Dutch muncpaltes wll show negatve balances, a vew supported by Delotte (2010a). The man reason for ths s the amount of publcly owned land watng for development whch was obtaned n economc more favorable tmes wth actve land development polces. Of course these fgures show the stuaton for all Dutch muncpaltes combned. Specfc stuatons n muncpaltes may vary, but the trend seems clear. 35 Introducton

Publc Land 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Development Yelds 3,427 4,523 5,126 6,676 6,880 7,207 6,386 Costs 3,217 4,088 4,665 6,169 6,370 6,836 6,345 Balance 211 435 461 742 510 371 41 Table 1.2 Yelds, costs & balance of land development wthn Dutch muncpal budgets (n mllons) (based on CBS / Delotte, 2010a) Therefore, several authors (Needham, 2007; Butelaar, 2010a; Muñoz-Gelen, 2010) have argued that ths typcally Dutch development model has reached ts lmts. Van der Krabben (2011a) states that foregn scholars lke Alterman (2009) have called ths actve land development polcy a relc from the past that creates unnecessary fnancal rsks for muncpaltes. Van der Krabben (2011a) adds that there s another reason for questonng the actve Dutch land development polces. He states that there are other development strateges and nstruments whch can be used by muncpaltes to compensate the costs of publc nvestments n urban development (see also Butelaar, 2010a; Munoz-Gelen, 2010). These authors started the tendency of learnng from other countres nstruments for fnancng urban development. Interestng enough, Van de Weg et al. (2009) argue that there are no clear ndcatons that n other countres urban development projects are hard to realze and that the qualty level of developments s low. These consderatons put the actve land development atttude of local authortes n the Netherlands n a dfferent daylght. Furthermore, local development authortes nowadays face substantal fnancal retrenchments from central government. Thus, rsk-bearng publc nvestments n urban development projects from local authortes are not expected ether (Heurkens, 2010), as captal and land as a means for development s becomng less avalable. Moreover, the move towards a more facltatng role s strengthened by the latest facts and nsghts from several authors and nsttutons (see Joolngen et al., 2009; Butelaar, 2010a, 2010b; Delotte, 2010a, 2011a; Van der Krabben, 2011a, 2011b; Van Djken et al., 2011; and Van Tl, 2011). They argue that the establshed actve land polcy of Dutch muncpaltes has come under serous pressure as a development strategy for the future, and alternatves have to be sought. In ths regard, another mportant trend has a drect nfluence on the level of future publc land revenues, the focus on nner-cty development. Hence, the Natonal Spatal Strategy (VROM, 2004) focuses on concentratng developments wthn ctes. Ths drectve polcy ndcates a shft towards brownfeld projects as the VINEX polcy on greenfeld development s lkely beng realzed wthn ths decade. Ths polcy shft results n fewer publc land sales and lower proft margns for land development as opposed to greenfeld development. They are often fnancally not vable wthn ctes, as proft margns from land sales after preparaton are lower wthn nner ctes. Ths has to do wth the multtude of prvate land and property owners whch are purchased at hgh costs. Land preparaton wth sol decontamnaton s also costly. Ths s supported by Delotte (2010a) whch estmates a Dutch muncpal land development balance deteroraton of 2.5-3.0 bllon n 2010. Thus, ths brngs a major rreversble change to local government fnancal postons, as the almost guaranteed sources of ncome of land sale on a long term bass dsappear to a large extent. 36 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

In concluson, one may queston f the economc downturn represents a fundamental structural change n publc-prvate relatons, or that t s an economc cyclcal occurrence. At the moment t s hard to foresee whether a more facltatng role of local governments n urban development s one of socetal or economc nature. Nonetheless, these changed crcumstances pose new condtons for Dutch urban development practce, whch shape the way actors relate to each other n dfferent ways. Therefore, prvate sector-led urban development projects reman a subject worth explorng, regardless ts nature. In a perod of economc uncertanty both publc and prvate actors search for new ways of managng urban development projects; one that s more n lne wth the changed realty. Thus, we wll focus on the collaboratve and manageral roles of publc and prvate actors n ths new realty. It also shows us that project developers are lkely to contnue ther nvolvement n urban development, to what extent remans to be seen. But does ths mean that the role of the publc sector becomes rrelevant? On the contrary, local authortes wll also have to rethnk ther role n order to stll be able to nfluence urban developments as a means to mprove ctes. 1.3 Research Objectves The objectve of ths research bulds upon the explanatons provded n the problem and motves stated above. Central to ths research s the noton that the relatonshp between and roles of publc and prvate actors n Dutch urban development s changng fundamentally. Bascally, we notce a shft from less publc to more prvate nfluences n ntatng, plannng, fnancng, realzng and operatng urban development projects. But ths changng relatonshp has mplcatons for the way publc and prvate actors can manage these projects. Therefore, returnng to the man problem of ths research, the man objectve s to provde an understandng of how publc and prvate collaborate on and manage wthn prvate sector-led urban development projects. In order to reach the objectve of the research we use a case study approach (see Chapter 3). We conduct case studes n order to understand the relatonshp and nteractons between local authortes and property developers n prvate sector-led urban development projects. Moreover, we study these projects wthn dfferent urban development practces, the Netherlands and the Unted Kngdom (UK). The reason for the nternatonal orentaton s that we can learn sgnfcantly from other development practces, for ths research n partcular UK s market-orented development practce. Here, the man nterest s to understand the mechansms behnd the cooperaton between local authortes and property developers and to understand how they manage projects. Thus, the objectve focuses on understandng projects on a tactcal-operatonal level by usng conceptual models, rather than buldng theores for publc-prvate relatons on a more strategc-tactcal level. Furthermore, ths research ams at determnng ntended as well as unntended effects of the collaboraton between publc and prvate actors. Therefore, the research ams at ndcatng effectve and effcent management actvtes undertaken by publc and prvate actors whch possbly or most lkely result n ntended effects. Do they present opportuntes to close the neffcent and neffectve gap experenced n Dutch practce? Although, t must be clarfed 37 Introducton

here that assessng causal relatonshps between management nterventons and ther effects s not at the heart of the research. Determnng cause and effect s consdered rather mpossble and too smplstc more other factors than management also affect outcomes. Therefore, we are mostly nterested n whch management actons most lkely results n what effects, wthout underestmatng the mportance of other factors. Hence, ths research also has two related sub-objectves, one amed at developng knowledge for scence and the other one amed at provdng lessons for practce. The academc subobjectve s to develop conceptual knowledge and tools to analyze the management of urban development projects n general. Ths contrbutes to the applcaton and relevance problem of management theory for the doman of urban development, as explaned n Secton 2.2. The practcal sub-objectve s to provde nspratonal lessons from practce for a more effectve and effcent urban development practce n the Netherlands. Therefore, we use the nsghts generated through conducted cases studes n both the Netherlands and UK. By collectng and analyzng relevant research data n a systematc way t s possble to descrbe conceptual solutons for problematc ssues regardng the roles of publc and prvate actors n Dutch prvate sector-led urban development projects. Thus, both the conceptual academc tools and practcal lessons result n descrbng conceptual recommendatons for the collaboraton and management ssues current Dutch urban development practce faces. In ths sense, way am at brdgng the gap between urban development practce and scence. The objectve of the research therefore s: To provde an understandng about how publc and prvate actors collaborate on and manage prvate sector-led urban development projects, n order to develop conceptual knowledge and draw lessons for urban development practce and scence. 1.4 Central Research Queston The basc dea of ths study s that t focuses on what we can learn from urban development practce by analyzng emprcal cases wth theoretcal and methodologcal concepts. Therefore, we take ths as a startng pont for formulatng the central research queston. The central research queston we try to answer s: What can we learn from prvate sector-led urban development projects n the Netherlands and UK n terms of the collaboratve and manageral roles of publc and prvate actors, and the effects of ther (nter)actons? The queston, on purpose, has been formulated generally, but s based on some fundamental choces whch have major mplcatons. The we here mples both urban development scence (academc scholars) and practce (publc and prvate professonals) n general and Dutch urban development scence and practce n specfc. Also, we use the word learn to ndcate that we am to draw lessons from dfferent urban development practces n general, and from prvate sector-led urban development projects n specfc. Moreover, urban development projects form 38 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

the object of study. Furthermore, the collaboratve and manageral roles of actors mply that we are dealng wth nteracton between and actons from publc and prvate actors, whch forms the subject of study. Moreover, we emphasze the mportance of actor nterdependences by focusng on both publc (local authortes) and prvate (project developers) actors. And fnally, we study the effects of such (nter)actons wth regard to process and project outcomes. 1.5 Structure of the Book In order to answer ths queston a research structure s presented n Fgure 1.2. Ths research desgn also functons as the thess structure. It s dvded nto dfferent research parts and further subdvded nto dfferent chapters. In general, the research parts (or stages) are dvded nto Concepts, Practces and Synthess. For each part the subsequent chapters are descrbed herenafter. PART II - PRACTICES PART I - CONCEPTS Chapter 2 Theory conceptual model Chapter 4 Urban Development Netherlands Chapter 6 Urban Development UK Chapter 1 Introducton Chapter 3 Methodology analytcal model Chapter 5 PSLUD Cases Netherlands Chapter 7 PSLUD Cases UK nsttutonal characterstcs cross-case analyses PART III - SYNTHESIS Chapter 9 Concluson reflecton Chapter 8 Lessons elaboraton Chapter 10 Eplogue Fgure 1.2 Research structure 39 Introducton

The Concepts part nvolves framng the research, usng relevant theores to understand the crucal ssues at hand, and usng approprate methodologes to carry out the research. In ths Chapter 1, we provded an Introducton to outlne the research. Chapter 2 about Theory gves a detaled descrpton of the (theoretcal) conceptual model used for ths thess. The conceptual model relates the dfferent concepts nvolved wth prvate sector-led urban development projects. Insghts are based on a multplcty of theores and lterature revews whch are used to understand state-market relatons, nter-organzatonal structures, and manageral nteractons between actors wthn the doman of urban plannng and development. Chapter 3 on Methodology contans the analytcal model whch s used to descrbe and analyze the dfferent emprcal cases. Ths model s based on the open systems approach often used wthn the feld of busness admnstraton. Furthermore, we ntroduce the need for nternatonal comparatve urban research and practcal lesson-drawng and the approprate methodology used for ths type of research. The Practces part nvolves descrbng the relevant urban development practce characterstcs of both countres, n order to understand the nsttutonal background aganst whch the analyss of emprcal prvate sector-led urban development projects takes place. As a result of the choce for an nternatonal research the chapters n the Practce part follow a smlar pattern. Chapters 4 and 6 contan a descrpton of and the evoluton of nsttutonal characterstcs of Urban Development Practce n the Netherlands and the UK. Each of these nsttutonal contexts s descrbed systematcally by vewng three subsequent socetal perods from poltcal, economc, and envronmental perspectves. These nsghts provde the context aganst whch emprcal prvate sector-led urban development projects are analyzed. Ths s done n Chapters 5 and 7 whch contan a descrpton and analyss of urban development Case Studes n each of the selected countres. For the Netherlands ten prvate sector-led urban development projects are taken as object of study, whle n the UK two cases are studed. These case studes are studed through a smlar structured analytcal framework n order to enable comparatve research. But foremost, the emprcal cases provde valuable emprcal lessons about these types of projects. Fndngs from emprcal cases n each country are subject to natonal cross-case analyses. The fndngs from the Dutch case studes, n partcular the problems faced wthn prvate sector-led urban development projects, serve as aspects of attenton for UK data collecton. The Synthess part nvolves nterpretng the lterature fndngs and emprcal case study fndngs and draw lessons from both Dutch and UK prvate sector-led urban developments, followed by an eplogue on some crucal ssues related to the research. Chapter 8 foremost s amed at drawng Emprcal Lessons & Implcatons from both countres. Here, theoretcal data retreved from the Dutch and UK urban development practces are compared wth one another resultng n the dentfcaton of some general dfferences and smlartes between nsttutonal characterstcs of both practces. The chapter contnues wth drawng emprcal lessons from the prvate sector-led urban development projects from both Dutch and UK case studes. Ths results n defnng some major emprcal condtons for the collaboraton and management of these types of projects. The general comparson and emprcal lessons help to formulate mplcatons for Dutch urban development practce. These are formulated as conclusons and recommendatons for the roles of actors cooperatng n Dutch prvate sector-led urban development projects. Then, Chapter 9 conssts of a summarzed Concluson 40 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

whch provdes an answer to the central research queston, reflects upon the used concepts for analyzng practces, and recommends drectons for further research. Fnally, Chapter 10 contans an Eplogue, whch elaborates on two non-researched fundamental ssues related to prvate sector-led urban developments, namely safeguardng publc nterests and alternatve fnancng nstruments. 41 Introducton

Part 1 Concepts 42 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

43 Introducton

44 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

2 Theores 2.1 Introducton In the prevous chapter, we ntroduced the problem, motves, objectve, questons and framework of the research. We explaned that we are manly nterested n the roles of and relatonshp between publc and prvate actors n prvate sector-led urban development projects. Hence, we explaned the focus on the management of these projects as ths n academc and professonal lterature has been underestmated as a crtcal condton to realze publc and prvate objectves n urban development projects. Therefore, the objectve of the research s to analyze the collaboraton between and management of publc and prvate actors n such projects. Also, we brefly ntroduced the concept of prvate sector-led urban development projects based on ndcatons that project developers at least n the pre-crss perod ncreasngly became nvolved n leadng Dutch urban development projects. Furthermore, we emphaszed that we wll carry out nternatonal research on establshed prvate sector-led urban development practces n order to draw lessons for the Netherlands. In ths chapter we explore several theores and concepts related to our research topc. These are amed at provdng nsght nto relevant academc lterature fndngs used to construct a conceptual research model. They consst of several nterrelated and crucal theoretcal ssues and consderatons whch are presented n order to create a broad understandng of prvate sector-led urban development projects. Hence, we emphasze that our theoretcal choces derve from an teratve research process n whch emprcal fndngs and theoretcal concepts have constantly be confronted wth one another. We start, frst, by postonng the research by ndcatng the perspectve and choces made to dentfy the man research object and subject, whch enables us to develop a conceptual model of prvate sector-led urban development projects (Secton 2.2). In the followng sectons we explan the roles of and relatonshps between publc and prvate actors on dfferent analytcal levels from a theoretcal perspectve. These sectons are amed at deepenng our understandng of the context, organzaton and management of prvate sector-led urban development projects. Frst, on a contextual level (Secton 2.3) we ntroduce the man theores and contextual factors nfluencng the organzaton and management of urban development projects. Second, on an organzatonal level (Secton 2.4) we explore theores and factors of publc-prvate cooperaton condtonng actor s management of projects. Thrd, on a manageral level (Secton 2.5) an overvew of relevant management theores and the choce for relevant management measures for ths research are provded. Then, also the choces for the project effects of mportance to the research are explaned (Secton 2.6). Secton 2.7 summarzes the man ssues wth regard to theores and concepts used n our study. 45 Theores

2.2 Postonng the Research In ths secton we explan the basc choces made for the object and subject of research. We do so by ntroducng several arguments whch have led us to dentfy the perspectve and scope of research. Moreover, these arguments enable us to delberate on what ths research s not about by dscussng why we have not chosen for obvous others. Also, t enables us to create a conceptual model whch s used as a structurng devce for carryng out ths study. Notce that ths research s rooted n the research school of Urban Area Development wthn the Department of Real Estate & Housng at the Faculty of Archtecture (Delft Unversty of Technology). It s a relatvely young academc doman whch vews urban development most profoundly as a complex management assgnment (Brul et al., 2004; Franzen et al., 2011). Academc research n ths school s characterzed by an ntegratve perspectve wth a strong practce-orentaton. Here, ntegraton n urban development nvolves brdgng varous actor nterests, spatal functons, spatal scales, academc domans, knowledge and sklls, development goals, and lnks process wth content aspects. Hence, such an ntegratve perspectve does justce to complex socetal processes, and therefore provdes a frutful ground for studyng urban development. Ths research perspectve s taken as a startng pont to poston our research and has been appled to our research n the followng manner. 2.2.1 Urban Development Projects The choce for a certan object of study of the bult envronment carres both the opportunty to dentfy ts precse nature, and the lmtaton of dsregardng other perspectves. Van der Veen (2009) and Daamen (2010) also use urban development projects as central objects of study. We follow the defnton from Daamen (2010): An urban development project refers to a framework of concrete materal nterventons nsde a geographcally dstnct urban area (Daamen, 2010: 18). Hence, hs descrpton s characterzed by a neutral connotaton and contextual equvalence. Moreover, t represents the choce for concrete spatal nterventon and a defned spatal scale level of study. Let us explore the reasons for followng these authors by explorng urban development project characterstcs and explan where we stand wth our specfc object of study. Frst, accordng to Daamen (2010) the neutral connotaton means that one s not dealng wth a specfc phenomenon of urban development projects. In contrast, for nstance, he argues that studes on large-scale urban development projects (see Swyngedouw et al., 2002; Majoor, 2008), and urban mega projects (see Carmona, 2003; Chen, 2007) are underlnng a specfc feature of urban development projects. However, n our research, unlke Van der Veen (2009) and Daamen (2010), we do hghlght a certan phenomenon, namely prvate sector-led urban development projects, as we are specfcally nterested n ths type of projects. Nonetheless, n ths research also reference s made to the neutral urban development projects ndcatng that we are not dealng wth our specfc phenomenon. 46 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Second, the contextual equvalence of the term urban development projects s of central mportance to ths research as we are dealng wth two nternatonal contexts, the Netherlands and the UK. Hence, there are several context-specfc descrptons of urban projects. For nstance, n Dutch spatal plannng lterature and practce the term ntegrated area development (Dutch: ntegrale gebedsontwkkelng) s often used. Daamen (2005) and Tesman & Kljn (2002) menton that the level of ntegraton than s related to the degree of functonal and materal changes planned for the area whch relates to algnng dfferent nterests, dscplnes and sectors nvolved n the nterventon wthn an area (see Daamen, 2010: 18). Moreover, accordng to Brul et al. (2004), Peek (2006) and Franzen et al. (2011), such ntegraton also mples that techncal, legal, poltcal, economc, demographcal, ecologcal, and soco-cultural aspects have to be taken nto account to realze urban areas. Notce that n other countres such ntegraton can have an entrely dfferent meanng (see Moulaert, 2005). Daamen (2010: 19) argues that, for nstance n the UK, the ntegrated approach counts as a normatve response to depressng socal and envronmental results produced by a market-led urban plannng regme n the 1980s. Ths s dfferent from the understandng of the term n the Netherlands. Also, n an nternatonal context, we encounter context-specfc terms lke urban regeneraton, urban renewal, urban revtalzaton, urban redevelopment and urban renassance amongst others. They all ndcate a response to mprovng an exstng urban stuaton (notce re- ), wth a specfc approach n a specfc perod. Therefore, n our vew, they are not contextual equvalent as they represent tme- and locaton-embedded constructs. As Lees (2003b) ndcates, there are contextual subtletes n the use of these terms by academcs and professonals. For nstance, urban renewal s a term often used to ndcate the publc sector-drven large-scale spatal nterventons n the 1960s and 1970s, for nstance n the UK and USA. Also, urban regeneraton (see Roberts & Sykes, 2000; Couch et al., 2003; Jones & Evans, 2008; Tallon, 2009) refers to the specfc UK polcy mplementaton-orented response to reach the spatal ntegraton of economc, socal and envronmental objectves. On the contrary, urban development projects do not contan such context-nequvalent feature, whch provdes opportuntes for generc usage. Thrd, urban development projects as object of study explctly emphaszes a concrete spatal nterventon. In lne wth the argument made by Daamen (2010), a project mples a concrete materal nterventon nsde a geographcally dstnct urban area; they are a means to carry out a spatal nterventon to mplement polces. It focuses on organzatons and actors who drectly cooperate on and nvest n an area by modfyng ts land use. Ths s fundamentally dfferent from the term urban development. In our vew, ths foremost mples a plannng practce wth ts context-specfc characterstcs, such as commonly shared nsttutonal values, arrangements and atttudes. For nstance, n ths research a descrpton s gven about the urban development (practce) n the Netherlands and the UK. These nsttutonal characterstcs are of relevance to ths research n the sense that they condton the way urban development projects are carred out. Then, t s precsely the operatonal project whch provdes opportuntes to study publc-prvate collaboraton and management as a form of concrete spatal nterventon. Fnally, the last reason to choose urban development projects as object of study s the spatal scale level of the area. Ctes can be studed on dfferent spatal scales, rangng from metropoltan, cty, area, to buldng scale levels as ndcated by Van Hoek & Wgmans (2011: 54). An area conssts of a (connected) collecton of buldngs stuated wthn the specfc urban context of the cty. Spatal nterventon by means of urban development projects often takes place wthn such defned areas. Therefore, we manly focus on the area scale 47 Theores

rather than the cty scale when evaluatng our projects. Ths s a dfferent startng pont than evaluatng the mplementaton of plannng polces whch s an often used scale perspectve n urban plannng studes. Our area focus mples evaluatng project effects rather than polcy mplementaton outcomes on a cty level. Nonetheless, areas cannot be treated as solated phenomena. Areas are complex n the sense that they are nfluenced by dynamc events from ther surroundngs. Therefore, we also take the project context nto account when studyng prvate sector-led urban development projects. The reasons provded above ndcate our choce for urban development projects as object of study. We also dscussed the opportuntes and lmtatons these choces brng wth them. In the followng secton we explan how ths relates to the subject of study. 2.2.2 Management, Influencng & Steerng Reasons for management research Research n the feld of urban development s rooted n many academc domans related to the bult envronment. Daamen (2010: 21) argues urban area development (Dutch: gebedsontwkkelng) fnds t scentfc poston n the dverse feld of spatal plannng. Hence, urban development bulds upon several theores rangng from plannng, economcs, poltcal scence, geography, law, publc admnstraton, organzaton and desgn. Ths s due to the relatve young exstence of the professon and academc doman as well as the complex, dynamc and socologcal nature of urban development. As a result of ths, many academcs analyze urban development from one partcular perspectve or specalty;.e. the understandng and solutons for problems are provded based on doman-specfc paradgms. Ths has created a consderable and extensve body of knowledge. However, so far a management perspectve as used n ths research has been less frequently used n studyng urban development. There are several reasons to apply such an approach to ths research. Frst, a management perspectve on urban development projects flls an academc gap. Academc scholars such as Kljn (2008) and Van der Krabben (2011a) have put forward the necessty for more management research n urban development. In ther vew, management by publc and prvate actors n urban development projects s one of the most mportant factors for achevng desred outcomes. They clam that the way these actors manage projects to a large extent determnes the outcome of projects. In other words, management actvtes by actors, rather than legal and organzatonal rules, produce concrete project effects. For nstance, n hs dssertaton on strateges for urban development projects, Daamen (2010: 36) concludes that despte that formal nsttutonal rules gve order to the decsons made n projects they rarely are decsve for the outcome of projects, actor (nter)actons are. Nonetheless, such nsttutonal rules condton the way publc and prvate actors can organze and manage such projects. Therefore, they reman of crucal mportance n understandng urban development projects as well. 48 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Second, choosng a management perspectve carres the opportunty to brdge management as scence and management as practce. It enables us to brdge the explanatory and desgn scences, thereby fllng an academc gap descrbed by Van Aken (2004). He argues that academc management research s faced wth a serous applcaton problem. A lot of research n ths feld s based upon descrpton-drven research, rather than on prescrpton-drven research. Ths dfference can be explaned by the noton that the msson of all scences s to understand, descrbe, and explan a phenomenon. Accordng to Van Aken (2004) such academc research fals to produce conceptual research products derved from emprcal research whch can be used n the desgn of solutons for specfc management problems and questons for practtoners. Hence, Mntzberg (2010) emphaszes that management nether s a scence nor professon, but a practce whch s rooted n a partcular context: Management not even s appled scence, but n management scence s appled (Mntzberg, 2010: 21). Therefore, he argues that t s crucal for academcs to understand management practces by conductng emprcal research. Then, management research can make use of ths knowledge to construct more generc conceptual research products. Then, these concepts can be adopted, mplemented and operatonalzed by practtoners themselves for ther specfc context. Thrd, n relaton to the above, the strong emprcal nature of ths research whch contans a wde varety of case studes justfes takng such a management perspectve. In Dutch urban development practce, actors are n constant search for effectve and effcent strateges (e.g. Daamen, 2010) needed to produce successful outcomes of such projects n the current tmes of crss. However, solutons for the current dffcultes tend to focus on fnancal (e.g. Van Rooy, 2011), organzatonal (e.g. Franzen & De Zeeuw, 2009) and legal (e.g. Bregman, 2010a) solutons. For nstance, new types of fnancal models, Publc-Prvate Partnershps, and plannng laws are proposed. However, a remarkable knowledge gap exsts about the consequences for the mplementaton of these proposals n emprcal projects. In relaton to the shftng roles of publc and prvate actors (see Introducton), practtoners are searchng for effectve ways to nfluence the outcome of projects. Therefore, specfcally n our research on prvate sector-led urban development projects, we am at takng the dscusson about new organzatonal, legal, and fnancal models a step further by lookng at the consequences for the management of projects carred out by publc and prvate actors. Fourth, n relaton to our specfc object of study, the operatonal level of urban development projects strongly favors a management perspectve. It s at ths level where the mplementaton of plannng polces and coordnaton of development nterests takes place through a complex process (e.g. Franzen et al., 2011) of publc-prvate nteracton. Here, publc and prvate nterests come together n plannng and development processes. These processes contan contextual poltcal and economc nterests whch need to be managed as well. Furthermore, the project s fnancal, organzatonal and legal arrangements such as development contracts, to a certan degree constran the way actors can manage them. Moreover, the general objectves of actors wth urban development projects are to delver hgh qualty results as effcently and effectvely as possble. Therefore, t s at ths operatonal project level where the management of a complex set of nterrelated publc and prvate nterests emerges. 49 Theores

Ffth, crucally, t s our specfc phenomenon of the prvate sector-led urban development project whch justfes takng a management perspectve. As project developers are assumed to take the lead and local plannng authortes facltate n these types of projects, the management opportuntes of publc and prvate actors change. In the Netherlands, often the need for steerng (Dutch: sturng) and control (Dutch: rege) of urban development projects s stated by publc actors n partcular. However, what s essentally meant wth such manageral terms remans rather vague; leavng asde some exceptons (see Wcherson, 2011). Moreover, prvate sector-led urban development projects are assumed to contan less steerng and controllng opportuntes for muncpaltes to acheve publc objectves. Also, such a development model may requre dfferent or addtonal manageral competences from prvate actors, as opposed to more establshed Dutch development models such as the jont venture. Ths research ams at defnng what publc and prvate management actually means and encompasses n prvate sector-led approaches. For these reasons, our research does not nvolve testng (e.g. verfyng or falsfyng) a pror theoretcally founded hypotheses n practce, commonly used n socal scences lke economcs and busness admnstraton. Sechrest (1992) argues that such an approach s based on the wdespread convcton that only quanttatve data are ultmately vald or of hgh qualty. However, n lne wth Guba & Lncoln (1994: 106) we argue that the am of scence s not prmarly the predcton and control of natural phenomena based on quanttatve research. Rather, our research tres to understand complex emprcal phenomena by ntegratng dfferent (sometmes opposng) theoretcal concepts amed at desgnng conceptual research products through nductve practce-based qualtatve research (see Bryman, 2012). Such an approach does justce to both the pragmatc nature of urban development practces and projects, and the need to develop conceptual (management) knowledge for academcs, possbly to be further tested through nferental (quanttatve) research. Integratve management approach: Systems & contngency theory Ths brngs us to how we vew management n ths research. Notce that our fundamental thoughts on management are related to a partcular academc nsttuton. Ths research s conducted wthn the Department of Real Estate & Housng (Faculty of Archtecture, Delft Unversty of Technology). The man focus of research at ths department les on answerng management questons of the bult envronment (see Wamelnk, 2009). Hence, objects of study n the bult envronment are studed wth management perspectves. Specfcally, ths research s rooted n the Char of Urban Area Development. Ths research school prmarly uses an (overarchng) governance perspectve as a gudelne to study urban area development (see Franzen et al., 2011). In short, governance than s seen as the capacty to organze collectve acton toward specfc goals (Hller, 2002). Moreover, ths research perspectve mples governng urban development n all ts complexty, dversty and dynamcs by means of ntegraton (see Brul et al., 2004). Hence, as urban development conssts of dfferent dscplnes and felds of knowledge, encompasses varous nterrelated spatal scales and nvolves several nterdependent actor nterests, t s dffcult to use one theoretcal research perspectve. Thus, an overarchng management perspectve enables us to study specfc urban development phenomena. For nstance, ths research s postoned at the operatonal sde of governance (Franzen et al., 2011: 11) as we study projects. 50 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Therefore, here, we argue that the varous characterstcs of urban development projects requre object-related ntegratve management approaches to both understand urban development and to construct useful conceptual tools for practtoners and academcs. Integratve approaches attempt to combne a number of dfferent varables or elements nto a more holstc approach to the broad process of management (Black & Porter, 2000: 57). Such an approach must be placed n the long hstory of management thought as a reacton to our ncreasng complex socety. In short, classcal management theores provded structurng answers to the dvson and coordnaton of labor (Smth), determnng the one best way by key prncples (Taylor, Fayol), and defnng deal types of organzaton (Weber). Neoclasscal management theores emphaszed the human nature of management, such as nformal power (Follett), behavour (Mayo, Hawthorne), human resources (Maslow, McGregor), learnng organzatons (Agyrs, Schön), forms of leadershp (Lckert), and quanttatve decson-makng (Smon) (see for an extensve overvew Black & Porter, 2000). Nowadays, management practces such as urban development ncreasngly have become more complex and are less sutable for structured approaches only; flexble approaches that deal wth ts complexty are needed. Ths fts well wth the current evoluton of management thought towards more ntegratve approaches whch vew management more broadly. Flexble approaches seemed to be better suted for rapdly changng and complex envronments (Brul, 2011: 24). For nstance, n urban development there are constantly changng nter-organzatonal partnershps (see Van Loon, 1999; Van Loon et al., 2008; Daamen, 2010) between publc, prvate and cvc actors. Nevertheless, the concrete nature of urban development projects also requres actors to structure projects wth nter-organzatonal arrangements such as a role dvson and contractual agreements. Foremost, the management of urban development projects s amed at achevng concrete spatal and fnancal objectves. Therefore, our ntegratve management approach combnes two ntegratve theores; systems theory and contngency theory. Frst, we apply the systems theory as means to structure the way publc and prvate actors manage prvate sector-led urban development projects. In systems theory, operatonal management s descrbed as steerng (Dutch: sturng). De Leeuw (2002: 151) defned steerng as any form of drectve nfluencng. Ths mples usng an open systems approach whch sees urban development projects as fundamentally open; they are subject to varous types of nfluences from ther envronment. In essence, than our steerng paradgm s a collecton of concepts of thought about steerng and the way these can be used to make representatons and models for analyss and desgn. At the bass les the assumpton that t s possble and useful to approach realty as such (De Leeuw, 2002: 151). Thus, steerng ncorporates all knds of dfferent steerng actvtes lke learnng, educatng, motvatng, transformng, plannng, controllng, desgnng and decsonmakng amongst others. Ths vew on steerng s based on some key prncples. Frst of all, De Leeuw dstngushes three mportant dmensons n steerng a project; uncertanty, unpredctablty and ambguty. These dmensons are also present n urban development projects and need to be dealt wth n an accurate way. The accurate way to manage projects depends on changng condtons and ams of projects n specfc contexts, and therefore often s talor-made. Second, the model s based on three domnant aspects of managng a project; achevng objectves wth people, steerng a course, and problem solvng and desgnng solutons. These aspects are very closely related to the actual collaboraton between publc and prvate actors n urban development projects, and thus, very useable as management approach. 51 Theores

Second, our ntegratve management approach uses the prncples of the contngency theory as a way to vew the actual management of projects more broadly. Accordng to Brul (2011: 24) the contngency approach refers to a choce between the more tradtonal forms of organzatonal structure and the methods of management and more flexble and less specfed structures and methods. De Leeuw (2002) argues that management contngency means that there s no unversally effectve way of managng, the approprate way to manage s dependent on the crcumstances. Notce that ths statement s n lne wth recommendatons from Van Aken (2004) and Mntzberg (2010) that actual management s not the objectve of academc management research; ths s the doman of practtoners. Therefore, n our academc research as well, foremost we am at understandng practce by recognzng that management s contextdependent. In general, management happens wthn partcular contexts and organzatons amed at reachng certan objectves carred out by people s actons (Black & Porter, 2000). As we study several cases n both the Netherlands and the UK, we need to comprehend management more broadly, as other types of nfluences mght be present n each partcular project context. Therefore, n ths research we move beyond the often narrow scope of management by argung that nfluencng projects requre publc and prvate actors to use a wde varety of management actvtes and nstruments. Moreover, we do not assume that certan management measures should be appled by publc and prvate actors. It does not matter who manages as long as someone manages. Thus, we study urban development projects wthout a normatve approach; nstead we apply the contngency approach to dscover the varous ways of managng them. As such we defne the management of urban development projects as follows: Management conssts of any type of drectve nfluencng the realzaton of urban development projects. 2.2.3 Conceptual Integratve Urban Management Model Ths vew of management above brngs us to constructng a conceptual model. In ths secton we explan our choces for a conceptual ntegratve urban management model based upon the systems and contngency approach as a way to study the management of prvate sector-led urban development projects n more detal. De Leeuw (2002) appled the systems approach to the busness admnstraton doman, a goal-orented dscplne whch s comparable wth the (urban development) project management doman. That s, both domans can be consdered to have smlar characterstcs n dfferent ways. The man smlarty s that both busness and project management focuses on analyzng, desgnng and managng goal-orented processes n and between organzatons. These processes are also carred out wthn admnstratve busness or project contexts wth almost smlar (nter)organzatonal features. In both domans, actors try to acheve organzaton-dependent goals through the realzaton of a project. For nstance, n order to overcome problems wthn urban development projects publc and prvate actors wll apply dfferent management measures ndvdually or collaboratvely n order to reach ntended goals of projects. 52 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Here, for ths research, we hghlght some academc doman perspectve smlartes between busness management and (urban development) project management: Instrumental: goal s to develop goal-orented management measures; Problem- & practce-orented: practcal organzatonal or manageral problems; Multplcty: complex realty must be approached from more vewponts; Interdscplnary: knowledge from dfferent knowledge domans s needed; Interacton: goal s to understand nteracton processes between actors. As we argued that urban development practce often s consdered to be very complex and dynamc, one may doubt f a conceptual model based upon a systems approach actually represents practce. The man crtc here s that models often are consdered to be smplfed representatons of realty. However, all models are always a smplfed representaton of realty, as not all factors can be taken nto account. What matters s that one follows a consstent perspectve. Therefore, here, we emphasze that the model s used to understand the relatonshp between the context, organzaton, management and effects of prvate sectorled urban development projects, and not the urban development practce as whole. Thus, the object of study central to ths research s a project; we are not nterested at creatng a complete understandng of the complexty and dynamcs of the constantly changng context of urban development and spatal plannng. Although we recognze that a partcular context and changes wthn ths context nfluences the way publc and prvate actors cooperate n partcular projects, we tend to search for solutons for collaboratve and manageral problems encountered wthn emprcal urban development projects. For ths objectve, the systems approach s very sutable. It enables us to explan and systematcally analyze and understand mechansms between the relevant factors nfluencng the management of publc and prvate actors cooperatng n projects. Nevertheless, the systems approach s foremost nstrumental of nature, and puts less emphass on nterpersonal and socal factors. Therefore, we wll use lterature revews and ask nvolved actors about ther project experences to create more nsght nto relevant socal factors nvolved. Nonetheless, the model provdes opportuntes to search for solutons for problems that occur wthn projects, as nsght s gven nto relevant mechansms underlyng these problems. Fgure 2.1 shows the conceptual steerng model presented by De Leeuw (2002) whch we have to adapt to our own specfc research subject of (prvate sector-led) urban development projects (see Fgure 2.2). However, here t s crucal to explan some key prncples of the De Leeuw s model n order to understand ts logc. Frst, the context represents the dfferent levels of surroundngs a certan emprcal object (of study) s part of. Such a context s often subject to change, as s the case n our research. Appled to the doman of urban development ths context (of a project) for example exsts of spatal polces or economc crcumstances whch are vewed as condtons for the way urban development projects can be organzed. Second, the organzatonal system represents dfferent aggregaton levels of organzatonal structures, formal and nformal relatonshps and roles between dfferent actors. Appled to the doman of urban development ths organzatonal system conssts of publc and prvate actors and the way they organze publc-prvate cooperaton of a project. Publc-Prvate Partnershps for nstance are an example of formal organzatonal systems. Thrd, the processng system s the subject of study, n ths case an urban development project. It s a process that needs to be managed by the project organzaton, or publc and prvate actors cooperatng n partcular for ths research. 53 Theores

Context nformaton external management measures Organzatonal System nformaton nternal management measures Process System nput output Fgure 2.1 Conceptual steerng model (based on De Leeuw, 2002) Furthermore, there are relatonshps between these three major components, whch reflect the dynamcs that exst wthn and surround projects. For nstance, a changng context nfluences the processng system whch s consdered as nput for the process. For nstance, shfts n economc crcumstances change the way processes n urban development projects can be managed;.e. a project plannng for delverng houses wll be adjusted accordng to a decreasng demand as a result of economc crcumstances. Ths s done based on the nformaton on changng urban development processes whch s send to the project organzaton (wthn the organzatonal system) constructed to manage these processes. Ths often leads to adaptatons by the organzatons to cope wth the changes. Ths s acheved by dfferent usng management measures, whch De Leeuw categorzes as nternal and external management measures. Internal management measures are amed at nfluencng the structure or objectves of the project, whle external management measures are used to nfluence the structure or objectves of the project surroundngs. For nstance, new nternal management measures eventually are used by actors to realze an effect or output of the urban development project. In urban development projects ths can be the adaptaton of a functonal program than s algned wth changng customer demands as a result of a changng context. Furthermore, the organzatonal system tself s fed by nformaton or sgnals from the project surroundngs. For example, publc and prvate actors organzed n a partnershp need to reconsder ther ndvdual organzatonal objectves as part of the current economc crss, creatng new organzaton-specfc prortes and therefore new publc-prvate relatonshps. 54 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

UDP Context Economy & poltcs Urban governance Plannng system & polces nformaton external management measures UDP Organzaton Organzatonal tasks & responsbltes Fnancal rsks & revenues Legal rules & requrements nformaton UDP Management Management actvtes Management nstruments UDP Process nput UDP Effects Effectveness Effcency Spatal Qualty Fgure 2.2 Value & power shft n context of Dutch urban development (based on De Jonge, 2007) In ther turn, changng organzatonal systems also could try to nfluence the project surroundngs by usng external management measures. For nstance, to realze urban development projects, publc and prvate actors can persuade poltcal leaders to fund ther projects. In ths way the external envronment s steered n order to acheve project objectves. However, for ths research the emphass wll be place on the nternal management measures as we consder that t s hard to manage a context of a project. Thus, ths conceptual steerng model s not a statc representaton of realty; t rather provdes the ablty to explan all sorts of mechansms occurrng n projects. In order to analyze and compare cases, however, a choce s made about whch aspects are ncluded n the analyss. Here, a bref descrpton of the analyss aspects s gven based on varous theoretcal nsghts and categorzed nto dfferent project-related elements. Fgure 2.2 shows the conceptual ntegratve urban management model used for ths research to understand dfferent relatonshps between these aspects of (prvate sector-led) urban development projects. Wthn each component of analyss the major aspects of analyss can be found. We clam that, by analyzng projects n ths way we create a better understandng of the mechansms underlyng these projects. We have hghlghted the project organzaton and project process components as these elements are the man focus areas for understandng the 55 Theores

roles of publc and prvate actors wthn projects. Herenafter, we make a crucal dstncton between the nsttutonal context (Chapter 4 & 6; see also Secton 2.2.4) and drect project context (Chapter 5 & 7). Insttutonal contexts manly ndcate publc-prvate orentatons n the Dutch and UK urban development practces. A project context sets out locaton, motves, hstory and mportant actors nvolved wth the project. Here, we dentfy our man contextual, organzatonal, manageral, and effect aspects under research. See the Sectons 2.3-2.6 for more detaled explanatons on the consderatons for choosng these aspects. In terms of context, three dfferent contextual aspects are analyzed: economy & poltcs; urban governance; and plannng system & polces. Several authors lke DGaetano & Klemansk (1999), Nadn & Stead (2008), and Adams & Tesdell (2010) amongst others, have ndcated the mportance of several nsttutonal factors for actual plannng mplementaton. In ths research the economy and poltcs are descrbed as a way to understand how economc stuatons and poltcal landscape nfluence publc-prvate project cooperaton. The urban governance stuaton s descrbed as a way to understand the relatonshp between and roles of publc, prvate and cvc nsttutons that nfluence the project. Plannng systems and subsequent polces are descrbed as a way to understand the nfluence of legal rules and nstruments on the project. In terms of organzaton, three dfferent nsttutonal aspects are analyzed: organzatonal; fnancal; and legal. Bult-Sperng & Dewulf (2002) and Baley et al. (1995) argue that these nsttutonal aspects are n place n publc-prvate cooperaton and determne the nter-organzatonal roles of actors wthn dfferent development stages of projects. In ths research, organzatonal aspects that are analyzed are tasks and responsbltes, the fnancal aspects that are rsks and revenues, the legal aspects are requrements and rules. We acknowledge the mportance of soft relatonal factors n collaboratons between actors such as trust and transparency. Hobma (2011) for nstance ndcated that effectve and effcent collaboraton and all ts related soft factors can be seen as success factors n urban development projects. However, we do not take these soft factors as a focus pont of our research as we clam that they are embedded n the nsttutonal organzatonal, fnancal and legal aspects. However, ther relatve mportance may emerge from the cases, and could play an mportant role n the fnal lesson-drawng. Behold, all these nsttutonal aspects can to some extent nfluence the actor s management opportuntes n projects. In terms of management, four man types of management measures are taken nto account, categorzed wthn two man groups of management actvtes and management nstruments. Here, we follow scholars lke Black & Porter (2000) who ndcate that management s gettng thngs done wth people, and De Leeuw (2002) who refers to dfferent management measures whch actors can apply to reach objectves. In ths research, project management actvtes are related to development stages through whch nfluencng takes place, whch are ntatng, desgnng, plannng and operatng. Process management actvtes are related to the nteracton between actors necessary to develop projects, whch are negotatng, decson-makng and communcatng. Management tools are related to plannng tools (see Adams et al., 2005) used by publc bodes to nfluence developments, whch are shapng, regulatng, stmulate and buldng capacty. And management resources are related to the necessary assets for development, whch are land, captal, and knowledge. All these management functons can be used by actors to nfluence the outcome of projects. 56 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

In terms of effects, three dfferent project aspects are analyzed: effectveness; effcency; and spatal qualty. These effects are mportant for determnng the output and perceved success of our projects. Effects are measured qualtatvely by askng ntervewees to ndcate whether or not these effects are realzed as these effects are hard to measure quanttatvely. Effectveness s the degree to whch publc and prvate actor s ntended objectves are met. Effcency s the extent to whch publc and prvate actors cooperaton takes place aganst a mnmum use of tme and costs. And spatal qualty s the degree to whch the development project satsfes the expectatons of the publc and prvate actors nvolved. These are operatonalzed nto the user, experence and future values of the project at hand. 2.2.4 Conceptualzng Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects In Chapter 1 we brefly ntroduced the meanng of prvate sector-led urban development projects as central research topc. However n conceptual sense, we have not yet ndcated how we defne such projects and how they can be postoned n comparatve sense wth regard to other conceptual types of development practces and projects. Defntons In ths research we defne prvate sector-led urban development projects as follows: An urban development project n whch prvate actors take a leadng role and publc actors adopt a facltatng role to manage the development of an urban area, based on a formal publcprvate organzatonal role dvson. Here, we can dstngush four major components: project, management, actors, and roles. We already defned our research object (project) and subject (management). But, actors have not yet been a debated ssue. Here, an actor s broadly defned as: An organzaton or representatve ndvdual actvely nvolved n urban development projects. In specfc for ths research we choose local plannng authortes as publc actors and project developers as prvate actors. Although there are many organzatons from the publc and prvate sector that are nvolved n urban development practce, local plannng authortes and project developers often reman the key players that collaborate on the operatonal level of urban development projects. Moreover, the defnton reveals that these actors play a certan nterdependent role. In our research we defne a role as follows: A coherent set of organzatonal tasks and related management measures carred out by actors nvolved n urban development projects. 57 Theores

Hence, the concept prvate sector-led urban development project ndcates that we are dealng wth a leadng prvate actor. However, we also emphasze the exstence of a facltatng publc actor n our defnton as both actors collaborate and manage n such projects. Contemporary urban development s characterzed by the nterplay of nfluences and nterests; project realzaton cannot solely rely on one actor. Thus, leadng and facltatng are relatve terms. In essence, leadng ndcates that one actor provdes a man drecton for projects by performng certan tasks. Facltatng then nvolves an actor that complements these tasks. Also, a leadng role at frst sght mght suggest that the amount of nfluence of such actors s greater than actors who have a facltatng role. However, we emphasze that ths s not necessarly the case. The amount of nfluence does not equal the authorty attached to such nfluence, as we wll descrbe herenafter. The noton that leadershp n urban development s a combned publc-prvate effort s also supported by others. Judd & Parknson (1990: 7) argue that t may be the market that decdes about urban development but that the tradton of the cty s to take the hand n ts own destny. In ths regard, Osborne & Gaebler (1992) argue that leadershp relates to an entrepreneural effort to shft resources from one place to another that can be executed by both publc and prvate organzatons. Laglas (2011: 48) argues that leadershp n the bult envronment requres specfc sklls from nvolved actors, ncludng: content knowledge, drve to mprove, process competency, well-tmed decson-makng, and ablty to reconcle conflcts. These authors all emphasze the mutual dependency of publc-prvate leadershp n managng urban development (see Heurkens & Louwaars, 2011). Notce that Kotter (1990) argues that management and leadershp are dfferent (see Zalznk, 1997); managers cope wth complexty and leaders press for change. But both are also complementary, one cannot functon wthout the other (Kotter 1990; 1996; Mntzberg, 1975). Such dfferent nterpretatons requres our own vew on leadershp. We relate leadershp to management and defne leadershp as drectng (Dutch: rchtnggevend), that can exhbt almost anyone, at almost any tme and n almost any crcumstance (Brul, 2011). Therefore, n ths research we defne takng the lead or leadng as: Actvely steerng an urban development process nto a preferred drecton. Comparatve Urban Management Model Here, we use the above descrbed components to poston prvate sector-led urban development projects. We ntroduce a comparatve urban management model whch ndcates the publc and prvate actor s management n dfferent urban development model types. Ths comparatve management perspectve ams to ndcate conceptual publc and prvate roles wthn projects. It s constructed to be reflected upon and used n nternatonal comparatve studes on urban management practces. Fgure 2.3 shows the comparatve urban management model as the conceptual representaton of dfferent typologes of urban development models and pre-domnant management measures applcable to publc and prvate actors. It reflects the choces made n the prevous sectons n comparatve perspectve. Several nuances n the actual attrbuton of management functons may exst n practce. Moreover, ths model s specfcally constructed to be appled 58 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

to the study of urban development projects on the operatonal level. As such, ths conceptual model ams at postonng prvate sector-led urban development projects wthn the broad spectrum of nternatonally applcable urban development model typologes. Notce that the types of urban development models are placed on a publc-prvate sector contnuum, ndcatng the nature of the project roles performed by the publc and/or prvate sector. These typologes refer to dfferent publc-prvate cooperaton models used n Dutch urban development practce (e.g. publc realzaton, buldng rghts, jont ventures, concessons, prvate realzaton; see Secton 4.2.3). But they also refer to some nternatonal nsttutonal classfcatons used to express power relatons n Publc-Prvate Partnershps (e.g. Savtch, 1997; Bennett et al., 2000; Börzel & Rsse, 2002; see Secton 2.4). The types of management measures ndcate whch actor(s) predomnantly apply management actvtes and nstruments to nfluence urban development projects (see Secton 2.2.2). Type of Management Measure Project Management Process Management Management Tools Management Resources Publc sector domnated Publc Publc Publc Publc Type of Urban Development Model Publc sector led Publc-prvate sector led Prvate sector led Prvate sector domnated Publc Publc & Prvate Prvate Publc & Prvate Publc & Prvate Publc & Prvate Publc & Prvate Publc & Prvate Publc & Prvate Publc Publc & Prvate Prvate Prvate Prvate Prvate Prvate Fgure 2.3 Comparatve urban management model When one takes a closer look at the conceptual model, one can dstngush two role-related terms; led and domnated. Here, we explan what we mean by these terms. Led comes from the verb leadng and s closely related to actors performng a drectve role n the management of projects. Leadershp n ths sense s the ablty of an actor (n ths research a prvate actor) to nfluence outcomes (n ths research projects) on the bass of ther leader role. Ths leader role derves from typology of manageral roles ntroduced by Mntzberg (1975). He explans that leadng derves drectly from the manager s formal authorty granted by the organzaton. Leadng thus s a form of management by an actor wth a certan degree of authorty. For ths research, the authorty on the bass of whch a prvate actor has nfluence 59 Theores

over a publc actor s the fact that the prvate actor has most of the necessary management resources for a project at ts dsposal. However, leadng also mples that other actors are nvolved n managng a project; they to a certan extent follow the leadng actor, or perform delegated or addtonal tasks. Thus leadng actors gve drecton to a project, but need to nvolve other actors to realze projects. Domnated comes from the verb domnatng and s also closely related to an actor that performs a drectve role n the management of projects. However, domnatng has a negatve connotaton; t goes further than leadng n the sense that t mples that one takes control over the other based on formal authorty. Then, the relatonshp between actors s not an nterdependent one but a herarchcal-dependent relaton; one s not able to nfluence the domnatng actor. Vce versa, the domnatng actor does not need the dependent actor to accomplsh ts goals. For ths research n conceptual sense ths means that the management of a prvate or publc sector-domnated urban development project s undertaken solely by one actor based on the fact that ths one actor has all necessary management functons at ts dsposal. Therefore, domnatng n ths study means that one actor takes complete control over a project, whle other actors are not able to nfluence a project sgnfcantly. Let us explan the manageral roles of publc and prvate actors n the dfferent urban development models. A publc sector-domnated urban development model mples that local plannng authortes take complete control over realzng urban development projects, by carryng out all management functons wthout nvolvng project developers. A publc sectorled urban development model nvolves local plannng authortes takng the lead n projects by applyng management actvtes and tools, n combnaton wth management resources (such as prvate fnance) from facltatng project developers. Then, a publc-prvate sector-led urban development model represents a coalton-orented management approach n whch both publc and prvate actors are able to use and apply dfferent types of management functons to nfluence the outcome of urban projects. In our prvate sector-led urban development model project developers take the lead n developng urban areas on the bass of avalable management resources (land, captal, knowledge for nstance) and actvtes, whle they share management tools wth publc actors. Fnally, prvate sector-domnated urban development model suggests a very domnant prvate actor and weak publc actor n managng urban development projects. Agan, we state that the classfcaton of publc and prvate actors n our model serves a conceptual purpose. The model functons as a useful conceptualzaton of realty, as t recognzes crucal dfferences for publc-prvate relatons and nfluences n dfferent urban development models. Moreover, the model uses neutral terms whch make t unversally applcable. Hence, that we delberately choose sector nstead of actor, to broaden up the possblty to nclude dfferent actors operatng n the publc or prvate domans whle studyng specfc urban practces. Furthermore, the model provdes opportuntes to be extended from comparng operatonal urban development projects towards comparng nsttutonal urban development practces, as explaned herenafter. 60 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Comparatve Urban Insttutonal Model Ths research has an nternatonal orentaton as t studes (prvate sector-led) urban development projects n dfferent nsttutonal contexts, namely the Netherlands and the UK. These urban development practces have ther own nsttutonal characterstcs wth regard to the way publc and prvate actors collaborate and manage urban development projects. Understandng such nsttutonal dfferences s crucal as they mght nfluence the ablty and possblty to draw valuable lessons from other practces. Therefore, here we dentfy our specfc research focus by postonng t nto a broader comparatve nsttutonal perspectve. Daamen (2010) recognzes the mportance of nsttutonal characterstcs n the way actors defne and mplement strateges for urban development projects. Daamen (2010) developed an nsttutonal framework whch dstngushed three nterrelated nsttutonal levels of urban development. He argued that urban development projects are embedded n urban development practces, whch on ther turn are embedded n urban development structures. In general, Daamen argues that natonal embedded nsttutonal values form condtons for the development of nsttutonal rules whch subsequently affect atttudes of organzatons and the way strateges are mplemented and carred out. In our research, we recognze the mportance of local and natonal nsttutonal values and rules. Therefore, we ntroduce Fgure 2.4, whch presents a comparatve urban nsttutonal model, n whch our man research focus s hghlghted. Insttutonal Levels of Urban Development UD Structures PP Relaton UD Practce PP Orentaton UD Project PP Interacton Publc sector domnated Powerful state / Weak market Strong publc orentaton Clear roles / Formal nteracton Type of Urban Development Model Publc sector led Publc-prvate sector led Prvate sector led Leadng state / Facltatng market Strong state / Strong market Leadng market / Facltatng state Prmarly publc orentaton Publc-prvate orentaton Prmarly prvate orentaton Clear roles / Informal nteracton Changeable roles / Informal nteracton Clear roles / Informal nteracton Prvate sector domnated Weak state / Powerful market Strong prvate orentaton Clear roles / Formal nteracton Fgure 2.4 Comparatve urban nsttutonal model 61 Theores

Notce that the model uses three publc-prvate perspectves focused on relatons, orentatons and nteractons, and apples these to dfferent nsttutonal levels of urban development (see Daamen, 2010). Wth regard to our research, n whch we manly focus on studyng the collaboraton between and management of publc and prvate actors n urban projects, t s crucal to conceptually consder how such publc-prvate collaboratons and management are nsttutonally embedded n dfferent deal-type settngs. Therefore, n our research nsttutonal urban development structures consst of State-Market relatons. It contans grounded cultural vews about the role and power of the State and the Market. Such vews are often embedded n socetal values and norms, and form the fundamental foundatons for poltcal and economc deologes. In specfc, these structures can shape partcular publcprvate orentatons n urban development practces. For nstance, a powerful poston of a government s based on nsttutonalzed rules whch creates a strong dependency on, and therefore orentaton on, such publc nsttutons. Then, prvate actors to a certan degree rely on governments for ther own plans to be realzed. Such rules become embedded n plannng systems, spatal polces and land use plans for nstance. Furthermore, the urban development structures and practces condton the publc-prvate nteractons on the nsttutonal level of urban development projects. Values and rules shape the way Publc-Prvate Partnershps are organzed and the roles actors eventually play. For nstance, such values and rules determne the formal or nformal nature of Publc-Prvate Partnershps. Such comparatve urban nsttutonal model can also be consdered as a cyclcal model. Daamen (2010) for nstance argues that changng publc-prvate nteractons can create dfferent publc-prvate orentatons, and ultmately changed publc-prvate relatons. Despte ths conceptual note beng of mportance, we do not focus our research on prvate sector-led urban development equally on structures, practces and projects. Rather, we emphasze the focus on publc-prvate nteractons on an operatonal project or contract level by conductng emprcal case studes n dfferent nsttutonal contexts. Nevertheless, pror to our case descrptons, we also explan the publc-prvate orentaton characterstcs of the Dutch and UK urban development practces by usng lterature revews. In that sense, we deal wth nsttutonal dfferences and smlartes whch are crucal to nterpret the contextdependency of the UK s case study fndngs for the Netherlands. Moreover, the followng sectons contan theoretcal lterature fndngs consderng some fundamental publc-prvate relatons wthn prvate sector-led urban development structures. But, for our research, an nsttutonalst framework as developed by Daamen (2010) wll not be used, as t complcates our research unnecessarly. Rather, here we have used t to poston our research n wder perspectve. In addton, t provdes academcs wth the possblty to use t as a theoretcal tool to compare nternatonal urban development practces. Ths secton defned and postoned prvate sector-led urban development projects by usng comparatve urban models focused on the nterdependent relatonshp between publc-prvate actors. The followng sectons present some key lterature fndngs wth regard to prvate sectorled urban development. Informaton s provded to create a better understandng of ts complex nature, and arguments are gven for the choce of relevant context, organzaton, management and effect aspects under research. 62 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

2.3 Context of Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects In ths secton we deal wth the nsttutonal context of prvate sector-led urban development projects. We do so by dscussng dfferent concept such as economy and poltcs (Secton 2.3.1), urban governance (Secton 2.3.2) and plannng systems & polces (Secton 2.3.3). These lterature fndngs poston our research n an nternatonal theoretcal perspectve. 2.3.1 Economy & Poltcs: The Anglo-Saxon Model & Neolberalsm Prvate sector-led urban development projects are no soltude phenomena; they occur n specfc economc and poltcal contexts. Here, such projects are placed aganst the background of dfferent Western socal models and economc deologes. These contexts provde condtons for urban development practces to take shape. Also, such nsttutonal structures and practces enable prvate sector-led urban development projects to take root. Moreover, they condton the way publc and prvate nteracton on projects takes place. Furthermore, we wll ndcate that such nsttutonal structures are subject to change. Insttutonal values and norms are ncreasngly globalzed as values are able to travel from context to context. Some structural descrptons focus partcularly on the Netherlands and the UK, as these are the nsttutonal structures formng the background of our cases. Anglo-Saxon versus Rhneland socal models Several crucal dstnctons have been made by academc authors to descrbe dfferences and smlartes between nsttutonal soco-economc models. Authors lke Albert (1993), Gddens (1998), Hall & Soskce (2001) and Rfkn (2004), refer to two dfferent types of captalsm between (Anglo) Amercan and (Rhneland) European economc models. Albert (1993) ntroduced the Rhneland socal model as a broad concept of west contnental European thnkng related to, but dfferent from, the frequently n lterature mentoned Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Amercan socal model. Albert suggests that here we are dealng wth two dfferent types of socal-economc systems. Bakker et al. (2005) argue that these models are two alternatve forms of captalsm, amed at securng needs of entrepreneurs, fnancers, shareholders, poltcans and consumers. Here, a descrpton s gven about the man characterstcs of the Anglo-Saxon model predomnant for the UK, and the Rhneland model for the Netherlands. The man dfferences between the present Anglo-Saxon market systems and what Albert (1993) refers to as socal-democratc systems, relate to two man categores; the role of government n the economy, and the socal safety net. The Anglo-Saxon market systems, as the name already ndcates, focus on the responsblty of the prvate sector and rghts of freedom at an ndvdual level. The Rhneland socal-democratc systems focus on the responsblty of the publc sector and rghts of freedom at a collectve level. Bakker et al. (2005) add that the Rhneland model of captalsm n general s based on the power of collectve and socal consensus, an actve role of 63 Theores

the State, and a long term horzon. Anglo-Saxon models of captalsm n general are based on ndvdual success, a mnmum of State nterventon, and short term profts. Both terms are also msleadng as they both ndrectly ndcate that basc lngustc or geographcal formatons are to be consdered as an absolute condton for countres to be classfed as beng Anglo-Saxon or Rhneland. Ths s not the case. At frst glance the term Anglo-Saxon seems to relate to Englsh-speakng countres wth close relatonshps to the Unted Kngdom. However, Anglo-Saxon n that context mght be too broad n a sense. Systems n countres lke Canada, Australa and New Zealand are too dfferent to be classfed as Anglo-Saxon systems (see Brouwer & Moerman, 2005). But, the Unted Kngdom and the Unted States of Amerca both are consdered to be Anglo-Saxon socal-economc systems. Therefore, for ths research however the more broadly defned and non-geographcal ndcatve Anglo-Saxon term wll be used, applcable to both the Unted Kngdom and the Unted States of Amerca. Rhneland thnkng has Germany as ts cradle. But Rhneland values are not only applcable to the geographcal boundares of Germany and the Netherlands and Swtzerland as countres connected to the Rhne Rver (as the term ndcates). Its basc prncples have also nfluenced formatons of soco-economc systems n Austra, Denmark, and Sweden, but n other context-dependent proportons. In ths research, however, the focus les on the Netherlands as a supposed Rhneland country. Others have ndcated the man value dfferences between Anglo-Saxon and Rhneland models by usng dfferent names. Gddens (1998) under scrbes the hstory on the formaton of captalsm but puts a dfferent label on the two exstng socal-economc systems. He dstngushes the Classcal Socal Democracy (or The Old Left ) and the Neolberal Democracy (or The New Rght ). Hall & Soskce (2001) dstngush two dfferent types of captalsm: Lberal Market Economes and Coordnated Market Economes. The core dstncton they draw s between these two types of poltcal economes, whch consttute deal types of captalsm at the poles of a spectrum along whch many natons can be arrayed. Rfkn (2004) refers to the concept of thnkng of the Amercan and European Dream as beng drven by varous prncples. Where the Amercan Dream emphaszes the unbrdled opportunty of each ndvdual to pursue [fnancal] success, [the] European Dream emphaszes communty relatonshps over ndvdual autonomy, cultural dversty over the accumulaton of wealth, sustanable development over unlmted materal growth, unversal rghts and rghts of nature over property rghts and global cooperaton over unlateral exercse of power (Rfkn, 2004). Socety & Economy Aspects Anglo-Saxon Prncples Rhneland Prncples Role of the State Passve & powerless Actve & powerful Role of the Market Economc drver Employment & economc drver Role of Cvc Socety Indvdual power Collectve power Economy Free market Market regulaton Market regulaton Competton Collaboraton Ownershp Market sector (prvatzaton) Collectve sector Coordnaton prncple Rules Shared values Legslaton Case/Common law Cvl law Tax polcy Low taxes on hgh ncome Hgh taxes on hgh ncome Table 2.1 Anglo-Saxon & Rhneland prncples of socety & economy (based on Bakker et al., 2005) 64 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Despte these crucal contrbutons beng of mportance, here we consstently follow the dstncton between Anglo-Saxon and Rhneland models as a way to explan dfferences. The prncple soco-economc dfferences of the Rhneland and Anglo-Saxon model characterstcs can be summarzed by dfferent aspects represented n Table 2.1, based on studes by Bakker et al. (2005). We emphasze that these dfferences are presented somewhat bluntly and that nuances and varatons exst n varous countres. Nevertheless, the basc characterstcs show the orgnal prncples of the Anglo-Saxon and Rhneland model. Especally of nterest to ths research s the role of the State and the Market, as we are studyng the roles of publc and prvate actors n urban development projects. For nstance, n the Anglo-Saxon socal tradton, government s consdered to be passve and rather powerless. In general, the role of the State s to provde busnesses and cvlans the ndvdual freedom to compete wthn an economc market system. On the other hand, Rhneland-rooted governments are consdered to be actve and powerful nsttutons. In general, the role of the State s to regulate market actvtes of busnesses n order to safeguard collectve nterests. Ths ndcates that prvate actors n Rhneland socal models to a hgher degree than wthn Anglo-Saxon socal models rely on publc acton and nterventon n dfferent socal-economc settngs. Ths s an nterestng noton for ths research on prvate sector-led urban development projects. Hence, project developers takng the lead n a Rhneland nsttutonal context n prncple can be consdered as unusual. Ths mght create tensons wth government nsttutons whch are possbly used to be actvely nvolved n urban development projects. Moreover, the Anglo-Saxon competton tradton versus the Rhneland collaboraton tradton, derved from an emphass on the free market and market regulaton, are of specal nterest to ths research as we study the collaboraton between publc and prvate actors. Also, the Rhneland emphass on buldng publc-prvate consensus based on shared values for nstance, n a prvate sector-led settng, mght be replaced by a focus on rules n the Anglo- Saxon tradton. Such notons are taken nto account n drawng lessons from the emprcal prvate sector-led urban development cases. Of course Table 2.1 can be seen as a smplfcaton of categorzng a complex set of dfferent values underpnnng socal-economc systems. Therefore, snce the 1990s several studes (see Espng-Anderson, 1990; Lebfred, 1992; Ferrara, 1996; Bonol, 1997; Korp & Palme, 1998; Sapr, 2006; Agnger & Guger, 2006; Alber, 2006) have been conducted wth the am of classfyng countres wthn a certan soco-economc system category. By analyzng dfferent studes, Nadn & Stead (2008) ntroduced the noton of models of socety or deal types of socety that are used to generalze about dverse values and practces that shape relatonshps between the State, the Market and Cvc Socety n partcular places. The closely related concept of the socal model s used to generalze about the collectons of values that underpn polcy postons (Nadn & Stead, 2008). They argue that these models can be consdered as deal types of broadly founded prncples n socety, and that certan nuances to these models exst. It s nterestng to debate on how European countres ft nto certan socal models, n partcular for ths research. Changes n the classfcaton and poston of the Dutch socal model s of nterest as t mght ndcate that the Netherlands s movng towards beng grouped wthn an Anglo-Saxon classfcaton. Nadn & Stead (2008) contnue that despte several years of dscusson n both academc and poltcal crcles, nether the broader terms lke European model of socety nor the term European Socal Model have been dentfed wth any precson. Albert (1993) argues that 65 Theores

despte the rse of the European Communty n the last 40 years and the effort that has been put nto the unty of Europe no such thng as a sngle consstent European model exst, yet. Ths ndcates that there are a number of varants of related models. There are, after all, large dfferences n welfare systems and levels of nequalty across European countres (Gddens, 2005). Thus, the vewpont s that there are dfferent socal polcy models but that they share a set of common features and underlyng ams (Nadn & Stead, 2008). Wth ths vewpont n place European countres have been classfed as types of socal models n dfferent studes. Table 2.2 shows the welfare state typologes constructed through the years by several authors on the bass of several dfferent crtera (see Nadn & Stead, 2008; Arts & Gelssen, 2002). We have marked the Netherlands and the Unted Kngdom as they are of partcular nterest for ths research; these countres are beleved to represent dstnctve Anglo-Saxon or Rhneland values from ther orgns. Author Espng-Anderson 1990 Lebfred 1992 Ferrara 1996 Bonol 1997 Korp & Palme 1998 Sapr 2006 Agnger & Guger 2006 Alber 2006 Classfcaton of European Welfare State Typologes by Country Socal-democratc DK,FI,SE,NL Scandnavan DK,FI,SE Scandnavan DK,FI,SE Nordc DK,FI,SE Encompassng FI,SE Nordc DK,FI,SE,NL Scand./Nordc DK,FI,SE,NL Nordc DK,FI,SE Lberal IE,UK Anglo-Saxon UK Anglo-Saxon IE,UK Brtsh IE,UK Basc securty IE,UK,DK,NL Anglo-Saxon IE,UK Anglo-Saxon IE,UK Anglo-Saxon IE,UK New Member States CY,CZ,EE,HU,LV,LT,MT,PL,SK,SI Table 2.2 European welfare state typologes (n Nadn & Stead, 2008; based on Arts & Gelssen, 2002) Conservatve AT,BE,FR,DE Bsmarck AT,DE Bsmarck AT,DE,FR,BE,LU,NL Contnental DE,FR,BE,LU,NL Corporatst AT,BE,FR,DE,IT Contnental AT,DE,FR,BE,LU Contnental AT,DE,FR,BE,LU,IT Contnental AT,DE,FR,BE Latn Rm FR,GR,IT,PT,ES Southern GR,IT,PT,ES Southern GR,IT,PT,ES Medterranean GR,IT,PT,ES Medterranean GR,PT,ES Southern GR,IT,PT,ES Other LU,NL Table 2.2 supports our argument that t s hard to classfy countres nto a certan welfare state typology. In ths respect t s mportant to note that classfcaton of countres nto regme types s tme-dependent: government, polces and economc actvty can all change over tme and drectly nfluence the poston of a country n the classfcaton system (Nadn & Stead, 2008). Nevertheless, some conclusons wth regard to the classfcaton of the Netherlands and Unted Kngdom can be drawn. Frst, the term Anglo-Saxon s beng used by fve out of eght classfcatons, ndcatng that ths term s commonly recognzed. At the same tme Rhneland as a typology s not mentoned at all as a typology. Ths ether ndcates that Rhneland prncples do not exst, or that Rhneland prncples are too wdespread throughout dfferent countres and welfare state typologes wth slghtly dfferent contextual nterpretatons. Most lkely, the latter s the case. Second, the 66 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Netherlands s qute mpossble to be categorzed n a sngle typology. The Dutch welfare state typology ranges from Socal-Democratc, Bsmarck, Contnental, Nordc, Scandnavan/ Nordc, to even Other. Ths overvew suggests that Netherlands s an ndefnable welfare state. Nevertheless, n close relatonshp wth the frst argument, t can be stated that the Dutch welfare state s based on Rhneland prncples as these prncples are somehow present n the varous termnologes of typologes used n Table 2.2. Fnally, there are fundamental classfcaton dfferences between the Unted Kngdom and the Netherlands as they are only postoned n the same box once. For nstance, from the year 1990 untl 1998 smlartes between the Dutch and Brtsh welfare state typologes have occurred, at least accordng to the classfcaton presented by Korp & Palme (1998). Perhaps ths s closely related to the publc polces changes under Lubbers-cabnets (1982-1994) towards more market-orented polces (see Secton 4.2). On the bass of these classfcatons we conclude that prncples of an Anglo-Saxon model, untl 2006, were not yet fully adopted n the Dutch welfare state model. However, a closer look reveals that Anglo-Saxon values are beng adopted n Dutch organzatons. Brouwer & Moerman (2005), Bakker et al. (2005), Van Aken et al. (2007) and Godjk (2008) clearly pont out that there are obvous dfferent vews on the way organzatons work f based on Anglo- Saxon or Rhneland thnkng. Bakker et al. (2005) ndcate that: Rhneland tradtons are characterzed by: delberaton and consultaton of all shareholders nterests nvolved wth the organzaton; thnkng n terms of communty; recognzng socetal factors lke nature, envronment and employment n busness; and nnovaton, desgn and renewal n art and scence. Characterstcs of the Anglo-Saxon model are: domnance of the busness sector n socety; market thnkng; shareholders value as man crteron; ratonal vew and management of organzatonal processes and collaboraton; effcency thnkng; focus on short term results; ndvdualzaton and materalsm (Bakker et al., 2005). Of course agan, although commonly recognzed, ths s a very blunt smplfcaton of realty, presented by Rhneland supportve Dutch authors. They contnue focussng on the mpact of these models on daly management concepts wthn organzatons. At the base of dfferences between Anglo-Saxon and Rhneland prncples n (some) organzatons les the shareholder versus the stakeholder approach, accordng to Bakker et al. (2005): Managers (and employees) of Anglo-Saxon orented organzatons are judged by the short term results, most clearly recognsable n a strong focus on the busness quarterly results. Managers n Rhneland orented organzatons use socetal responsble busness models to acheve busness goals, balancng the 3 P s, Proft, People and Planet (Bakker et al., 2005). These man busness objectves nfluence the way organzatons are structured as a consequence. Bg Anglo-Saxon busnesses can be located on the stock market, wth a strong orentaton on the stock exchange quotaton as a result, ndcatng an emphass on fnancal ssues. Ths then s translated to all levels n the organzaton mplcatng lowerng costs wherever possble (cuttng, outsourcng), strvng for short term revenues on nvestment, and ntroducng plannng and control mechansms n order to streamlne processes. As a result of the fnancal focus, managers of these types of Anglo-Saxon frms are rewarded for fnancal 67 Theores

target achevements; craftsmanshp sklls become less mportant or dsappear altogether. In Rhneland thnkng the focus s on fndng a balance between all stakeholders, each approached dfferently; shareholders take an nterest n the organzaton, employees gan a certan trust, contrbutons to socety are made, and respect to the envronment s gven. Values lke ntegrty and equalty at the manageral board, equalty of customers are mportant, supported by a pro-actve atttude of governmental nsttutons. Self-relance of employees, craftsmanshp development, and collaboraton wth all stakeholders are beng supported. Judgment of the managers s based on more qualtatve and quanttatve achevements rather than solely on quanttatve ones. In concluson, the organzatonal and manageral dfferences between Rhneland and Anglo- Saxon model can be summarzed by dfferent aspects presented n Table 2.3. Here, the basc model characterstcs show both models orgnal ntentons. In addton to Brouwer & Moerman (2005), Bakker et al. (2005), Van Aken et al. (2007) and Godjk (2008), we menton that there are several nuances possble n the way frms and nsttutons are organzed and managed. The Rhneland roots of organzatons n the Netherlands stll exst n most of the current corporate cultures. However, Anglo-Saxon management thnkng n for example most fnancal busnesses has become the norm. Organzaton & Management Aspects Anglo-Saxon Prncples Rhneland Prncples Busness drver Short term revenues Contnuty & trust Busness thnkng Fnancal Industral Busness model Stock market models Other models (famly) Company take-overs Encouraged: power to captal Protecton constructons Organzatonal prncple Money, power, herosm Craftsmanshp, content Leadershp & employees Trust n herarchcal postons Trust n self-relance ndvdual Vew on employees Human utlty, mechancal Human dgnty, humanst Prorty relatonshp Legal - organzaton - relaton Organzaton - relaton - legal Management model Output-drven: plannng & control Input-drven: strategy & flexblty Decson-makng Negotatng (gamng) Consensus (debatng) Table 2.3 Anglo-Saxon & Rhneland prncples of organzaton & management (based on Bakker et al., 2005) Moreover, as ths research s rooted n urban plannng, t s nterestng to conceptualze the characterstcs from both models n relaton to spatal plannng. Table 2.4 presents the man basc dfferences between the Anglo-Saxon and Rhneland for a number of aspects related to ths research (based on Heurkens, 2009). Here, agan we emphasze the smplcty of such characterstcs, as n practce several nuances exst. Nevertheless, these fndngs are based on an teratve process of lterature revews and practcal reflectons durng the frst stages of ths research. Several sectons of ths chapter contan ndcatons for the characterzaton of both Anglo-Saxon and Rhneland models n terms of plannng. Here, a clarfcaton about some crucal prncples for ths research s gven. 68 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Table 2.4 ndcates some qute remarkable dfferences between Anglo-Saxon and Rhneland spatal plannng wth regard to ths research. The role of the Anglo-Saxon local governments s less actve and nvestment-orented than ts Rhneland counterpart. Ths relates to dependency on the prvate sector n Anglo-Saxon countres whose role s more entrepreneural n the sense that the market s more actve n ntatng and nvestng n urban development projects than Rhneland market partes are. Moreover, ths s embedded n the concept of development plannng n Anglo-Saxon countres whch enables market partes to actvely develop urban areas based on the prncple of market competton. The Rhneland prncple of spatal plannng, on the contrary, s restrctve or permtted plannng, whch refers to the way government sees markets, the need to be regulated (see also Table 2.1). Furthermore, n terms of makng plannng decsons and mplementng plannng polces crucal dfferences arse. At the bass of Anglo-Saxon decson-makng les the dscretonary prncple (see Chapter 5) whch results n negotatng towards publc-prvate agreements, based on the fact that publc and prvate roles n legal respect often reman separate. In Rhneland the emphass les on the sharng such roles n nsttutonalzed enttes such as jont-ventures, based on the wdespread belef n consensus buldng n plannng. Spatal Plannng Aspects Anglo-Saxon Prncples Rhneland Prncples Role central government Few regulatons & nvestment Regulatons, vsons & nvestment Role local government Reactve: authorzaton Actve: ntatve & realzaton Role prvate sector Actve: ntatve & nvestment Reactve: nvestment & realzaton Spatal plannng prncple Development plannng Restrctve / permtted plannng Decson-makng process Negotatng (gamng) Consensus buldng (debatng) Roles n partnershps Separatng publc & prvate roles Sharng publc & prvate roles Management focus Project-orented Process- & product-orented Table 2.4 Anglo-Saxon & Rhneland prncples of spatal plannng (source author; based on Heurkens, 2009) These nsttutonal dfferences between Anglo-Saxon and Rhneland models on economc, organzatonal and plannng levels are crucal to understand urban development practces and projects. They form a framework of reference that enables us to locate sgns of such model characterstcs n Dutch and UK urban development practces and studed urban projects. 69 Theores

Neolberalsm as poltcal & economc deology In addton to the dstncton between the socal models presented above, we now move towards neolberalsm as the key poltcal-economc deology underlnng the presence of prvate sector-led urban development projects. Herenafter, a dscusson about the nature and characterstcs of neolberalsm s gven by relatng t to changng State-Market relatons. The rse of global neolberalsm took root n the 1980s when the Republcans (Reagan) and Conservatves (Thatcher) became the rulng poltcal partes n the US and UK. Brenner & Theodore (2002) ndcate that the neolberal deologes have nfluenced poltcs n other Western countres: If Thatchersm and Reagansm represented partcularly aggressve programs of neolberal restructurng durng the 1980s, more moderate forms of a neolberal poltcs were also moblzed durng ths same perod n tradtonally socal democratc or socal Chrstan democratc states such as Canada, New Zealand, Germany, the Netherlands, France, Italy, and even Sweden. They put the preferred change towards neolberal poltcal and economc deologes n Western countres n an nternatonal hstorcal perspectve: Neolberalsm frst ganed wdespread promnence durng the late 1970s and early 1980s as a strategc poltcal response to the sustaned global recesson of the precedng decade. Faced wth the declnng proftablty of tradtonal mass-producton ndustres and the crss of Keynesan welfare polces, natonal and local states throughout the older ndustralzed world began, f hestantly at frst, to dsmantle the basc nsttutonal components of post war settlement and to moblze a range of polces ntended to expend market dscplne, competton, and comodfcaton throughout all sectors of socety. In ths context, neolberal doctrnes were deployed to justfy, among other projects, the deregulaton of state control over major ndustres, assaults on organzed labour, the reducton of corporate taxes, the shrnkng and/or prvatzaton of publc servces, the dsmantlng of welfare programs, the enhancement of nternatonal captal moblzaton, the ntensfcaton of nter localty competton, and the crmnalzaton of the urban poor (Brenner & Theodore, 2002: 2). Accordng to Purcell (2008: 2), over the past 30 years or so, the global economy, and ctes n partcular, have been ncreasngly neolberalzed. That s to say socal lfe has become ncreasngly subject to the logc of neolberalsm: free markets, compettve relatons, and mnmal state regulaton of captal. Hackworth (2002: x) even argues that neolberalsm s posed to replace globalzaton as the next popular meta-concept n the socal scences. He further clams the utterly astonshng rse of neolberalsm as an deology, mode of cty governance, and drver of urban change (Hackworth, 2002: 2). Harvey (2005: 3) further explans that neolberalsm has been ncorporated nto the common-sense way many of us nterpret, lve n and understand the world. These authors also have mplctly ndcated the seven underlnng prncples of neolberal deals, whch nclude: Indvdual freedom; Market freedom; Non-nterventonst State; Focus on consumers rather than ctzens; Deregulaton of the market; Decentralzaton of state powers; Prvatzaton of publc servces. 70 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Jessop (2002) argues that neolberalsm s not a thng as much as a process one that occurs alongsde and n combnaton wth many other processes that affect urbanzaton (see Hackworth, 2002: 11). Ths process has been descrbed by Brenner & Theodore (2002) as a dalectcal one, composed of the conflctng tendences toward destructon and creaton, accordng to Hackworth (2002: 11). They have ndcated moments of destructon and moments of creaton ndcatve for the comng nto beng of neolberal poltcal economes. Table 2.5 shows these moments related to State-Market relatons of nterest to our research. Notce that Brenner & Theodore (2002) use qute arbtrary value-laden words to ndcate the effects of neolberal deologes lke the hollowng out of the state. In more neutral sense, Swyngedouw (1997) has descrbed the process of the hollowng out of the state beng part of a larger process called glocalzaton. Accordng to Hackworth (2002: 12) ths nvolves a smultaneous upward (to the global economy and ts nsttutons) and downward (to the localty and ts governance structures) propulson of regulatory power prevously held or exercsed by the naton-state. Thus, the neolberal prncple of decentralzaton of state powers has manfested tself n the localzaton of responsbltes to lower governments. Moreover, the neolberal market freedom prncple has taken root n the globalzaton of state powers to large nternatonal publc and prvate nsttutons. Ste of Regulaton Moments of Destructon Moments of Creaton The State and other forms of governance Hollowng out of natonal state capactes to regulate money, trade, and nvestment flows Dsmantlng of tradtonal natonal relays of welfare servce provson Decentrng of tradtonal herarchcalbureaucratc forms of government control Imposton of fscal austerty measures amed at reducng publc expendtures Shrnkng of publc sector employment Table 2.5 Destructve & creatve moments of neolberalsm (based on Brenner & Theodore, 2002: 17-19) Rollng forward of supply-sde and monetarst programs of state nterventons Devoluton of socal welfare functons to lower levels of government, the socal economy, and households Establshment of Publc-Prvate Partnershps and networked forms of governance Underwrtng the costs of prvate nvestment through state subsdes Transfer of erstwhle forms of publc employment to prvate sector through prvatzaton Purcell (2008: 14) uses the term neolberalzaton by whch he ndcates the on-gong but never completed project to neolberalze urban poltcal economes (see Tckell & Peck, 2003). Accordng to Carmona et al. (2010: 68), the result of these processes (globalzaton, ncreasng power and mult-natonal companes, and hollowng out of the state) has shfted the emphass from naton states to ndvdual ctes. Sassen (1996; 2001; 2006) argues that neolberalzaton as a process has created a globalzed and natonalzed competton among ctes and cty regons to attract captal nvestment. The neolberalzaton processes and focus on localsm and prvatzaton have had several consequences for the governance and physcal appearance of ctes. We wll dscuss ths n the followng Sectons 2.3.2 and 2.3.3 on governance and plannng systems. 71 Theores

Here, t s nterestng to debate whether neolberalsm wll preval as the domnant poltcaleconomc deology for urban development. Hence, the fall of the Berln Wall n 1989 accordng to Fukuyama (1989) market the end of hstory n whch he argued that the battle for deologes was over: captalsm had defeated communsm, and democracy had fnally overcome arstocracy and fascsm (Hackworth, 2002: 188). Fukuyama clamed that neolberal democracy was the poltcal way forward for countres n the world. Accordng to Purcell (2008: 30) captalsm and democracy were presented as an essental [poltcal-economc] par. However, snce the 1990s, cracks n the foundaton of neolberalsm as the predomnant sngle deology have been occurrng. Market economes throughout have showed not to be perfect functonng systems to deal wth ever changng socetal needs. Calls for change often represent a reacton to some dsadvantages of neolberalsm, namely: Imperfect competton; Imperfect delvery of publc goods; Exstence of externaltes; Imperfect nformaton; Undermnng of democracy. Therefore, several authors (e.g. Carmona et al., 2010; Feagn & Parker, 2002; Gddens, 1998, 2000; Groux, 2004; Larner, 2000; Mouffe 2005; Rosemann et al., 2009; Purcell, 2008) have put forward the need for other poltcal-economc deologes to reach alternatve (urban) futures, also often referred to as an era beyond neolberalsm. Most promnently, and rooted n poltcal scence, Gddens (1998; 2000) argued for the need to reframe the supposed opposte poltcal deologes of neolberalsm and socalsm by ntroducng the Thrd Way. It presented a reacton to the dsadvantages of both poltcal-economc models wth ther sngle focus on socal welfare development (the Frst Way) and economy growth (the Second way). It presented an attempt to move beyond smplstc notons of government good, market bad and government bad, market good (Carmona et al., 2010: 71). It was most promnently adopted as a poltcal-economc programme of New Labour government s n the UK n the late 1990s and early 2000s. However, Thrd Way poltcans and government lost some credblty by focusng both on the strength of markets and government. Commentators judged t as neolberal lte (see Peck, 2001). Nonetheless, t presented a frst shft towards a more nuanced vew on State-Market relatons, whch were vewed as complmentary rather than antagonstc. But, despte such poltcal shfts have slghtly been occurrng n Western countres, Purcell (2008: 31) argues that neolberal/lberal-democracy s currently the hegemonc model for organzng poltcal economes. Thus, the prncples of neolberalsm stll domnate governance practces and plannng polces throughout the world and stll affect the way ctes take shape. In concluson, ths secton provded nsght nto the man dfferences between two establshed conceptual socal-economc systems, the Anglo-Saxon and Rhneland model. They are of relevance for ths research as they represent nsttutonal structures whch form the context of prvate sector-led urban development projects n the Netherlands and the UK. Moreover, n specfc we hghlghted neolberalsm as the pre-domnant and prevalng poltcal-economc deology of our tmes. Here, we ndcated some man characterstcs and brefly dscussed the process of neolberalzaton affectng governance and ctes. Notce that the am of ths secton was not to gve a complete and detaled understandng of economc and poltcal lterature. 72 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Rather, we choose to be selectve n provdng nsght nto some crucal economc and poltcal aspects of relevance to our specfc research. The followng sectons contnue to unravel statemarket relatons n a neolberal context. 2.3.2 Urban Governance: State-Market Relatons In lne wth these (Anglo-Saxon or neolberal) poltcal and economc processes occurrng n Western countres snce the late 1980s the theoretcal notons and concepts of governance also have changed. Hackworth (2002: 9) argues that by the 1990s, neolberalsm had become naturalzed as the proper mode of governance for a varety of geo-nsttutonal contexts. Harvey (1989) argues that snce the 1970s onwards, urban governance has become ncreasngly preoccuped wth the exploraton of new ways to foster and encourage local development and employment growth. Ths trend towards entrepreneuralsm s n stark contrast to the manageralsm of the era of the welfare state of the earler decades n whch urban governments were preoccuped wth ther redstrbutve role,.e., the local provson of servces and facltes to urban populatons. In ths regard, Osborne & Gaebler (1992) argue that entrepreneural governments are catalytc, compettve, msson-drven, resultorented, customer-drven and enterprsng. Thus, wth neolberalzaton as the domnant drver of change the focus of cty government/governance shfted from a prmary concern wth welfare provson to promotng the physcal and economc condtons that facltated nward nvestment and economc growth (Carmona et al., 2010: 69). Also, Harvey (1989) argues that ths fundamental shft n the phlosophy and practce of urban governance s related to changes n the macro-economy. In partcular the globalzaton process has brought wth t ncreasng nstablty, as manfested n the de-ndustralzaton of certan areas of the former ndustral core and the declnng power of the naton-state to control captal flows that forces urban governments to take a more pro-actve role. Harvey argues that governance replaced government as the power to organze space derves from a whole complex of forces moblzed by dfferent agents. Harvey (1989) explans that governments have taken an entrepreneural stance through the formaton of coalton poltcs; local chambers of commerce, local fnancers, ndustralsts, and property developers have become major players n makng urban plannng decsons. As Daamen (2010) ndcates governments no longer have the prmate on makng urban plannng decsons, ths role s beng shared wth others as urban development projects nowadays affect several other actors. Moreover, Hackworth (2002: 10) argues that the boundares of urban governance have shfted dramatcally n the past thrty years, partally because of structural constrants to governments (muncpal or otherwse) n the captalst world but also because of a related deologcal shft toward neolberal governng practces (Goonewardena, 2003). Urban governance ncreasngly has become concerned wth makng ctes and places compettve n accordance wth the neolberal logc of market competton. Hackworth (2002: 12) argues that because of the reducton of [central government] nterventons n housng, local nfrastructure, welfare, and the lke, localtes are forced ether to fnance ( ) areas themselves 73 Theores

or to abandon them entrely. Therefore, local governments ncreasngly have become prncpal nvestors n urban development projects (Purcell, 2008: 19). Not only do they regulate land development, they become concerned wth stmulatng urban development by provdng captal. Hackworth (2002: 26) argues that local governments now not only are expected to ally wth busnesses to mprove ts plght (see Peterson, 1981), they are also ncreasngly expected to behave as busnesses as well. In concluson, Hackworth (2002: 10) argues that good governance at the muncpal level s now largely defned by the ablty of formal government to assst (Harvey, 1989; Letner, 1990), collaborate wth (Elkn, 1987; Stone, 1989), or functon lke (Box, 1999) the corporate communty. Moreover, accordng to Hackworth (2002) neolberal urban governance has nsttutonalzed tself nto several urban development practces n the Western world: The dea that muncpal governments should behave as economcally effcent, busnessfrendly, ant-defct enttes s now an axom rather than a debated polcy shft among cty managers (Hackworth, 2002: 39). Feagn & Parker (2002) argue that the land and real estate market contans the logc for urban governance. Prvate actors such as real estate developers, nvestment companes, banks, landowners, local busness eltes, property owners, and bond-ratng agences have become the powerful agents of urban change. For nstance, Hackworth (2002: 39) states that bond-ratng offcals regularly meet wth cty offcals n the Unted States (and, ncreasngly, abroad) to map future allocaton plans. Over a decades of urban development these powerful decson makers have both shaped, and been shaped by, the structures and nsttutons of urban real estate captalsm (Feagn & Parker, 2002: 16). Feagn & Parker (2002: 13-14) argue that there are several crcuts of captal n the market system. The prmary crcut of captal encompasses the flow of credt captal nto raw materals, manufacturng goods, and labor power across the world. The second crcut of captal relates to the flow of captal nto undeveloped land and the several real estate objects of the bult envronment. The tertary crcut of captal nclude nvestments n scence, technology and educaton. Feagn & Parker (2002: 15) state that the second crcut of captal s so actve that t even rvals the frst crcut of captal. Therefore, real estate nvestment, speculaton and development compromse a major economc sector. Due to such forces of market captal towards urban development for nstance, governments ncreasngly have to take an entrepreneural stance to pro-actvely nvest n urban areas, to lure market captal towards ther ctes. (Hackworth, 2002: 24) argues that the declne n federal support for urban development has been almost perfectly counter posed by an ncrease n muncpal debt, as localtes are ncreasngly left to fend for themselves n an nternecne competton for more nvestment (see also Gottdener 1994: 80-84). Hence, the neolberal deregulaton of state powers, roncally, has undermned the desred autonomy for local governments. They ncreasngly have to rely on the market and ts captal, and borrow money to cover ther own cty nvestment expendtures prevously dealt wth at hgher government levels. Furthermore, accordng to Purcell (2008) the need for short-term decsons to attract and nvest market captal n urban areas has resulted n nformal governance arrangements. The State has ncreasngly prvatzed and sem-prvatzed ts functons by contractng out servces to volunteer organzatons, communty assocatons, non-proft corporatons, ( ), 74 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

quangos, ( ), urban development corporatons, regonal development authortes, and Publc- Prvate Partnershps (Purcell, 2008: 12) (see Secton 2.4 for more detals on partnershps n urban development). Thus, one of the foundatons of neolberal governance at the local level s publc-prvate cooperaton. These allances can vary consderably n form, but cty governments are ncreasngly expected to serve as market facltators, rather than salves of market falures accordng to Hackworth (2002: 62). Moreover, t has resulted n labellng such publc-prvate allances n ctes as growth coaltons (see DGaetano & Klemansk, 1999) and urban regmes (see Fansten & Fansten, 1983; 1985; Elkn, 1987; Stone, 1989). Hackworth (2002: 62) explans that urban regmes are collectves of publc and prvate nterests that jon forces to ntate development or retard dsnvestment n a partcular cty. Regme theory accordng to Hackworth (2002: 62) s helpful n understandng neolberal governance nsofar as t emphaszes the ncreasngly murky boundares between prvate and publc nsttutons n the land development process. Hackworth (2002: 26) argues that the less mmedate result of the declne of tradtonal Keynesansm has been the successful naturalzaton of publc-prvate cooperaton at the local level. Hence, t s exactly ths local level at whch market captal s most effectvely spent once publc-prvate allances are n place. The scale of an area s perfectly sutable for developers and nvestors as a means to channel market captal nvestment; real estate development rsks wth an entrepreneural government partner are lmted as such market-orented development agences often am at reducng regulatons enablng development to take less tme. Moreover, accordng to Purcell (2008: 2), t does not nvolve democratc decson-makng processes, as these are often seen as messy, slow, and neffcent; t s a luxury ctes competng desperately for nvestment cannot afford. In summary, snce the 1980s to date, neolberalzaton has had several mplcatons for urban governance, whch nclude the followng: Decentralzaton of state autonomy (more local government soveregnty); Reducton of publc subsdes & regulatons; Establshment of new publc-prvate allances and nsttutons; Aggressve promoton of real estate development; Prvatzaton of prevously publc servces (housng, nfrastructure, energy); Government dependency on (decsons from) market actors; Increase n muncpal debt; Indvdual property rghts over collectve rghts; Competton between urban areas and ctes (compettveness). 75 Theores

Here, t s mportant to notce that urban governance more recent years has moved beyond the narrow scope of the roles of the State and the Market. Now Cvc Socety has become a major player n makng decsons on ctes and urban plannng and development. Therefore, Un- Habtat (2009) ntroduced the term good urban governance whch t defnes as the exercse of poltcal, economc, socal and admnstratve authorty n the management of an urban entty. It s the sum of the many ways ndvduals and nsttutons, publc and prvate, plan and manage the common affars of the cty. Accordng to Hanson et al. (2006), governance comprses of the complex mechansms, processes and nsttutons, through whch ndvduals and other nterest groups artculate ther nterests ether through formal or nformal channels, medate ther dfferences and exercse ther legal rghts and oblgatons. Thus, n prncple, urban governance nowadays ncludes three groups of actors, the State, the Market and Cvc Socety; ths s represented n Fgure 2.5. The State Urban Governance The Market Cvc Socety Fgure 2.5 Urban governance: State-Market-Cvc relatons Un-Habtat takes the dscusson on what the roles of these three groups are a step further by relatng them to dfferent prncples. It explans that good urban governance s an auxlary n the realzaton of sustanable urban growth and development. It goes beyond the state apparatus to nclude the prvate sector and cvc socety. All three have become crtcal for sustanable urbanzaton. Banachowcz & Danelewcz (2004) explan what the prncple roles of these groups towards urban assgnments; whle t s the role of the government to create a conducve poltcal and legal urban envronment, the prvate sector creates wealth through generaton of employment and revenue. The cvc socety, compromsng of varous nterests groups facltates poltcal and socal nteracton and dalogue wthn the urban envronment. Un-Habtat (2004) declares that; the sprt of good urban governance therefore requres a constructve and purposeful nteracton and engagement of these three sectors. Such engagements must be based on effectve partcpaton of all stakeholders, the rule of law, transparency, responsveness, consensus orentaton, equty, effcency and effectveness, accountablty and a common strategc vson. Important to notce s that ncludng cvc socety (e.g. local communtes, busnesses) n urban plannng and development decsons, can be seen as a step towards collaboratve plannng, 76 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

most promnently artculated by Healey (2006). However, n our research, t s prmarly the nsttutonal State-Market relaton n governng urban development practces whch has most of our attenton as the man objectve s to understand publc and prvate roles n urban development projects. Here, we am to fll an academc gap, argued by Fuller & Geddes (2008: 253) as that there s lttle theoretcal apprecaton of the complex and contngent processes characterzng nter-organzatonal arrangements (see Newman, 2001). Moreover, Fuller & Geddes (2008: 276) argue that n neolberal nsttutonal practces local ctzen nvolvement s constraned by ts subordnaton both to the market and to more crucal state polces pursued centrally. They pont to at the very core of neolberal practces lays a serous contradcton n combnng economc and socal-envronmental objectves (e.g. socalzaton). Therefore, t s nterestng to study how publc and prvate actors respond ncorporate socal nterests n our projects by engagng several communty groups n the decson-makng process of urban development projects. In concluson, ths secton provded an overvew of urban governance as a crucal contextual aspect for prvate sector-led urban development projects. Neolberalzaton has shaped the mode of governance of ctes and urban areas as publc and prvate actors ncreasngly cooperate at a local level. The next secton explans how such changng State-Market relatons (have) shape(d) plannng systems and polces. 2.3.3 Plannng Systems & Polces Insttutonal aspects: Plannng cultures, systems & models Plannng systems are nsttutonal (government) systems rooted wthn dfferent plannng cultures all over the world (see Sanyal, 2005). They can be consdered as a grounded set of legal rules for carryng out spatal plannng and regulatng land use development (see Needham, 2006). Moreover, on the bass of the set of rules of such systems dfferent plannng polces come about n order to mplement plannng objectves whch respond to socal needs of dfferent tmes. Such polces, n recent years to a certan degree plannng systems and polces have ncorporated neolberal deas, but wth dfferent manfestatons. Therefore, Hackworth (2002: 12) argues that t s useful to suggest that polcy deas n North Amerca and Europe are ncreasngly domnated by unfed, relatvely smple set of deas (neolberalsm), t s just as clear that the nsttutonal manfestaton (manly through polcy) of these deas s hghly uneven across and wthn countres. Crucally, plannng systems and spatal plannng polcy orentatons dffer from place to place, and are accessble for neolberal deologes. Moreover, such systems constran urban projects and the way publc and prvate cooperaton takes shape. Fgure 2.6 shows a coherent conceptual nsttutonal plannng framework wth dfferent related elements. 77 Theores

Plannng Culture Spatal Plannng Urban Development Plannng System Land Use Polcy Fgure 2.6 Conceptual nsttutonal plannng framework (based on Butelaar, 2011) Here, we explore some key characterstcs of the Dutch and UK plannng cultures, spatal plannng, and plannng models as these are the nsttutonal practces of relevance for our research. As we dscussed n Secton 2.3.1, dfferent welfare state typologes are applcable to the Netherlands and the UK (see Nadn & Stead, 2008). Roughly speakng, there are fve types of welfare systems n Europe ndcated n Fgure 2.7 by Nadn (2011). We can dstngush the Lberal Anglo-Saxon system of the Brtsh slands, the Conservatve Contnental system for West-European countres, the Socal Democratc Nordc system for Scandnavan countres, the Southern Medterranean system of Medterranean countres, and New Member State systems whch are n transton. These systems underlne the nsttutonal values of plannng cultures and the way plannng systems come about. Fgure 2.7 shows overlaps between welfare systems, as country cultures are constantly n transton. For nstance the poston of the Netherlands s qute remarkable as they seem to be rooted n a mx of welfare systems; Lberal, Conservatve, and Socal Democratc. Ths s n lne wth dffcult groupng of the Netherlands as a welfare state typology as shown n Table 2.2. Such a mxed nsttutonal nature makes the Netherlands accessble for adoptng other values from other systems, n our research, the Lberal Anglo-Saxon values. 78 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Fgure 2.7 Geography of European welfare systems (source: Nadn, 2011) Fgure 2.8 Geography of European legal-admnstratve systems (source: Nadn, 2011) 79 Theores

Moreover, Nadn (2011) ndcates fve legal-admnstratve systems n the European Unon, presented n Fgure 2.8. These prmarly consttute of Brtsh, Nordc, Germanc, and Napoleonc Law. Eastern European countres law s consdered to be n transton. These legal-admnstratve systems to a large extent nfluence the way legal rules and laws for plannng systems are constructed. Butelaar (2011) ndcates that despte the overlap of some legal-admnstratve systems, the plannng system n the Netherlands n essence s founded on the prncples Napoleonc Law, and the UK s plannng system n Brtsh Law. Moreover, as Table 2.6 shows, the legal characterstcs of plannng systems nfluences some fundamental features of spatal plannng n both countres. A detaled explanaton of these plannng system and spatal plannng characterstcs s provded the chapters on urban development practces n the Netherlands (Chapters 4) and the UK (Chapter 6). Moreover, there we dscuss the mutual nfluences that have been occurrng between the two countres. Insttutonal Aspects The Netherlands Unted Kngdom Plannng System Napoleonc Brtsh Codfed law Common law French Revoluton orgns Feudal orgns Consttuton present Consttuton absent Abstract law prncples as basc rule Law-makng as we go Lmted role judcal power Judges as law-makers Spatal Plannng Bndng land use plan No bndng land use plan Lmted-mperatve system Importance of materal consderatons Legal certanty Dscretonary authorty, focus on flexblty Permtted plannng Negotated plannng Table 2.6 Plannng system & spatal plannng: UK-Dutch comparson (based on Butelaar, 2011) Dühr et al. (2010) argue that there s a strong nternatonal dmenson to spatal plannng. Ths s especally true for the European Unon n whch boundares between States are blurrng and tradtons of other countres are more easly nfluencng other countres. Therefore, they studed several European spatal plannng systems and questoned whether a European Model of Spatal Plannng would exst. They concluded that there s no such model. However, several nterrelated models of spatal plannng do exst n Europe. Moreover, Nadn (2008) dstngushes four models of spatal plannng n Western Europe, based on research from the Commsson of the European Communtes (CEC, 1997) shown n Fgure 2.9. Dühr et al. (2010) emphasze that countres are lsted accordng to the predomnant model or deal type of spatal plannng. All countres wll exhbt a mxture of types. For ths research, we are manly nterested n the spatal plannng characterstcs of the Netherlands and Unted Kngdom. Therefore we explan the comprehensve ntegrated model and land use management model n whch they have been grouped by Dühr et al. (2010). 80 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Land use management Regulaton of land use change through strategc and local plans BE, IE, UK, LU, CY, CZ, MT Comprehensve ntegrated Coordnaton of spatal mpacts of publc polcy through a framework of plans AT, DK, FI, NL, SE, DE, BG, EE, HU, LV, PL, RO, SL, SV FR, DE, PT, HU, LV, LT, SK Regonal economc and socal dspartes through publc nterventon programmes n nfrastructure and development Regonal economc BR, IT, ES, CY Urban desgn, townscape and buldng control through zonng and codes Urbansm Fgure 2.9 European spatal plannng models (based on CEC, 1997; Nadn, 2008; Dühr et al., 2010) 81 Theores

Dühr et al. (2010: 182) argue that the comprehensve ntegrated model s about coordnaton. It has wde scope and ts man task s to provde horzontal (across sectors), vertcal (between levels) and geographcal (across borders) ntegraton of spatal mpacts of sectoral polces. It does ths by usng a mult-level arrangement of plans that are ntended to coordnate spatal development. It has a strong publc sector component. It s characterzed by mature plannng nsttutons and mechansms n a context of poltcal commtment to and publc trust n plannng. Accordng to Dühr et al. (2010: 182) the land use management model s about the regulaton of changes of use of land and property. The operaton of plannng s geared to managng physcal development, mostly at a local level, though some regulaton may be done at hgher levels. Ths s a narrow scope n terms of the role of plannng, but development s managed n order to meet general plannng prncples and wder socetal goals such as housng provson and protectng envronmental hertage. It makes use of polcy statements and decson rules and there are extensve mechansms for ctzen nvolvement. Ths style model of plannng s partcularly assocated wth prvate sector-led development and land value capture. Here, we state that parts of the Dutch comprehensve ntegrated model of spatal plannng n the past decades has seen some elements for the UK land use management model beng adopted. One of them s the transfer of plannng authorty from central to local governments; the other s the ntroducton of more prvate sector-led development (as used by Dühr et al., 2010). However, the Netherlands retans to use dfferent knds of plans to shape and regulate urban development, whle n UK development regulaton s manly based on polcy regulatons to manage land and property markets. Nonetheless, snce the 1990s we have seen a stronger prvate sector n the Netherlands through the ncrease n land ownershp postons, taken by property developers wth the am of ncreasng land values. Importantly, accordng to ESPON (2007: 41), the plannng systems n the [EU] countres are not statc, but borrow and mx elements from the other styles of spatal plannng and thus are dynamc. Based on research fndngs from 1995 (CEC, 1997) and 2005 (ESPON, 2007), ESPN shows the movement of wthn the EU between styles of spatal plannng. Interestng enough, these studes conclude that the spatal plannng style n the Netherlands seems not to have changed n these 10 years, as t retans ts comprehensve ntegrated approach. However, we wll dscuss that urban development practce n the Netherlands nonetheless has come under nfluence of more market-orented plannng prncples n Chapter 4. For nstance, the UK does show sgns of nfluence from the comprehensve ntegrated approach and regonal economc approach. In Chapter 6 n partcular we dscuss attempts by UK governments to ntroduce more comprehensve ntegrated approaches n spatal plannng. The comparsons and postonng of Dutch and UK welfare systems, legal-admnstratve systems, plannng systems, spatal plannng models above serves to llustrate some basc nsttutonal structure dfferences of the countres also are subject to change as they nfluence one another. Here, we argument that nsttutonal changes n urban development practces, especally through changed State-Market relatons n terms of urban governance, affect the way plannng polces are constructed. For our research ths nvolves studyng how markets and neolberalsm n partcular nfluences publc plannng polcy makng. 82 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Market-orented plannng polces We contnue to explore how neolberalsm, urban governance and ts changed State-Market relatons affect urban plannng n terms of polcy makng and spatal results. Changes n the State-Market power relatons affect the way publc and prvate actors plan ctes and execute these plans through the realzaton of urban development projects. Ths s best explaned by ntroducng the work of Adams & Tesdell (2010). Here, we agree wth these authors by statng that the shft from government to governance has changed the perspectve of planners; planners have become market actors. Importantly, they challenge the dchotomous dstncton between plannng and markets, mostly promoted by manstream economsts. Drawng on recent developments n nsttutonal and behavoural economcs they argue that what s requred s not for planners to become market actors, but rather to realze they are already market actors nvolved n framng and re-framng land and property markets (Adams & Tesdell, 2010: 186). By acknowledgng that planners are operatng as sgnfcant consttutve elements of such markets the authors encourage planners to break free from dscredted market-led thnkng of past decades and dscover nstead how plan-shaped markets can best be created (Adams & Tesdell (2010: 186). They call for State-Market relatons n land and property to be accorded a central place wthn the new spatal plannng. We take ths recommendaton at heart; however, we wll merely focus on publc-prvate relatons wthn the perspectve of urban development projects, rather than spatal plannng as a whole. Accordng to UCL & Delotte (2007) spatal plannng s essentally about shapng and delverng tomorrow s places. Allmendnger & Haughton (2007) argue that ths requres a strong emphass on the spatal co-ordnaton and ntegraton of nvestment plans across the publc sector, amountng as much to a search for spatal governance as spatal plannng. Such ntegraton, accordng to Adams & Tesdell (2010), helps dstngush the concept of spatal plannng from such earler expressons as land use plannng and town and country plannng. Then, the search for place-makng or delverng good qualty places (see Healey, 2006) becomes foremost a quest for connectvty between vson and delvery. Or as Albrechts (2006: 1161) ponts out, n the end strategc spatal plannng relates to acton, to mplementaton. It concentrates on State-Market relatons n land and property as an mportant context for spatal plannng (or urban development). Adams & Tesdell (2010: 187) state that n most western countres, much of the bult envronment s constructed and fnanced by the prvate sector, makng the ablty of spatal planners to understand and nfluence property markets and development processes a crucal test of ther effectveness. Healey (2006) argues for a more nteractve relatonshp wth the prvate sector, whch n her vew s partcularly mportant n areas of sgnfcant urban change. Others lke Adams (1994), Brndley et al. (1996), Falud (2000), Needham (2000), and Lchfeld (2003) support ths vew of the mportance of effectve relatonshps between planners and property actors n varous jargon. Concepts lke communcatve plannng and collaboratve plannng ntroduced by Healey (1997, 2006) for example already ndcate that plannng theory seeks to fnd an understandng of the ever evolvng plannng practce by ncorporatng Market and Cvc Socety nterests. Nonetheless, even when engaged wth market realtes, planners tend to adopt a detached vew of the market. 83 Theores

In contrast to the vew of most planners, here we argue that planners already even adopt market values wthn plannng polces. A concept such as (urban) economc compettveness represents the rse of neolberal or market values wthn publc polcy objectves. Ctes, under the pressure of the globalzaton process, found themselves wthn a constant search for prvate nvestment. However, accordng to Loverng (2009) the concept obscured the realty that under state authorty and publc polcy specal (prvate) nterests were beng favored over publc nterests. As a result of ths n the 1990s and 2000s we saw a global wave of speculatve nvestment n real estate and land development and the rse of property developers as the key actor n urban development. But already n the 1980s, the Amercan term boostersm was ntroduced by planners to explan the predomnantly economc-drven place-makng strateges for ctes. Bengs (2005) argues that the deregulaton of property markets across Europe durng the last quarter of the century s an nstructve example of the effects of globalsaton. Furthermore, the deregulaton of property and land markets has been accompaned by decentralzaton and decson-makng and the overhaul of natonal plannng systems (Bengs (2005). In hs vew, the changng role of publc authortes mples a swtch from control to the promoton of development. Loverng (2009) argues that for years, the numerous ctes of the neolberal model of economc polcy-makng have ponted to ts nequtes, ts harmful socal and cultural effects, ts dsastrous mpact on the envronment, and ts economc unsustanablty. However, ths cannot be attrbuted solely to market forces or the prvate sector, as plannng polces, or planners, thus long ago created space for the market to enter a formerly predomnantly publc doman and nfluence spatal polcy-makng. In relaton to the above, Fuller & Geddes (2008: 256) argue that Larner (2003, 2005) s concerned to move beyond neolberalsm as a monolthc hegemonc entty and to recognze that nsttutonal structures and practces also can be characterzed by a complex set of dverse contradctory spataltes, socaltes, and subjectvtes (Larner, 2005: 17). The queston remans how market-orented neolberal plannng has affected ctes. Some effects can be dstlled based on a rch body of knowledge (e.g. Brenner & Theodore, 2002; Feagn & Parker, 2002; Hackworth, 2007; Purcell, 2008). In summary, snce the 1980s, neolberalzaton has had these physcal effects on ctes: Unequal development; Socal segregaton; Urban sprawl; Economc development; Less publc housng; Property-led regeneraton; Large-scale urban developments; Sem-prvatzed envronments; Enterprse zones; Waterfront developments; Flagshp projects. Hence, n relaton to the above, we argue that market-orented neolberal plannng s not the sole drver for urban change, as t s shaped by publc-prvate nteractons and government nterventon as well. Thus, t s a fallacy to contrbute these spatal effects solely to the nterests of the prvate sector. For nstance, n Sngapore, a country recognzed for ts strong vsonary 84 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

publc sector, smlar development effects as presented above took place durng the last decades. Moreover, n lne wth Larner (2005) t remans to be seen whether such effects can solely be attrbuted to neolberalsm, as other socetal processes take place over tme. Nonetheless, Purcell (2008: 2) argues that the result of neolberalzaton for ctes has been the ntensfcaton of the competton among urban areas for captal nvestment. Economc growth has become the domnant mperatve for urban polcy and plannng. As a result, urban land s seen prmarly as property, and maxmzng ts exchange value s the domnant concern. Moreover Purcell argues that property rghts of owners are legally judged as more mportant than other clams. In concluson, Purcell (2008: 2) states that ctes are becomng ever more unequal, segregated, unhealthy, and oppressve (e.g. Internatonal Network for Urban Research and Acton, 2003). However, although ths beng a product of neolberalsm, we move beyond the pont of judgng f t s market falure or government falure that caused these effects; t remans a hghly subjectve and value-laden affar. Moreover, as we stated urban and economc realty s too complex to draw lnear cause and effect relatons between neolberalzaton and unequal, segregated, unhealthy and oppressve places. Therefore, n lne wth Adams et al. (2005) t s more useful for planners to mtgate such unwanted outcomes by studyng concrete drectons of market nvestment. Lookng at the logcs of the market, Hackworth (2007: 81) argues the spatal effects of neolberalzaton are not as complex to detect (e.g. Castells, 1996) and perphery-orented (Lang, 2003) as often s debated. For nstance, Hackworth (2007: 13) argues that the nnercty has been the area of extreme transton: It has served as the focus of hgh-profle real estate nvestment, neolberal polcy experments, and governance changes; Marcuse & Van Kempen (2000) have deemed the nner-cty a soft spot for the mplementaton of neolberal deals. Especally, snce the 1990s such areas have become the man focus for real estate development, besdes the development of suburb neghborhoods. On the contrary, nner suburbs, defned by Hackworth (2007) as often former ndustral land between the nner-cty and suburbs, has seen less captal nvestment wth ndeed several unwanted outcomes as a result. These fndngs are based on an extensve study about the development of rent prces, house values, and ncome data of fve Amercan ctes. In summary, Hackworth (2007) concludes that there are three dstngushable spatal characterstcs of the neolberal cty: Revalorzaton of the nner core; Devalorzaton of the nner suburb; Suburban expanson. It remans to be seen f such fndngs are also representatve for other neolberal ctes n dfferent parts of the world. Nonetheless, the nvestment pattern s helpful n the sense that t provdes opportuntes to prortze urban nvestment for certan areas through plannng polcy. Wthn such a market context Adams et al. (2005) and Adams & Tesdell (2010) dstngush dfferent polcy nstruments whch enable planners to steer market actons, as dscussed below. Nonetheless, these plannng tools can be used n a broader context than n a pure market varant. Therefore t remans mportant to nvestgate the partcular crcumstances n whch they are used wth prejudgment. 85 Theores

Market-orented plannng tools Thus, here we argue that vews of the role of the State and the Market, and thus the concept of urban governance, actually have an effect on the nterest prortes n spatal polcymakng and, furthermore, the mplementaton of these polces through the realzaton of urban development projects. Nowadays, Adams et al. (2005) argue that land and property development can be seen as the man producton process that creates the bult envronment whch s constraned by nsttutonal structures and spatal polcy nstruments. Then, the mpact of spatal plannng on urban development projects operates through four types of polcy tools ntended to nfluence markets (Tesdell & Allmendnger, 2005); shapng regulatng, stmulatng and capacty buldng tools. These four categores are conceptual, and wll rarely, f ever, be found explctly n plannng documents (see Adams & Tesdell, 2010: 195). However, market shapng tools, such as development, regulatory and ndcatve plans, set mportant condtons for market actons and transactons, especally by offerng a poltcal poston statement (Healey, 1992). Market regulaton tools, such as development control, plannng gan, and restrctve covenants attached to land transfers, restrct the parameters of market actons and transactons. And, market stmulaton tools, such as development subsdes and compulsory purchase, lubrcate market actons and transactons (Adams & Tesdell, 2010). Moreover, Adams et al. (2005) clams that capacty buldng tools can be used to dentfy and develop desrable strateges for market acton by engagng n actor-network relatonshps such as partnershps. Hence, a conscous usage of such plannng polcy tools at the dsposal of plannng authortes possbly strengthens the poston of planners wthn such markets. Therefore n relaton to Hackworth s noton of the dsnvestment n nner suburbs planners could persuade the prvate sector to nvest n and develop such areas by usng shapng, stmulatng and capacty buldng tools. Table 2.7 shows the market-conscous plannng tool types and subsequent examples constructed by Adams et al. (2005: 64). In our vew, these three types of publc polcy tools facltate market nterests but combne them wth a wde array of possbltes to nfluence market nvestment drectly as well. Hence, such a more ntegratve plannng approach could help delver socal, economc and envronmental plannng objectves. Nevertheless, these tools reman rather abstract and take no account of human competences needed to delver those objectves. For nstance, prvate sector-led urban development projects and ts contractual publc-prvate relatonshp, nvolves negotatng the very outcomes of such projects. In prvate sector-led urban development projects we assume that, as the major drver for developers n most cases s to secure a substantal proft, economc objectves wll preval over socal and envronmental ones n jont publc-prvate decson-makng. However, we are aware of the fact that t s hard to defne whether objectves are purely economc, socal or envronmental as these objectves are seldom made explct, and moreover, often are nterrelated. An analyss of emprcal cases may confrm or falsfy ths assumpton. Therefore, the choce was made to nclude these plannng tools as management tools (see Secton 2.5) n studyng emprcal projects, n order to see f publc actors conscously use such tools to see f publc actors conscously use such tools to shape, regulate, stmulate and actvate markets. 86 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Plannng Tools Typcal Sub-types Typcal Examples Shapng (e.g. shapng decson envronment or context) Regulatng (e.g. defnng parameters for decson envronment) Stmulatng (e.g. restructurng contours of decson envronment) Capacty buldng (e.g. developng actor s ablty to dentfy and/or develop more effectve, desrable strateges) Development plans (e.g. publc nfrastructure nvestment plans) Regulatory plans (e.g. statutory plans, polces, strateges) Indcatve plans (e.g. non-statutory plans, polces, strateges & advce) State (or thrd party) regulaton Contractual (or blateral) regulaton Indrect/fscal measures Drect state acton Actor-network relatonshps Socal captal Cultural perspectves Table 2.7 Plannng tool types & ntended market effect (source: Adams et al., 2005: 64) Transport nfrastructure nvestment plans Natonal plannng polcy & development plans Establshng a spatal vson for the area Plannng/development controls Restrctve covenants attached to land transfers Subsdes (tax breaks) encouragng desred actvtes (e.g. derelct land reclamaton grants) and/or taxes to dscourage certan actvtes (e.g. tax on greenfeld development) Compulsory purchase of land Jont ventures Arenas for nteracton/networkng Partnershps/partnerng arrangements Thnkng outsde the box Ths secton provded some drecton to unravel the complex relatonshp between plannng cultures, systems, models, and tools. We postoned plannng wthn a market context, and moved away from the plannng versus market dchotomy. Moreover, these lterature fndngs assst n understandng the nsttutonal State-Market relatons. 87 Theores

Conclusons In concluson, n ths secton we conceptualzed the nsttutonal context for prvate sector-led urban development projects based on our conceptual model. We descrbed that publc-prvate nteracton n urban development projects depend on several nsttutonal publc-prvate relatonshp factors such as poltcal-economc deologes, urban governance concepts and spatal plannng systems and polces. Foremost, these lterature fndngs also assst n understandng nsttutonal characterstcs of both the Netherlands and UK, as contextual dfferences mght lmt the ablty to draw lessons from the UK for the Netherlands. In summary, therefore, n ths research, we wll analyze the nsttutonal context of prvate sector-led urban development projects n the Netherlands and the UK on three man contextual aspects: Economy & poltcs: as a way to understand the economc and poltcal nsttutonal structures nfluencng publc-prvate cooperaton and management n prvate sector-led urban development projects; Urban governance: as a way to understand the nsttutonal urban governance practces nfluencng publc-prvate cooperaton and management n prvate sector-led urban development projects; Plannng system & polces: as a way to understand the nsttutonal spatal plannng systems and polces nfluencng publc-prvate cooperaton and management of prvate sector-led urban development projects. In the followng secton we explore the man organzatonal characterstcs of publc-prvate collaboraton n prvate sector-led urban development projects. Moreover, based on the lterature revew we defne the organzatonal aspects analyzed n our cases. 88 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

2.4 Organzaton of Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects In the prevous secton we explored the nsttutonal context of prvate sector-led urban development projects by creatng an understandng of economc-poltcal, urban governance and spatal plannng concepts and how ths nfluences the roles of the publc and prvate actors. Here, we descrbe how the concept of urban governance nfluences the way publc and prvate actors organze urban development projects on the bass of organzaton theory on Publc- Prvate Partnershps. We emphasze that the theoretcal notons of these more formalzed ways of organzng urban development projects, are also useful for studyng prvate sector-led urban development projects, regardless the formalty or nformalty of the nsttutonal arrangements. Therefore, these theores help us to ndcate the man organzatonal aspects and roles for analyzng prvate sector-led urban development projects wthn ths research. 2.4.1 Publc-Prvate Relatonshps Publc-prvate power shfts & balance The growng mportance of the prvate sector n urban development and as a consequence the ntensfed cooperaton between the publc and prvate sector on ts turn resulted n nter-organzatonal changes for the realzaton of urban development projects. Ths s most profoundly vsble n the rse of Publc-Prvate Partnershps (PPPs) used n urban development. The creaton of ths organzatonal and contractual cooperaton can be seen n the lght of more prvate sector nfluences on the one hand, and the deregulaton of tasks and responsbltes from central governments towards local governments on the other. Moreover, developmentled spatal plannng polces have created local decson-makng networks; urban areas have become the domnant level on whch publc and prvate actors act to realze spatal objectves. In ths regard, McQuad (2000) argues that the natures of partnershps are both a result of and can possbly alter, because of changng global economc patterns, government fundng, and economc structures, n partcular the transformaton of central-local government and changng state-market relatonshps. However, McQuad also under scrbes our vew that Publc-Prvate Partnershps mostly are the cause of such changng relatonshps (McQuad, 2000: 11). Therefore, we explore the relatonshp between publc and prvate sectors through the lens of a publc-prvate spectrum n an nternatonal perspectve. 89 Theores

Harvey (1989) ndcates that PPPs ndeed have been a celebrated form of entrepreneuralsm as a form of urban governance. Furthermore, Bult-Sperng & Dewulf (2006) under descrbe that PPPs are a specal feature of (urban) governance. Perre & Peters (2000) lst eght factors that focused ncreasng attenton on governance ssues n the last decade of the twenteth century. Also, Perre & Peters (2000) dentfy several factors that resulted n the ncrease of PPPs as an nter-organzatonal model. In ths regard, Bult-Sperng & Dewulf (2006) argue that: Many governments throughout the world have been nvolved n Publc-Prvate Partnershps. Governments ncreasngly depend on the prvate sector for the mplementaton of projects. Ths changes the relatonshp between government and marketplace. Boundares between publc and prvate organzatons are blurrng and publc management s changng. Publc management more and more focuses on governance, whch ndcates a focus on process matters rather than nsttutons. Ths creates self-organzng, complex and dynamc nter-organzatonal networks, whch are characterstc for today s socal poltcal world (Bult-Sperng & Dewulf, 2006: 1). In ths sense, PPPs can be consdered as a global phenomenon (see Secton 2.3.1) wth common causes. Bult-Sperng & Dewulf (2006: 10) lst common causes for the movement towards partnershps found n both the North Amerca and Europe, whch are as follows (see Keatng, 1997; Grmshaw et al., 2002; Flnders, 2005): Fscal crss n the publc sector, and therefore a search for other sources of fundng; Increased moblty of captal, causng a power shft n the relatonshp between government and captal towards the prvate sector; Increased complexty of government tasks requrng an overlap between the publc and prvate sector; Domnance of neolberal deas and relance on market mechansms and ncentves. In lne wth the above, t seems that we notce an ncreased prvate autonomy as s shown n a publc-prvate autonomy spectrum (Fgure 2.10) developed by Börzel & Rsse (2002). In short, these authors defne several forms of organzaton wthn the publc-prvate spectrum. They argue that a Publc-Prvate Partnershp can be characterzed as an organzatonal structure that s stuated wthn the mddle of publc and prvate regmes. Both partes n that case are operatng on the bass of a shared autonomy. To stay n the terms of Börzel & Rsse (2002) ths stuaton can be dentfed as the co-regulaton of publc and prvate partes. Hence, other forms of cooperaton are not regarded as pure PPPs. Ths s a somewhat narrow vew on PPPs, as autonomy only s one aspect of sharng prncples between actors whch take part n PPPs. Therefore, n our vew PPPs nvolve any type of publc-prvate nteracton. 90 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

100% Publc 1 2 3 4 5 Increasng publc autonomy 6 7 8 Increasng prvate autonomy 100% Prvate 1 Publc regulaton: No prvate nvolvement 2 Lobbyng of publc partes by prvate partes 3 Consultaton and co-opton by prvate partes 4 Co-regulaton of publc and prvate partes 5 Delegaton to prvate partes 6 Prvate self-regulaton n shadow of herarchy 7 Publc adopton of prvate regulaton 8 Prvate self-regulaton: No publc nvolvement Fgure 2.10 Publc-prvate autonomy spectrum (based on Börzel & Rsse, 2002) At frst sght, publc-prvate autonomy n prvate sector-led urban development can be postoned wthn category 5 or 6 (as shown n Fgure 2.10). In ths category, local authortes delegate tasks to, and hold (herarchcal) decson power over, prvate actors self-management of projects. Our case studes must reveal f ths s true. 91 Theores

Internatonal comparatve perspectves There are nternatonal dfferences wth regard to PPPs. Accordng to Bult-Sperng & Dewulf (2006: 10) n general terms the dfference between the USA and Europe s the tradtonal autonomy of the prvate sector n the former (property rghts) versus the tradtonal autonomy of the publc sector n the latter. The USA and contnental Europe represent the two extremes, wth the UK as an ntermedate case (see DGaetano & Strom, 2003). Table 2.8 shows the dfferent natonal contexts of Publc-Prvate Partnershps whch reflect state-market relatons. The table s of relevance to ths research as we study prvate sector-led urban development projects n the Netherlands and the UK. As such, the table suggests that the UK and Europe (the Netherlands) have more n common than the USA and the Netherlands as there are fundamental contextual dfferences. PPP Characterstc USA UK Europe Autonomy Prvate Publc Publc-prvate relatons Stable Weak Publc-publc relatons Independent Dependent Leadershp Strongly organzed local busness eltes No local busness leadershp Publc sector nfluence Weak Strong Voluntary tradtons Strong Weak Table 2.8 Natonal context of Publc-Prvate Partnershps (based on Bult-Sperng & Dewulf, 2006) In general, countres wth strong publc tradtons seem to generate PPPs that are domnated by publc partes. In countres wth a weaker publc sector tradton, the prvate sector wll domnate the partnershp. Hence, the balance of a partnershp s therefore typcally publc sector domnated n Sweden and France, prvate sector domnated n the USA, and publcly managed n the UK (Bult-Sperng & Dewulf, 2006: 11). Interestngly, Savtch (1997) postoned such notons on a publc-prvate domnance contnuum (see Fgure 2.11). Publc Sector Domnance France Sweden UK Canada USA Hong Kong Prvate Sector Domnance Fgure 2.11 Publc-prvate domnance contnuum (based on Savtch, 1997 n Perre (Ed.), 1997) 92 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Despte the fact that t s qute arbtrary to poston countres or PPP practces on such a contnuum, Fgure 2.11 s of partcular nterest for ths research seen n the lght of the ncreasng prvate sector domnance n urban development practce n the Netherlands. The domnance of ether the publc or prvate sector n our opnon ndcates some power over others. However, terms lke domnance or power do not ndcate what t conssts of, or, how actors can execute these powers. Therefore, ths structure of publc-prvate domnance for countres also functoned as a structurng devce for the development of the comparatve urban nsttutonal model for management measures n prvate sector-led urban development (see Secton 2.2.3). In addton, we use manageral terms to ndcate the executon of such domnance relatonshps between publc and prvate actors n urban development projects. Wth the understandng of urban governance as the underlyng prncple for explanng the publc-prvate autonomy and domnance spectra, t s nterestng to explore the dfferent relatonshps wthn partnershps that reflect such spectra. For nstance, Bennett et al. (2000) consder PPP to reflect a spectrum of possble relatonshps between publc and prvate partes for the co-operatve provson of nfrastructure servces (Fgure 2.12). Ths PPP spectrum s more usable as a way to descrbe publc-prvate power relatonshps. Moreover, unlke Börzel & Rsse (2002) they use a broader defnton of PPPs, n between whch several partnershp forms can be dstngushed. Broadest defnton of PPPs Fully Publc Sector Agreeng Frameworks Tradtonal Publc Contractng Jont Ventures Passve Publc Investment Fully Prvate Sector Passve Prvate Investment Servce Contracts Buld, Operate & Invest Agreeng Frameworks Publc Prvate Provder Government Role Enabler Regulater Fgure 2.12 Publc-Prvate Partnershp spectrum (based on Bennett et al., 2000) Fgure 2.12 hghlghts the role of government as a provder of servces at the one far end, and the enabler of servces on the other far end. Moreover, several PPP forms have been dstngushed and placed on the publc prvate spectrum. Although these PPP forms relate to nfrastructure projects, also there are smlartes wth PPPs n urban development projects. Jont ventures for nstance are common partnershp arrangements n urban development 93 Theores

projects n the Netherlands. Moreover, buld operate and nvest partnershps relate to concessons from governments provded under certan condtons to developers, as studed n ths research. Hence, ts poston n the fgure ndcates a shft towards an ncreased power by the prvate sector. Notce that the central ssue n the explanatons above s the role of government. It s often assumed that governance and partnershps n general, and concessons or prvate sector-led urban development n partcular, decreases the autonomy, domnance and power of publc actors. Perre & Peters (2000) argue that ths s not necessarly the case as they explan that: We beleve that the role of the State s not decreasng as we head nto the thrd mllennum but rather that ts role s transformng, from a role based n consttutonal powers towards a role based n coordnaton and fuson of publc and prvate resources (Perre & Peters, 2000). In relaton to ths, Bult-Sperng & Dewulf (2006) argue that the central queston on governance from the perspectve of PPPs s how to organze the nteracton between publc and prvate sector. Wthn such publc-prvate nteractons there s room for publc actors to nfluence projects. Moreover, such nteracton s effectuated through a wde varety n the use of collaboraton models, whch are based on nsttutonal rules that determne the amount of nfluence, decson power and autonomy of actors. 2.4.2 Publc-Prvate Partnershps Recently, we saw the rse of the concesson model as a form of Publc-Prvate Partnershp (PPP) or collaboraton model for urban development n the Netherlands (see Secton 1.2 & 2.2.4). As such models are not an nternatonally recognzed term, because PPPs tend to have very country-specfc characterstcs and termnologes, we have ntroduced the more neutral term prvate sector-led urban development as a form of partnershp. In ths secton, an explanaton of relevant theoretcal concepts of PPPs for prvate sector-led urban development s gven. Several scholars (e.g. Baley, 1994; Osborne, 2000b; Jacobs, 2000; McCarthy, 2007) have provded theoretcal understandngs of partnershps n the doman of urban regeneraton and development. Hence, n Osborne (2000b) many dfferent theoretcal angles for studyng PPPs have been presented. In general, Osborne (2000a: 2) dstngushes fve man theoretcal PPP lterature schools on focused on organzatonal collaboraton (e.g. Huxham & Vangen, 1996), publc management (e.g. Osborne, 1997), publc governance (e.g. Kckert, 1997a), communty development (e.g. Oakley, 1991), and emprcal lteratures (e.g. Taylor, 1997). Furthermore, Osborne (2000b: 2) argues that although these lteratures are sgnfcant n ther own rght ther weaknesses are that they: are developed n solaton of one another; have a narrow natonal focus; and fal to consder the management and mpact of PPPs. In addton to Osborne (2000b), ths research ams at fllng such academc gap by smultaneously lookng at the collaboraton, management and effects of prvate sector-led urban development projects as form of partnershp. 94 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Therefore, there s no straghtforward defnton of Publc-Prvate Partnershps n urban development as many defntons exst (see McQuad, 2000) and none of them fully covers the dverse and complex characterstcs of partnershps. McQuad (2000: 11) states that a number of assumptons underle defntons of partnershps whch nclude: the potental synergy of some form; the development and delvery of a strategy or project; and the noton that the publc sector not pursung purely commercal goals. Moreover, n general, PPPs n urban development nvolve workng together (Holland, 1984), reachng mutual agreements (Hardng, 1990), achevng mutual benefts, the moblzng of a coalton of nterests (Baley, 1994), and some sort of nsttutonalzed arrangement. Wth such general characterstcs n place, for ths research we choose to follow a qute neutral defnton of PPP expressed by Njkamp et al. (2002): A PPP s an nsttutonalzed form of cooperaton between publc and prvate actors who, on the bass of ther own ndgenous objectves, work together towards a jont target, n whch both partes accept nvestment rsks on the bass of a predefned dstrbuton of revenues and costs (Njkamp et al., 2002). Here, four man characterstcs n ths defnton n our opnon are crucal for ths research; cooperaton, actors, objectves, and dstrbuton. Here an explanaton s gven about ther mportance to ths research. Frst, cooperaton mples that both actors operate jontly wthn a project; cooperaton between actors s needed because actors are (nter)dependent on each other to realze urban development projects. However, t does not ndcate on whch aspects actors cooperate, so we wll later elaborate on the aspects taken nto account n ths research. Second, actors take a central poston n ths research, as people have to carry out the work; t s not an organzaton tself that does ths. Furthermore, organzatons do not take part wthn nsttutonalzed organzatonal arrangements; these are representatves from dfferent organzatons whch act on behalf of an nsttutonalzed entty. Nevertheless, formal arrangements can also be contracts. In ths case, no nsttutonalzed entty s formed as actors work together on the bass of agreements operatng on the bass of ther own autonomy. Thrd, thnkng n objectves les at the heart of ths research; t mplcates that publc and prvate actors work together as they have an nterest n the project; they try to acheve actor-specfc and common objectves wth a project. In ths sense, a project s vewed as a means rather than a goal. Fnally, dstrbuton mples that publc and prvate actors need to thnk about what actually s done by whom. Ths nvolves dentfyng several project-specfc nter-organzatonal arrangements such as responsbltes, rsks and revenues, whch can be ether shared among or dvded between the actors nvolved. In order to poston our research, we have made some other choces based on a lterature revew. For nstance, the structure of partnershps that shapes the relatonshp between actors can dffer consderably. McQuad (2000) dstngushes formal and nformal partnershps. Formal partnershps structures for nstance nvolve legally bndng contracts, unenforceable publc agreements or general agreements, whle nformal partnershps normally consst of nformal networks nterlnkng ndvduals and organzatons wth shared ntentons. Our research focuses on formal partnershps between publc and prvate actors, but takes nto account nformal relatons as well. 95 Theores

Furthermore, an mportant dstncton can be drawn between polcy-based partnershps, whch lay down a set of general rules for prvate nvestment and operaton through co-operatve ventures, and project-based partnershps, that focus on specfc ste or crcumstances (Stephenson, 1991; Dunn, 1999). The former does not have a defnable end-pont, whle the latter has a clear end. For ths research, we wll focus on project-based partnershps as they are consdered to be more formal and nsttutonalzed as nter-organzatonal or contractual arrangements are applcable to a project. Moreover, there s another characterstc that s of crucal mportance to ths research; an nter-organzatonal relatonshp. If a cooperatve relaton s formed to establsh a specfc (urban development) project, the organzng can be characterzed as an nter-organzatonal relatonshp (Hellgren & Sternberg, 1995; Achrol, 1997). Therefore, a project-specfc partnershp can be regarded as a temporary nter-organzatonal relatonshp as t has a defnable end-pont (Gls, 1978). In our research we nterpret ths publc-prvate relatonshp as the nteracton between actors on a project level. Also, another mportant aspect of partnershps s the process of moblzaton of actors (Baley, 1994). Ths nvolves creatng partnershps through a top-down process wth some sort of hgher level of authorty, or a bottom-up process wth some sort of self-organzaton. In our research, we focus on top-down processes of moblzaton, whch nvolves some sort of publc or prvate authorty that ntates development projects and establshes formal relatonshps wth other authortes nto partnershp agreements. Fnally, an mportant choce relates to the dstncton between contractng-out and partnershps. Kljn & Tesman (2000: 84-85) argue that partnershps often are a combnaton of market partes and governments, and that contractng-out n essence can be seen as prvatzaton defned as a shft from publc to prvate sector-producton. However, several contractng-out arrangements are labelled as partnershps, whch n ther vew are essentally dfferent, as contractng-out mples that the publc prncpal specfes the output or servce that has to be delvered by the prvate sector. Notce that we categorze our prvate sector-led urban development projects essentally as partnershps, as t nvolves a form of publc-prvate cooperaton. Nonetheless, we recognze that for nstance a publc tender nvolves specfyng servces to be delvered, and thus nvolves a contractng-out publc-prvate relatonshp. 2.4.3 Insttutonal Aspects & Inter-organzatonal Arrangements In order to make a typology of the organzaton of prvate sector-led urban development projects we need to consder whch aspects are worth analyzng. Accordng to Bult-Sperng & Dewulf (2006: 18) a typology of PPP contans prescrptons about the structure of the cooperaton and the process of cooperaton. The structure s the legal, fnancal, or organzatonal nsttuton, whereas the process s the actual nteracton. For the organzaton of prvate sector-led urban development projects we are manly nterested n the structure of these partnershps. Nonetheless, nteracton between publc and prvate actors s a crucal part n ths research, but s rather vewed as management as any form of nfluencng (see Secton 2.2). The nsttutonal aspects that are researched are expressed n relaton to each other n Fgure 2.13. 96 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Fnancal Rsks & Revenues Insttutonal Aspects Interorganzatonal Arrangements Legal Organzatonal Rules & Requrements Tasks & Responsbltes Fgure 2.13 Insttutonal aspects of partnershps under study Fgure 2.14 Inter-organzatonal arrangements of partnershps Each of these aspects must be taken care of by actors, n order to acheve the project-related objectves of the publc and prvate actors nvolved. Here, dfferent nter-organzatonal arrangements have to be determned and attrbuted to and between the actors. Often these arrangements are related to the man necesstes (see Bure, 1978) for developng urban development projects. These publc and/or prvate arrangements are related to the structured aspects above. Publc and prvate actors organze ther cooperaton dstrbutng n the followng nter-organzatonal arrangements: tasks & responsbltes, rsks & revenues; rules & requrements (Fgure 2.14). Each of these nter-organzatonal arrangements can be attrbuted or mandated to certan actors. Furthermore, the nature and attrbuton of these arrangements can dffer and change over tme, as urban development projects often are characterzed by several successve development stages closed off by certan decson moments. In urban development processes, one can dstngush four major stages related to the bult object; the ntatve, desgn & feasblty, realzaton, and operaton stage. Wthn each stage of an urban development project, actors can make agreements about the nature and dstrbuton of tasks and responsbltes, rsks and revenues, and rules and requrements. Especally, n ths research we explore the nature of these nter-organzatonal arrangements and how local authortes and project developers have dstrbuted these arrangements n prvate sector-led urban development projects. We clam that the attrbuton of certan arrangements to certan actors also condton the way publc and prvate actors can manage urban development projects. Thus, we wll study the relatonshp between organzaton and management. 97 Theores

Conclusons Takng nto account our conceptual model, we here tred to conceptualze the organzaton of prvate sector-led urban development projects. We explaned the relatonshp between urban governance and the rse of Publc-Prvate Partnershps. Furthermore, we placed the publc-prvate relatonshp n an nternatonal perspectve through the use of varous conceptual schemes. Ths enables us to categorze urban development practces and explan dfferences between publc-prvate relatonshps. Moreover, we clarfed the man aspects and arrangements of partnershps whch are analyzed n ths research. Also, we ndcated that the determnaton of nsttutonalzed aspects eventually affect the way nter-organzatonal arrangements are dstrbuted among the actors wthn dfferent development stages. Ths n turn nfluences the way actors can manage prvate sector-led urban development projects. In short, n ths research, we wll analyze prvate sector-led urban development projects on three man organzatonal aspects: Partnershps characterstcs: as a way to understand publc-prvate cooperaton relatonshps; Insttutonal aspects: as a way to understand publc-prvate cooperaton structures and processes; Inter-organzatonal arrangements: as a way to understand the attrbuton of dfferent project necesstes to publc and prvate actors wthn projects. The followng secton moves towards how publc and prvate management of prvate sector-led urban development projects s defned n ths research. 98 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

2.5 Management of Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects In the prevous secton, dfferent organzatonal aspects and arrangements of Publc-Prvate Partnershps were dscussed as they can condton the management of urban development projects. Besdes the attenton for the organzatonal form, n Publc-Prvate Partnershp lterature the mportance of managng such partnershps s emphaszed (e.g. Osborne, 2000b; Kljn & Tesman, 2003; Koppenjan & Kljn, 2004; Meer & O Toole, 2007). Despte the relevance of understandng how urban development projects are organzed, t s often the management of projects undertaken by actors that nfluences the outcome of projects (see Van Aken, 2004; Kljn, 2008). Also, Kort (2011) ndcates the mportance of management over organzaton n urban development projects, but also concludes that wthout some sort of organzatonal arrangement, management can be less effectve n achevng project results. Hence, we also acknowledge the mportance of management of development projects (see Secton 2.2.2), but at the same tme we argue that both organzaton and management are nterrelated and co-exstent. Especally n urban development projects both organzaton and management are present and sometmes ndstngushable. Therefore t s useful to understand them n an nterrelated ntegratve manner. In ths secton, we dscuss researchrelated urban management concepts (Secton 2.5.1), followed by crucal choces for our management measures and functons (Secton 2.5.2-2.5.5), fnally resultng n a publcprvate urban management model (Secton 2.5.6). 2.5.1 Competng Urban Management Concepts Notce that our research s characterzed as an nductve practce-based qualtatve research (see Secton 2.2.2), and that we use a conceptual ntegratve urban management model (see Secton 2.2.3) to study urban development projects. As such, we choose an ntegratve management approach that embraces dfferent management concepts and ams to construct a more holstc vew on management based on emprcal reflectons. Here, frst we explore two commonly used management theores: New Publc Management and Governance. Also, we provde arguments for not choosng ether one of these concepts for conductng our emprcal case studes. Second, we explore the competng urban management concepts of project management and process management, and dscuss the mplcatons for our research. 99 Theores

New Publc Management versus Governance In busness admnstraton the New Publc Management (NPM) and Governance management theores or rather management concepts (see Kort, 2011: 31) came nto exstence as alternatves for classcal management theores, and am to fnd solutons for complex tasks government nowadays face. Sometmes they can be seen as competng theoretcal vews, as ther prncples dffer fundamentally. In general, NPM emphaszes the mportance of organzaton, whle Governance emphaszes the mportance of management. Table 2.9 ndcates the man features of and dfferences between both concepts based on Kort (2011: 51) and Kljn (2012). Herenafter, we explore some of ther characterstcs wth regard to publc-prvate relatons and roles. Concept Aspects New Publc Management Governance Focus Organzaton of the publc sector Management between organzatons: no central actor exsts Central noton Improvng effectveness & effcency of realzaton Dependency of actor demands coordnaton & collaboraton Vson on management Role of poltcs Approach to complex socetal problems Performance management: ntroducton of management technques from prvate sector to publc sector Herarchcal: clent for executng organzatons Control: clearly defned tasks, roles & responsbltes Table 2.9 New Publc Management versus Governance (source: Kort, 2011: 51; based on Kljn, 2012) Network management: Actvate, enrch, coordnate, process agreements & commtment Coordnatve: one of the partes, but wth a specal poston Utlze: create opportuntes by connectng & collaboratng Osborne & Gaebler (1992) argue that n NPM governments are supposed to focus on formulatng polcy and clear objectves, whereas the mplementaton should be carred out by prvate and non-proft sectors. Thereby, the publc sector manly has to supervse mplementaton based on performance crtera (Hood, 1991). NPM also propagate autonomous organzatons wth a certan dstance to poltcs (Pollt et al., 2004). As such NPM focuses on mprovng effcency, professonalzng management, brngng servce closer to cvlans, and downszng the nfluence of poltcs. The separaton between polcy and mplementaton allows poltcans to concentrate on ther core tasks (Van Thel, 2001). Osborne & Gaebler (1992) argue that n NPM the publc sector s supposed to facltate other partes, and descrbes ths shft as steerng rather than rowng. Based on research conducted by several authors (e.g. Hood, 1991; Kckert, 1997b; Lane, 2000; Pollt et al., 2004), Kort (2011: 31) dentfes seven central elements of New Publc Management, ncludng: Hands-on professonal management Explct performance standards and ndcators Emphass on controllng output; Independent organzatonal unts at dstance; Tendency towards more competton and tenders; Prvate management styles focusng on flexblty; Downszng the use of means. 100 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

As argued before (Secton 2.2.2 & 2.3.2), Governance generally can be seen as the capacty to organze collectve acton toward specfc goals (Hller, 2002). Kort (2011) argues that busness admnstraton lterature on Governance emphaszes network management (e.g. Kljn & Tesman, 2003; Hodge & Greve, 2005) or strategc management of allances (e.g. Yoshno & Rangan, 1995; Doz & Hamel, 1998). In essence, Governance lterature agrees that complex collaboraton processes cannot lead to good results wthout the comprehensve effort of managng networks (e.g. Gage & Mandell, 1990; Agranoff & McGure, 2001; 2003; Mandell, 2001; Meer & Toole, 2007). In ths regard, networks must be understood as an assembly of publc and prvate actors (Kort, 2011), characterzed by non-herarchcal horzontal relatonshps between actors. Moreover, for the realzaton of objectves partes are mutual dependent (Hanf & Scharpf, 1978) and are all able to nfluence and steer, and be nfluenced and steered upon. Moreover, knowledge and means are dvded amongst dfferent partes, who are therefore n search for ntensve and sustanable relatons (Alter & Hage, 1993). Dfferent nterdependences (see Brujn & Ten Heuvelhof, 1999) to a degree ensure the comng nto exstence of nteractons and partnershps. Moreover, Kort (2011: 43) argues that Governance perspectves allow room for other actors than publc partes to play an mportant role handlng complex socetal ssues. In essence, urban development projects can be vewed from both management perspectves. In summary, the NPM vew focuses on herarchcal clent-contractor relatons and Governance focus on horzontal actor relatons. In hs comparatve research on urban regeneraton companes n the Netherlands and the UK, Kort (2011: 51) argues that deas behnd both approaches are present n Publc-Prvate Partnershps (PPP). Nonetheless, n organzaton theory about PPPs we notce that a dstncton s made between contracts (e.g. concessons) on the one hand and partnershps on the other hand (Osborne, 2000b; Kljn & Tesman, 2003; see Secton 2.4.2). We do not follow ths clear dstncton and argue that Publc-Prvate Partnershps also nvolve partnershps based on contracts, such as s the case n our prvate sector-led urban development projects (Dutch: concesses). For nstance, n our defnton of prvate sector-led urban development projects we emphasze both the role of management and organzaton (see Secton 2.2.4). Despte that such projects n theory are based on a formal publc-prvate organzatonal role dvson, lterature also suggests a leadng role of prvate actors and facltatng publc role n managng the development of an urban area. Notce that the former characterstc s n lne wth the NPM vew, whle the latter acknowledges the prncples of the Governance vew. Therefore, we do not choose ether one of these vews as they nether are able to create a comprehensve understandng of the management of complex urban development projects. Organzaton and management do not exst n solaton, whch necesstates a more holstc ntegrated vew of urban management. Nonetheless, t s nterestng to reflect upon these somewhat competng vews by analyzng the possble exstence of emprcal tensons between both approaches. Thus, our ntegrated urban management vew does not exclude both NPM and Governance, nor does t advocate to test theoretcal assumptons underlnng both management theores. In the followng sectons we explore varous urban management concepts and explan our choces for specfc management measures and functons. 101 Theores

Project management versus process management Another academc dscusson n urban development nvolves the possble competng prncples of project management on the one hand and process management on the other. For nstance, Lousberg (2012: 40) argues that n recent years an ever more explct dfference has been made between project and process management. Ths dfference s based on the defnton of project management as gvng drecton to temporary, result-orented cooperaton between actors wth scarce resources (Wjnen et al., 2004: 8), and process management as the management of complexty wthn networks of people (Tesman, 1992; 2001). Table 2.10 shows the man dfferences between both types of management. Project Management Sngle actvtes One goal under shared regme Short term orentaton Heterogeneous n culture & acton patterns Sgnfcant uncertanty about performance, costs & tme table Producton takes place n temporary organzatons Dsturbs procedures & lne organzaton poston Process Management Plural actvtes Multple goals and shared regme Long term orentaton wth changng perspectves Heterogeneous, ambguous & dynamc n culture & acton patterns Uncertanty about performance, costs & tme perspectve Producton takes place n nter-organzatonal arenas Generates dynamcs & requres flexblty Table 2.10 Project management versus process management (sources: Tesman, 2001; Brul et al., 2005) Despte these dfferences n lterature, n practce t s hard to dstngush project from process management; we argue that they are complementary. For nstance, Lousberg (2012: 40) argues that despte these dfferences both types of management are complementary management strateges between whch actors can swtch accordng to the needs of the actors nvolved (see Groote et al., 2002: 28; Weenng, 2006: 249). Franzen et al. (2011) argue that project management focused on controllng and optmzng the project duraton costs and qualty, rather must be postoned wthn the broader scope of process management. Franzen et al. (2011: 30) argue that tradtonal project management no longer guarantees the successful completon of urban area development, as urban development has become a complex process of nterrelated and changng crcumstances nfluencng the course of projects. Nonetheless, they clam that project management stll has a place n realzng and fnalzng actual works. For nstance, Kljn et al. (2008) argue that managers face several management dlemmas n Publc-Prvate Partnershp projects whch place them for manageral choces to ether use the project management approach or process management approach. Ther emprcal research concluded that some dlemmas between the two management approaches are present, but also found that managers see them as necessary management alternatves to be appled to ther projects. Agan, ths affrms that they are complementary, as they are essentally both needed to realze projects. 102 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

2.5.2 Project Management Actvtes Wth regard to the above, we propose to defne project management as an actvty rather than beng solely goal-drected at managng tme, costs and qualty. Thus, project management actvtes n ths research are vewed wthn the object of study beng urban development projects. These projects are developed over tme and thus can be consdered as a process of nterlnked stages that need to be managed as well. An urban development process s often phased nto an ntatve, desgn, realzaton, and mantenance stage. Publc and prvate actors wthn these stages perform a certan actvty. In successve order, they ntate, desgn, plan, and operate developments. By dong so, they have an nfluence on the outcome of urban development projects. Therefore, n ths research, we consder ntatng, desgnng, plannng, and operatng as project management actvtes. Here, we follow the motto of project management as management through phasng (Brul, 2011). 2.5.3 Process Management Actvtes Bult-Sperng (2003) and Bult-Sperng & Dewulf (2006) hghlght the mportance of the process of nteracton n publc-prvate cooperaton. They put forward the need to address socologcal aspects next to nsttutonal aspects n partnershp workng and network envronments. In ths research, we choose to regard these socologcal aspects as beng part of process management actvtes. In urban development projects, publc and prvate objectves are traded-off n negotaton processes between these actors. On the bass of these negotatons decsons are made, manly on fnancal, legal and organzatonal aspects of a project. Furthermore, the negotated decsons on these aspects relate to the physcal aspects of a development; they determne what s beng bult. Thus, actors can nfluence the outcome of a prvate sector-led urban development project by performng the management actvtes negotatng and decson-makng. On top of that communcatng can be vewed as an mportant management actvty, for nstance wth local communtes. Hence, process management actvtes thus must be vewed as nfluencng others by nteracton. 2.5.4 Management Tools Another way to nfluence the outcome of urban development projects s by usng dfferent management nstruments. In Secton 2.3.3 we ntroduced dfferent plannng tools based on Adams et al. (2005) and Adams & Tesdell (2010) that ether, shape, regulate, stmulate or buld capacty for market actvty. However, these polcy nstruments n practce are desgned to be used, they are ntended to secure or realze spatal polcy objectves and nterests. Therefore, the actual use of these plannng tools by publc actors can be consdered as management measures. They nfluence the way projects can be developed by ndcatng spatal vsons and drectons for development, by statng fnancal, programmatc or lay-out 103 Theores

rules for development, or by securng fundng and nvestment for development. Moreover, we take the poston that some of these tools, such as capacty buldng not prmarly should be used by publc actors only; prvate actors can also actvate networks for development purposes. Therefore, we consder shapng, regulatng, stmulatng and capacty buldng to be management tools to be used for urban development projects. 2.5.5 Management Resources Bure (1978) declares that urban development projects need some essental resources n order to be carred out. Resources often can be attrbuted to ether publc or prvate actors, whch put them n a favorable poston to develop projects as t ncreases the power an actor has over other nterdependent actors. Thus, n our vew resources can be seen as management measures as well; they can be used by actors to nfluence the outcome of projects. In urban development projects we can dstngush three major management resources; land, captal and knowledge. Accordng to Daamen (2010) these resources represent (tradtonal) materal and knowledge power relatons between actors (see Scharpf, 1997; 2000). When one of the actors n a project owns most of land, brngs n the captal, and has the requred knowledge to be brought nto the urban development project, they obtan a powerful poston. In other words, wth ths power, they can nfluence decsons about the project, and thus realze ther own objectves. In practce such resources are seen as the most powerful way of steerng development projects. However, n lne wth Daamen (2010) n hs broad defnton of strateges for urban development projects, we argue that management resources are only part of a broader set of management measures. Thus, we consder the management resources land, captal, and knowledge as a type of management measures n ths research. 2.5.6 Conceptual Publc-Prvate Urban Management Model The dfferent management measures and management functons descrbed above have been structured and categorzed n Table 2.11. Ths table s consequently used n our case study analyses to categorze the manageral roles of publc and prvate actors. Management Measures Management Functons Project Management Intatng Desgnng Plannng Operatng Process Management Negotatng Decson-makng Communcatng Management Tools Shapng Regulatng Stmulatng Capacty buldng Management Resources Land Captal Knowledge Table 2.11 Management measures & management functons 104 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

In a more comprehensve manner, Fgure 2.15 shows the same management measures and functons n a conceptual publc-prvate urban management model, representng the dfferent management possbltes for both publc and prvate actors to nfluence (prvate sectorled) urban development projects. Furthermore, we argue that the way these management measures are used and by whom, determnes the outcomes of prvate sector-led urban development projects. Therefore, n the cases we not only am to dentfy the actors that carry out certan management actvtes and use management nstruments. We also explan how ths s done, and f there are ndcatons that the usage of these management measures by actors also delvers the ntended effects, descrbed n the followng secton. Management Actvtes Project Management Process Management Desgnng Plannng Operatng Negotatng Decsonmakng Intatng Communcatng Shapng Land Regulatng Stmulatng Capacty buldng Knowledge Captal Management Tools Management Instruments Management Resources Fgure 2.15 Conceptual publc-prvate urban management model 105 Theores

Conclusons Takng nto account our conceptual model, we here tred to conceptualze the management of prvate sector-led urban development projects. We explaned that we wll analyze dfferent management measures performed by publc and prvate actors. In short, n ths research, we wll analyze prvate sector-led urban development projects on four management aspects: Project management actvtes: as a way to understand how actors nfluence projects by carryng out project actvtes; Process management actvtes: as a way to understand how actors nfluence projects by carryng out process actvtes; Management tools: as a way to understand how actors use tools to nfluence projects; Management resources: as a way to understand how actors use resources to nfluence projects. 106 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

2.6 Effects of Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects The management measures descrbed above are used by actors to take an effect n the project. Such effects can be dvded nto process and product results, conform the dstncton made n busness admnstraton lterature between content and process results (Kckert et al., 1997; Edelenbos, 2000; Koppenjan & Kljn, 2004; Kljn et al., 2006). Also, notce that we purposely choose effects nstead of outcomes. In our vew, outcomes of urban development projects relate to a wder geographcal area and consttute a wde varety of socal, economc, and envronmental goals. In ths research, foremost, the am s to evaluate the effects of the projects themselves, n order to see f prvate sector-led approaches contrbute to more effcent, effectve development strateges (e.g. Van Rooy, 2009; Daamen, 2010). Also, often n the domans of urbansm and urban area development, spatal qualty s consdered as an effect varable of mportance, as t relates the wder publc nterest and fnancal consderatons. Moreover, t s consdered crucal to measure the effects of the management undertaken by publc and prvate actors n projects n order to defne management measures that are vable for prvate sector-led urban development practce n the Netherlands. Here, we dscuss three major effects analyzed wthn ths research; effectveness, effcency and spatal qualty. These effects are perceved as possble judgment crtera for ndcatng the success of urban development projects. 2.6.1 Effectveness In management lterature, such as Black & Porter (2000) and De Leeuw (2002), effectve management s vewed n two ways. Frst, t s consdered wth realzng objectves. A management measure s consdered effectve once objectves are realzed. Secondly, effectve management also relates to ef fcacy (Dutch: voortvarendhed), whch relates to way obstacles have been overcome effectvely. Thus, here we state that judgng the effectveness of the cooperaton depends on an actor s perspectve. Publc actors may vew the management of prvate sector-led urban development projects as neffectve n contrast to prvate actors. Furthermore, the publc-prvate cooperaton can be judged as effectve whch can be seen as the effcacy of cooperaton. Also, the way problems can be resolved determnes the effectveness of project cooperaton. Thus, we have to dstngush the actor s vewpont on the effectveness of the publc-prvate cooperaton and the management measures the actors undertake. As actors have subjectve vews on whether or not the organzaton and management are effectve, we try to support these vews by applyng an objectve measurement method by comparng the ntended objectves and motves for collaboraton formulated at the begnnng of project n cooperaton agreements wth the realzed objectves at the end of project. However, judgng the effectveness of urban development projects s more complex as objectves may change over tme. Therefore, we have to take nto consderaton the reasons for these changng objectves. Thus, the actual objectves are project dependent and thus need to be addressed by the actors operatng wthn the project, before we can categorze them. 107 Theores

Effectveness n ths research therefore s defned as: The degree to whch the cooperaton process s consdered to be effectve n terms of the achevement of ntended publc and prvate actor s objectves and resolved problems n prvate sector-led urban development projects. 2.6.2 Effcency Effcency of publc-prvate cooperaton relates to the varables tme and costs. In management lterature, effcency s a performance ndcator for productvty. Black & Porter (2000) argue that (new) organzatons are desgned to functon as a means to fulfl tasks wthn a short project tme span and wthn a project budget, or to ncrease the productvty. Ths bulds upon the assumpton that new ways of managng processes and projects n essence should brng about the effects of beng more effcent than ts predecessor,.e. to generate more productvty. Thus, management measures can be consdered effcent f tasks are performed wthn the estmated tme and costs. Here agan, ths depends on the actor s perspectve. Actors are asked whether or not they vew cooperaton and therefore the management measures as effcent. Ths can be objectvsed by revewng the ntended project tme span and estmated costs. Furthermore, by askng actors what aspects have contrbuted to or frustrated the effcency of the process we gan nsght nto the effcent management measures n prvate sector-led urban development projects. Effcency n ths research thus s defned as: The degree to whch the cooperaton process s consdered to be ef fcent n terms of delverng the project wthn tme and budget. 2.6.3 Spatal Qualty Because ths research s carred out at a Faculty of Archtecture we are nterested n the spatal qualty of a project. Moreover, at the bass of dscussons about prvate sector-led urban development project lays the queston whether prvate actors are able to acheve hgh qualty envronments, or that the need for proft maxmzaton undermnes such qualty to emerge. However, Rapoport (1970) as early as the 1970s ndcated that defnng and measurng spatal qualty s rather arbtrary: The concept of spatal qualty however s extremely complcated and ther study depends on an apprecaton of values, cultures, and lfe-styles. She further argues that as a consequence a sample rangng both through tme and across cultures s necessary for a thorough understandng of ths concept. Rapoport belefs that the use of ndrect data offers the best possblty, ndeed the only possblty, for generatng hypotheses of suffcent generalty about spatal qualty whch could then be tested ether through desgn or through other nvestgatve technques. 108 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

More recently, several Dutch authors (Hoojmejer et al., 2001, Janssen-Jansen et al. 2009; Franzen & Wgmans, 2011) tred to specfy spatal qualty as a concept. Janssen-Jansen et al. (2009: 4) argue that the term spatal qualty hardly exsts n Englsh academc (plannng) lterature. Therefore, t could also be consdered as a typcal Dutch concept. Nonetheless, also n other countres attenton s pad to acheve qualty n urban places and areas, as s the case n Smart Growth and New Urbansm approaches. Furthermore, spatal qualty approaches focus on dfferent and specfc aspects and make use of dfferent technques to defne, judge and measure t. Hence, for ths research a choce had to be made for such judgng technques. Franzen & Wgmans (2011: 144) argue that the process of judgng spatal qualty s perspectve-, culture-, context-, and tme-related. Moreover, they dstngush four dealzed approaches to create spatal qualty, ncludng (Franzen & Wgmans, 2011: 145): followng a seductve vson by a desgner; usng an ntegrated plan; usng an objectve checklst; applyng good process management. Furthermore, spatal qualty may refer to dfferent spatal scales; one can analyze spatal qualty on a buldng, street and area level, and one can analyze spatal qualty on aesthetcs or at functonalty, etc. These dfferent measurement varables carry value judgments wthn them. However, Hoojmejer et al. (2001) ntroduce three dfferent values to defne and measure spatal qualty; user, experence and future value. Ths s a wdely-accepted way to vew spatal qualty because these basc conceptons date back to the Vtruvus concepts formulated n 60 B.C. as utltas (usefulness), venustas (aesthetcs), and frmtas (soldty). These values categores can be measured by further operatonalzng them nto qualty crtera as presented n Table 2.12. Thus, we use an objectve checklst as a technque to judge the spatal qualty wthn prvate sector-led urban development projects. Ths entals askng publc, prvate and cvc actors about ther judgment of qualty crtera. User Value Experence Value Future Value Reachableness Surveyablty Adaptablty Accessblty Vsblty Fttableness Nearness Dstngushablty Sustanablty Safety Vsual qualty Dversty Densty Table 2.12 Spatal qualty: values & crtera Spatal qualty n ths research therefore s defned as: The degree to whch an urban development project contrbutes to user, experence and future values of nvolved actors. 109 Theores

Conclusons Takng nto account our conceptual model, we here tred to conceptualze the effects of prvate sector-led urban development projects. We dentfed effectveness, effcency and spatal qualty as the man effects to be measured wthn projects. Ths s of crucal mportance to ths research as we are able to understand whch management measures performed by ether publc or prvate actors result n what knd of process and product effects of prvate sector-led urban development projects. In short, n ths research, we wll analyze prvate sector-led urban development projects on three effect aspects: Effectveness: as a way to understand f project objectves are met or dealt wth accurately; Effcency: as a way to understand f the project was delvered n tme and budget; Spatal qualty: as a way to understand f the project s consdered to contan user, experence and future values. 2.7 Conclusons Ths chapter contaned a theoretcal framework of prvate sector-led urban development projects. We defned and postoned the research prmarly as a project-orented management research on the bass of whch we constructed a conceptual ntegratve urban management model. Moreover, we postoned prvate sector-led urban development n comparatve perspectve, as ths research conssts of both an nternatonal component and s rooted n nsttutonal urban development structures and practces. We extensvely delberated on the context, organzaton, management and effects of prvate sector-led urban development projects. Wth ths we amed to poston the research and provde arguments for the aspects takng nto account n the analyss and lesson-drawng part of the research. In general, these delberatons allow to vew our research subject n all ts complexty. The followng methodology chapter bulds upon the fndngs and choces n ths chapter n the sense that t follows our conceptual model and related aspects for analyss. Moreover, some crucal methodologcal ssues n case studes, comparatve research and lesson-drawng are explaned extensvely n order to make ths research methodologcally sound. We ntroduce a methodologcal framework n order to structure and relate the methodologcal phlosophy, concept, methods and technques and subsequent key questons of ths research. Ths enables us to carry out the lterature and emprcal research on Dutch and UK prvate sector-led urban development. 110 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

3 Methodology 3.1 Introducton In the prevous chapter, we ntroduced the theoretcal concepts that postoned our research subject of prvate sector-led urban development projects. Ths methodology chapter looks more nto detal how these types of projects can be studed. In order to learn lessons from prvate sector-led urban development projects we ntroduce a methodologcal framework and an analytcal model. On the bass of ths, multple case studes are carred out to collect, descrbe and analyze the emprcal projects. We do so by usng qualtatve methods such as ntervews, documents revews, and ste observatons. Furthermore, ths study has an nternatonal component to t as case studes are carred out n both The Netherlands as well as n the UK. Unlke many nternatonal comparatve studes the am of ths research s not to compare projects between countres, but to compare them wthn each country, for whch we apply cross-case analyses. By dong so we come to understand how publc and prvate actors nteract and manage these types of projects on the bass of whch we can draw emprcal lessons for Dutch urban development projects. Ths chapter takes a closer look at the methodologcal framework of the research. Frst, we start by ntroducng a complete methodologcal structure for the research, n whch the man components descrbed above become nterconnected and questons are beng formulated (Secton 3.2). Second, we dscuss how the systems approach and a conceptual analytcal model helps us to understand complex and dynamc urban development projects (Secton 3.3). Thrd, we ntroduce the major components of ths conceptual analytcal model used to analyze the cases under research (Secton 3.4). Fourth, we take a closer look at the dfferent nterrelated methods appled n ths research; case studes, comparatve analyss and lesson-drawng (Secton 3.5). Ffth, we ntroduce the varous technques used to present the research data n an understandable way (Secton 3.6), followed by some conclusons (Secton 3.7). 111 Methodology

3.2 Methodologcal Framework A methodologcal framework s needed to clarfy the key methodologcal dmensons. Dmensons nclude the overarchng phlosophy and conceptual model that connect the more concrete methods, technques and subsequent ams and questons of each dmenson. In Table 3.1 the methodologcal framework for ths research s presented from whch t becomes clear that ths research s a methodologcal challenge n tself. Here, we emphasze that ths framework has been the result of an teratve process. By conductng case studes we came to understand the mportance of varous pros and cons of case study methodology. We have dealt wth these ssues n the followng manner. Frst, we have establshed a sutable methodologcal approach to understand the cooperatve and manageral mechansms of actors on a project level. Second, a comprehensve analytcal model was developed that holds the conceptual capacty to unravel the mechansms wthn cases and at the same tme gves room for teratve thnkng. Fnally, the cases need to be analyzed and compared to each other wthn a country, and lessons from them have to be drawn as well. Phlosophy Open systems approach Am Comprehensve project-orented understandng of publc-prvate actor nteractons Queston 1.Whch phlosophy s sutable to study complex urban development projects? Concept Analytcal model based on systems approach Am Analyss/understandng of project context, organzaton, management & effects Queston 2. Whch model can be used to understand collaboratve & manageral mechansms? Methods Case studes (NL & UK) Lesson-drawng (UK > NL) Am Data collecton, analyss & comparson Emprcal lessons & nspraton Queston 3. How do publc & prvate actors organze & manage prvate sector-led urban development projects, and what are the project effects and actor experences? 4. What emprcal & nspratonal lessons can be drawn from the UK for the collaboraton & management of Dutch prvate sector-led urban development projects? Technques Am Queston Lterature & document revew Documented nformaton 5. What lterature sources provde nformaton & nsght nto the project? Table 3.1 Methodologcal framework & dmensons Intervews & survey Ste observaton Dsplayng tables & fgures Practcal experences Physcal understandng Comprehensve overvews 6. What are the experences of publc & prvate actors nvolved wth the project? 7. How does the project look lke n physcal sense? 8. How do we present retreved data from the case studes to draw conclusons? Table 3.1 shows that the dfferent dmensons have a certan herarchy. Ths herarchy starts wth an overarchng methodologcal phlosophy whch the purposes of our research. That s to understand how the complex mechansms of publc and prvate cooperaton and management n prvate sector-led urban development projects. The underlyng dmenson nvolves operatonalzng the research phlosophy nto a conceptual analytcal model to study projects or cases comprehensvely. Then, several man nterrelated research methods are appled 112 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

to collect, analyze, compare, and draw lessons from our studed cases. On ther turn these methods are supported by dfferent research technques, such as document revews, ntervews wth stakeholders, and ste observatons. The content of and ssues related to these dmensons are descrbed n more detal n the followng sectons. In the end, ths comprehensve methodologcal framework enables us to structure, nterpret and process the retreved emprcal materal. Hence, the basc dea of ths study s that t focuses on what we can learn from urban development practces. Therefore, emprcal case studes (e.g. urban development projects) are central to our research, they are used to analyze emprcal projects wth theoretcal and methodologcal concepts. Thus, ths case approach also s taken as the startng pont for formulatng the research queston. The central research queston ths study tres to answer s: What can we learn from prvate sector-led urban development projects n the Netherlands and UK n terms of the collaboratve and manageral roles of publc and prvate actors, and the effects of ther (nter)actons? PART II - PRACTICES PART I - CONCEPTS Chapter 2 Theory conceptual model Chapter 4 Urban Development Netherlands Chapter 6 Urban Development UK Chapter 1 Introducton Chapter 3 Methodology analytcal model Chapter 5 PSLUD Cases Netherlands Chapter 7 PSLUD Cases UK nsttutonal characterstcs cross-case analyses PART III - SYNTHESIS Chapter 9 Concluson reflecton Chapter 8 Lessons elaboraton Chapter 10 Eplogue Fgure 3.1 Research desgn 113 Methodology

Ths queston s answered by usng a research desgn or structure (see Fgure 3.1). Ths research desgn bulds upon dfferent research Parts further dvded nto stage related Chapters. Each of these stages nvolves partcular research questons and research products. The research parts or stages are dvded nto Concepts, Practces and Synthess. The Concepts stage I nvolves framng the research, usng relevant theores to understand the crucal ssues at hand, and usng approprate methodologes to carry out the research. The Practces stage II nvolves descrbng the relevant urban development practce characterstcs of both countres, n order to understand the contextual nsttutonal background aganst whch the analyss of emprcal prvate sector-led urban development projects takes place. The Synthess stage III nvolves nterpretng the lterature fndngs (nsttutonal characterstcs) and case study fndngs (crosscase analyses) from the Dutch and UK context. The am here s to draw lessons from these practces and projects for the roles of actors n Dutch prvate sector-led urban development projects. Herenafter, the dfferent research parts and ther subsequent questons, objectves and used methodology are descrbed n more detal. Part I Concepts: Theory & Methodology The frst stage of ths research focuses on developng a coherent conceptual framework. In ths research we explore the concept of prvate sector-led urban development projects as the man subject of study. On the bass of an exploraton of relevant professonal and academc lterature, we develop a conceptual (theoretcal) model. Furthermore, we develop an analytcal (methodologcal) model to study prvate sector-led urban development cases wthn dfferent contexts. The man queston, objectve and methodology of ths stage are as follows. Queston: How can we conceptualze the relatonshps between and roles of publc and prvate actors n urban development practce, and what methodologcal framework enables us to understand prvate sector-led urban development projects? Objectve: The objectve of ths stage s to defne the research problem, objectve and queston and to construct theoretcal concepts and a methodologcal framework to be used for studyng urban development practces and projects. Methodology: The methods used n ths stage consst of academc and professonal (natonal and nternatonal) lterature revews to defne the research problem and to construct a conceptual framework for ths study. 114 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Part II Practces: Dutch and UK Practces & Projects The second stage of the research focuses on descrbng the characterstcs of the urban development practce n the Netherlands and UK wth regard to our subject. Moreover, t contans emprcal case study analyses of prvate sector-led urban development projects n the Netherlands and UK. These chapters enable us to draw lessons for the publc and prvate roles n Dutch prvate sector-led urban development practce. The man queston, objectve and methodology of ths stage are as follows. Queston: How do publc and prvate actors organze and manage Dutch/UK prvate sector-led urban development projects, what are the project effects and actor experences? Objectve: The objectve of ths stage s to create a better understandng of the publc and prvate roles, project effects and actor experences n emprcal Dutch/UK prvate sector-led urban development projects. Methodology: Ths stage conssts of multple emprcal case studes, n whch ntervews are held wth practtoners and case documents are analyzed. Furthermore, we use a cross-case analyss and lterature revews to valdate our case study fndngs wthn each context. Part III Synthess: Lessons & Implcatons The fnal stage of the research focuses on drawng lessons from the Dutch and UK cases for the roles of publc and prvate actors n Dutch prvate sector-led urban development projects. Furthermore, the comparson of dfferent nsttutonal contexts enables us to determne dfferences and smlartes between the practces. Once the lessons from the emprcal case studes and the nsghts from the nsttutonal practces are n place, we can make recommendatons for the roles of publc and prvate actors. The man queston, objectve and methodologes of ths stage are as follows. Queston: What lessons can be drawn from Dutch and UK prvate sector-led urban development projects for the roles for publc and prvate actors n a Dutch prvate sector-led urban development projects? Objectve: The objectve of ths stage s to draw lessons from Dutch and UK prvate sector-led urban development projects to gve recommendatons for the roles of publc and prvate actors n the Dutch urban development practce. Methodology: The methods used n ths stage are a combnaton of a natonal nsttutonal comparatve analyss and case-based lesson-drawng. 115 Methodology

3.3 Phlosophy: Systems Thnkng & Approach As explaned n Secton 2.2, n ths research, we are manly nterested n understandng how publc and prvate actors manage prvate sector-led urban development projects. However, the management of these projects happens wthn an nsttutonal envronment whch can be seen as condtons for publc and prvate actors managng projects. Therefore, t s of mportance to study these projects n a more ntegrated manner by takng relevant project-specfc contextual and nter-organzatonal factors nto account. Ths can be done by usng the systems approach as a methodologcal phlosophy whch enables us to understand the mechansms wthn projects. Furthermore, based on ths approach, we develop an analytcal model that functons as a gudelne to demarcate what to study and what not to study. Then, ths model can be used to structure, analyze and nterpret collected qualtatve research data from the cases. Here, we turn to explanng what we mean by systems thnkng and the systems approach as sutable ways of achevng the research objectves. Systems thnkng s the process of understandng how thngs nfluence one another wthn a whole. It s both amed at understandng nature, as well as organzatons, as beng part of a holstc system. In organzatons, systems consst of people, structures, and processes that work together to make an organzaton acheve ts objectves. Systems thnkng can be defned as an approach to problem solvng, by vewng problems as parts of an overall system. Furthermore, systems thnkng s a set of habts or practces wthn a framework that s based on the belef that the component parts of a system can be best understood n the context of relatonshps wth each other and wth other systems, rather than n solaton. It focuses on thnkng n cyclcal rather than lnear cause and effect. Thus, applyng systems thnkng to academc research enables the researcher to vew relatonshps, nteractons and mechansms wthn complex organzatonal settngs n a comprehensve manner. Wthn systems thnkng the concept of a system s crucal. Accordng to Arbnor & Bjerke (1997) the systems approach s characterzed as way of vewng (part of) realty as beng a system. Ths concept consders that systems are dynamc and complex whole, nteractng as a structured functonal unt. It acknowledges that a change n one area of the systems can affect another area of the system. Parts of the system thus nfluence each other, nformaton flowng from one place to another. Furthermore, some other man characterstcs of systems thnkng are nterdependences, goal seekng, nput-output relatons, closed/open systems, and transformaton. Systems can be grouped n three categores: hard, soft and evolutonary systems. Therefore, Ackoff (2010) argues that systems thnkng can be appled to qualtatve as well as quanttatve research. The systems thnkng phlosophy has been appled n varous academc domans snce the 1960s, both n the natural scences as well as the socal scences. The general crtc by socal scences focuses on the nablty to nvolve human socal factors beng part of the system. Here, socal constructs are approached as a hard, closed system based on quanttatve research methodology, and thus does carry no explct theoretcal and phlosophcal commtments. Indeed, ths way of vewng socal nteracton s a lmted one, as t does not acknowledge the role of people s values and the nfluence of the complex envronment whch they are part of. However, such an approach wll not be followed n our research. 116 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

In partcular for ths research we wll apply the conceptual system approach n a methodologcal way to vew prvate sector-led urban development projects. Ths approach s abstract n nature and can be seen as a box of brcks to buld theores. We am at buldng conceptual knowledge by combnng case study fndngs wth theoretcal concepts. In partcular, we use ths approach to understand the nterdependences and mechansms underlyng the collaboraton between and management of publc and prvate actors. Furthermore, we vew them as beng part of an open complex system. Ths enables us to understand the dfferent contextual components that could have an effect on the functonng of nter-organzatonal and nter-human project collaboraton. Hence, we emphasze the role that nsttutonal structures and rules could have on publc-prvate nteractons wthn an emprcal project. Also, we acknowledge that the actor s goal-seekng wthn projects takes part wthn a dynamc development process, whch can be subject to changed perspectves and needs over tme. In essence, these fundamental choces help us to study prvate sector-led urban development projects as a research object and actor (nter)actons as a research subject. 3.4 Concept: Analytcal Case Study Model For ths research we use the conceptual ntegratve management model as explaned n Secton 2.2.3 to analyze our case studes. In conceptual methodologcal sense, the analytcal case study model as presented n Fgure 3.2 follows the man ngredents of our theoretcal model. It s appled to the varous case studes as a structurng devce to understand dfferent relatonshps between several aspects of prvate sector-led urban development projects. The varous case study varables under research are subdvded nto four man categores. Frst, n terms of context, three dfferent contextual aspects are analyzed: economy & poltcs; urban governance, plannng system & polces. Second, n terms of organzaton, three dfferent nter-organzatonal aspects are analyzed: organzatonal; fnancal; and legal. Thrd, n terms of management, four man types of management measures are taken nto account, categorzed wthn two man groups of management actvtes and management nstruments. Fnally, n terms of effects, three dfferent project aspects are analyzed: effectveness; effcency; and spatal qualty. For a more detal explanaton of these aspects see Secton 2.2.3. Here, we clam that by analyzng case studes wth ths set of nterrelated varables we are very well able to understand the collaboratve and manageral mechansms of prvate sector-led urban development projects. From a project pont of vew, t enables the researcher to dentfy what types of actor (nter)actons are performed and how they can be postoned wthn and between the dfferent elements and aspects n the model. 117 Methodology

UDP Context Economy & poltcs Urban governance Plannng system & polces nformaton external management measures UDP Organzaton Organzatonal tasks & responsbltes Fnancal rsks & revenues Legal rules & requrements nformaton UDP Management Management actvtes Management nstruments UDP Process nput Case Study Focus UDP Effects Effectveness Effcency Spatal Qualty Fgure 3.2 Analytcal case study model 118 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

3.5 Methods: Case Studes & Lesson-Drawng Wth the analytcal case study model n place, we now turn to the case study research methodology. As explaned before, ths research bulds upon the understandng of urban development projects n partcular. The nature of ths am brngs us to choose a case study approach as methodology. We manly use case study methodology to collect, analyze, compare, and draw lessons from research data. Case study methodology s a form of qualtatve research; t enables us to create an understandng of complex ssues such as proposed n ths study. Case studes emphasze a detaled contextual analyss of a lmted number of condtons and ther relatonshps Yn (2003). Especally n the appled academc felds lke urban plannng and management, case studes are used as a method to collect qualtatve data. Researchers n these felds have made wde use of ths qualtatve research method to examne contemporary real-lfe stuatons and provde the bass for the applcaton of deas. The followng defnton s gven for case study research by Yn (2003): A case study s an emprcal nqury that nvestgates a contemporary phenomenon wthn ts real lfe context, especally when the boundares between phenomenon and context are not clearly evdent (Yn, 2003: 13). But why usng qualtatve data methodology, lke case studes, n partcular for ths research? Frst of all, qualtatve research s nterested n the comprehenson of the meanng of acton (Mles & Hubermann, 1994). In ths research we want to comprehend the way publc and prvate actors cooperate n urban development projects. Second, qualtatve data refers to essences of people, objects or stuatons (Mles & Hubermann, 1994). In ths research t s clear that the objects of study are urban development projects, delvered on the bass of dfferent role relatonshps and agreements (stuaton) by publc and prvate actors (people). Let us descrbe some crtcal ssues and crucal methodologcal choces for our case-based research. 3.5.1 Crtcal Issues n Case Study Research Some problems n case study research need to be dealt wth, whch accordng to Flyvbjerg (2006), can n fact can be seen as msunderstandngs and can be refuted qute thoroughly. Nevertheless, we here brefly address some of these problems n case study research, and how they are dealt wth n ths research. Frst, accordng to crtcs, case studes contan a bas toward verfcaton, that s, a tendency to confrm the researcher s preconceved notons. However, Flyvbjerg (2006) argued that case studes contan no greater bas toward verfcaton of the researcher s preconceved notons than other methods of nqury. On the contrary, experence ndcates that the case study contans a greater bas toward falsfcaton of preconceved notons than toward verfcaton (Flyvbjerg, 2006). Ths s because the researcher s able to adjust hs hypotheses and subjectve preconceved notons by studyng and reflectng on the emprcal object of study. Case studes 119 Methodology

and other qualtatve methods ostensbly allow more room for the researcher s subjectve and arbtrary judgment than other methods: they are often seen as less rgorous than are quanttatve, hypothetc-deductve methods (Flyvbjerg, 2006). Accordng to Campbell (1975), Ragn (1992), Geertz (1995), Wevorka (1992), Flyvbjerg (1998, 2001), and others, researchers who have conducted ntensve case studes typcally report that ther preconceved vews, assumptons, concepts, and hypotheses were wrong and that the case materal has compelled them to revse ther hypotheses on essental ponts. In ths research, bas toward verfcaton s dealt wth by usng multple case studes to allow more room for changng the researcher s subjectve vew on the subject. Second, crtcs argue that the valdty of research results can be a problem of case study research. They state that general, theoretcal (context-ndependent) knowledge s more valuable than concrete, practcal (context-dependent) knowledge. Crtcs of the case study method beleve that the study of a small number of cases can offer no grounds for establshng relablty or generalty of fndngs. Therefore, one of the man aspects of case study research s the trangulaton of data. Trangulaton s the use of more than one method or source of data n the study of a socal phenomenon so that fndngs may be cross-checked (Bryman, 2012). By applyng trangulaton through usng dfferent sources of data and research technques the valdty of research results ncreases (see Jck, 1979). Therefore, dfferent methods or technques of data collecton are appled wthn ths case study research: document and lterature revews, stakeholder ntervews, a spatal qualty survey, and ste observatons. Secton 3.6 contans a detaled descrpton of these technques, and Appendx I provdes an overvew of all used case references. Furthermore, because case study research generates a large amount of data from multple sources, systematc organzaton of the data s mportant to prevent the researcher from becomng overwhelmed by the amount of data and to prevent the researcher from losng sght of the orgnal research purpose and questons. Therefore, trangulaton n ths research s dealt wth by usng a clear structured process of collectng, analyzng and concluson drawng. 3.5.2 Crucal Methodologcal Choces for ths Research Herenafter, we explan three crucal methodologcal choces made for our research: scope versus depth, comparatve analyss, and lesson-drawng. Scope versus depth Frst, there s ssue of scope versus depth. Kantor & Savtch (2003) argue that there s a tradeoff between these two dmensons when selectng cases for comparson. Durkhem (1982) suggested that researchers should allow for a szeable number of cases; comparson should contan substantal varaton whch allows the researcher an adequate range of subjects of comparson. By comparng multple cases, one s able to draw more vald conclusons for a broader populaton, as one does not focus on solated phenomena. In socal scences, 120 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

the dscusson about what would be an approprate N-sample to draw conclusons upon s descrbed by Gerrng (2004) n relaton to case study research. He argues that N relates to unt of analyss and that the choce for N depends of the research purpose. Note, our qualtatve research s case-orented amed at drawng specfc lessons on a varety of varables rather than varable-orented quanttatve research amed at drawng general conclusons on a varety of cases. Hence, for our research purpose a relatve small N-sample or unts of analyss s more approprate to draw non-general conclusons. Therefore, n ths research we also follow these recommendatons on scope versus depth n the selecton cases for comparson purposes. As showed n the research desgn, ten case studes n the Netherlands and two case studes n the UK have been conducted n our research. On the one hand, the choce for analyzng ten prvate sector-led urban development cases n the Netherlands s related to the objectve of creatng a better understandng of the wde varety of ths type of urban development projects. Here, we choose scope over depth n selectng case studes. Ths s because, at the tme of research, lttle knowledge on the characterstcs of prvate sector-led urban development n the Netherlands exsted. Therefore, we choose to pck a broad sample of specfc cases n both brownfeld and greenfeld stes, n order to create varous understandngs of the organzaton, management and effects of ths type of projects. A cross-case analyss made t possble to check whether there are dfferent condtons for applyng the concesson model n Dutch urban development, and, furthermore, what specfc problems arse wthn these case studes. On the other hand, the choce for two case studes n the UK relates to the objectve to gan more n-depth knowledge on prvate sector-led urban development projects. Here, we choose depth over scope. Ths enables us to create a better understandng on what the characterstcs of these projects are. Also, we choose to analyze two large-scale mxed-use brownfeld developments. The reason for ths s that these types of projects could hold valuable lessons for the future Dutch development practce wth a focus on nner-cty spatal polces. Furthermore, by choosng two cases, we were able to cross analyze both cases and to check whether fndngs were context-dependent or -ndependent, as we are manly nterested n context-ndependent lessons whch are more valuable and lkely to be of use for the manageral roles for publc and prvate actors n the Netherlands. However, ths research does not pretend that contextdependent lessons are not valuable as general knowledge. Comparatve analyss Second, there are nterrelated ssues concernng comparatve analyss lke conceptual equvalence and context- and tme-dependency. The contemporary phenomenon wthn ts real lfe context descrbed by Yn (2003) as a characterstc of case study research creates a challenge for ths research. Central to ths research s the data collecton and data analyss of dfferent cases. Accordng to Spaans et al. (2010), the comparson of plannng schemes s dffcult because they are all embedded n legal, nsttutonal and economc realtes. True, specfc cases wthn dfferent ctes, even wthn the same country, always have a partcular project context. One could state that comparng case study fndngs between dfferent ctes s smlar to comparng apples wth oranges. However, accordng to Pckvance (2001: 17) comparatve analyss requres the thngs beng compared to be commensurable but not necessarly dentcal. They need to be conceptually 121 Methodology

equvalent, whch means that one can study them wth the same conceptual (theoretcal) constructs or models. He further emphaszes that t s not an objecton of comparatve analyss to say that the values of two cases (or ther nature) are not dentcal. Indeed, t s precsely the am of comparatve analyss to make sense of such examples, provded they can be placed on a sngle theoretcally sgnfcant dmenson. Therefore, we am at comparng the cases wthn a natonal settng, amed at creatng an understandng of the mechansms that occur, studed through the same conceptual lens. Thus, we follow the argument that context-dependency s a fact, and that dfferences reman. It s exactly the challenge to make sense of these apples and oranges, by respectng the contextual crcumstances aganst whch the cases take place. In ths regard, therefore, we delberately choose not to fnd smlar case studes n the Netherlands and the UK. Rather, frst we establshed the concept of prvate sector-led urban development projects as the object of study. And we created a comparatve analytcal framework to study the subjects. Then, we amed at provdng nsght nto typcal examples of these types of projects n the Netherlands and the UK. As n the Netherlands ths s rather a new phenomenon, we sampled these projects that n general were characterzed by (large-scale) housng developments. Then, as future Dutch plannng polces focuses on creatng mxed-use nnercty developments, we searched for typcal examples of ths knd n the UK as well. Ths enables us to see the dfferences that persst n case study research, and try to make sense of them. Moreover, the case studes have been studed n successve research stages, they are tmedependent. In sprng and summer 2009 ten Dutch cases were studed, followed by two UK case studes n autumn 2009 and sprng 2010. Snce ths research perod, n both countres, the economc and fnancal crcumstances for applyng a prvate sector-led urban development approach have changed to some extent. They can be regarded as pre-crss cases. If we want to make recommendaton for publc and prvate roles for post-crss urban development n the Netherlands on the bass of case study fndngs from tme-dependent contexts, we must nterpret them for the new stuaton. Ths s done by reflectng on each of these lessons wth the latest post-crss knowledge n Chapter 8. Nevertheless, we hold the argument that these case study fndngs are vald for the perod n whch data was collected. Ths s already a fundamental contrbuton to emprcal knowledge. Lesson-drawng Thrd, there s the ssue of lesson-drawng and the related level of polcy transfer we are amng at. Insttutonal comparson, polcy transfer and lesson-drawng n spatal plannng are qute commonly used terms n essence addressng the same queston: under what crcumstances and to what extent can a programme that s effectve n one place transfer to another Rose (1991). In general, t refers to the fact that planners n dfferent countres generally face the same problems, and one can learn from practces abroad. The queston then s whether planners can learn from each other and whether there are polces whch stmulate crossnatonal lesson-drawng n the feld of plannng (Spaans & Louw, 2009). Hence, Rose (2005) argues that the prmary concern of [comparatve] studes s to explan why countres [e.g. plannng practces or projects] dffer n ther polces, mplyng that dfferences persst. Varous authors conducted cross-natonal comparatve urban studes focused on ether polcy transfer (e.g. Abram & Cowell, 2004; De Jong & Edelenbos, 2007; Dolowtz & Marsh, 1996; Masser & Wllams, 1986), polcy nstruments (e.g. Bulkeley, 2006; Janssen-Jansen et al., 2008; 122 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Muñoz-Gelen, 2010; Van der Veen, 2009), nsttutonal transplantaton (e.g. De Jong, 1999; 2004; De Jong et al., 2002), urban governance (e.g. De Jong & Edelenbos, 2007; D Gaetano & Klemansk, 1999; DGaetano & Strom, 2003; Salet et al., 2003; Sanyal, 2005) or socal/ plannng systems (e.g. Dühr et al., 2010; Nadn, 2007; Nadn & Stead, 2008). We acknowledge the mportance of such comparatve urban studes, as t provdes nsght nto dfferences and smlartes. These dfferences and smlartes can be constructed rather than observed (Pckvance, 2001: 17). In lne wth ths research, the Dutch Planbureau voor de Leefomgevng [PBL] (2012: 17) ndcates that the value of comparson wth other countres s that t can brng about a better self-mage, that can provde support for dscussons about new drectons n the recpent country. Also, Nadn (2011) argues that such comparsons help to poston and understand one s own practce. Moreover, PBL (2012) sets out comparson lmtatons of cross-country lesson-drawng by argung that country-specfc nsttutons produce specfc condtons for development processes, ncludng land development polces, and fscal and fnancal arrangements. Such condtons cannot be transferred or coped from one country to another rgorously. They belong to a comprehensve system, n whch ssues lke market stuaton, cultural factors and path dependence play a crucal role (PBL, 2012). In our research we acknowledge both the potental value and exstng lmtatons of comparsons and lessondrawng. In lne wth, and n addton to, these authors, we compare Dutch and UK natonal nsttutonal structures on a more abstract level, resultng n what we call context-dependent nsttutonal condtons for usng prvate sector-led urban development approaches (see Chapter 8, Secton 8.3). However, here we emphasze that we are manly nterested n practcal lesson-drawng from our cases; we am at observng emprcal projects. Ths at the opposte nvolves searchng for context-ndependent project-orented roles and mechansms. Thus, we acknowledge the exstence of both context-dependent condtons as well as contextndependent mechansms. Ths s n lne wth research conducted by Hobma et al. (2008) focusng on lesson-drawng from emprcal cases. Also, we also need to be more specfc about the level of lesson-drawng we are amng at. Spaans & Louw (2009) argue that several authors have dstngushed varous degrees, ways, and levels of transfer. Dolowtz & Marsh (2000) for nstance dstngush four dfferent degrees of transfer: copyng, emulaton, combnatons, and nspraton. Rose (2005) establshed seven alternatve ways of lesson-drawng ncludng photocopyng, copyng, adaptaton, hybrd, synthess, dscplned nspraton, and selectve mtaton. As these classfcatons do not entrely ft the purposes of our research, we wll follow the three levels of lesson-drawng provded by Janssen-Jansen et al. (2008): nspraton, learnng, and transplantng. Table 3.2 gves an overvew of these levels of lesson-drawng, ts defntons and the lkelhood of successful transfer. As the table ndcates our level of transfer focuses on nspraton and learnng. We wll not focus on transplantaton of any formal knd such as plannng polces, nstruments, nsttutons, cultures or systems, as the nsttutonal natonal context of the Netherlands s qute dfferent from the UK. Therefore, t s more lkely that n the frst place, we can get nspred by the UK practce. In the second place, we am at learnng from ts practce, by lookng at underlyng deas (mechansms) and by recognzng transfer obstacles and dfferences n the form of context-dependent nsttutonal condtons. As a result, we am at drawng organzatonal and manageral lessons derved from the cases, n the form of nspraton and learnng for Dutch urban development projects. 123 Methodology

Levels of lesson-drawng Inspraton Learnng Transplantng Defntons Collectng & evaluatng data & nformaton on nnovatve experences & practces Adoptng the nformaton collected & evaluated n the nspraton phase, ncludng retrevng underlyng deas & recognzng obstacles & dfferences Lookng at specfc condtons under whch the transfer of polcy, nstruments or other elements to another context s possble Lkelhood of Transfer Transfer wthn one country Transfer between countres wth smlar system Transfer between countres wth dfferent system LESS LIKELY LIKELY VERY LIKELY LIKELY VERY LIKELY LIKELY VERY LIKELY LIKELY LESS LIKELY Table 3.2 Lesson-drawng levels & lkelhood of transfer (based on Janssen-Jansen et al., 2008; Spaans & Louw, 2010) The above dscusson shows that several ssues n case study research are dealt wth n a coherent way by usng the methodologcal framework. Ths framework enables us to combne related methodologcal aspects n a systematc methodologcal and scentfc sound manner. Now we turn to used data collecton and analyss technques. 124 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

3.6 Technques The technques used n the case study research consst of document revews, ntervews, and ste observatons as shown n Table 3.1. Data collecton actvtes n qualtatve research often nclude documents (examnng), ntervews (askng), and observaton (watchng), accordng to Mles & Huberman (1994). These qualtatve technques are also used wthn ths research; data s collected through studyng project documents, professonal and academc lterature (examnng), conductng sem-structured ntervews and spatal qualty surveys wth nvolved (academc,) publc and prvate actors (askng), and by ste vsts of the (partally) completed projects (watchng). Appendx I provdes an overvew of all sources used n the case study research n both countres. By usng a combnaton of multple sources applyng methodologcal trangulaton the valdty of the case study fndngs ncreases. Data collecton Document revews nclude examnng project contracts and agreements and other relevant project nformaton such as plannng brefs. Furthermore, they nclude searchng popular, professonal and academc lterature, wth the purpose of buldng up a body of knowledge on the projects. Dgtal databases as well as hardcopes from unversty lbrares have been explored. Ths not only nvolved searchng for papers and artcles, also (part of) professonal and publc books were used to collect data. The data has been fled n case study maps, both dgtally and n hard copy, and analyzed and processed wthn the case descrptons. The ntervews are sem-structured on the bass of components and varables under research provded by the analytcal case study model. The purpose of the ntervews was to learn more about the practcal experences from the nvolved publc and prvate actors wth the project. Furthermore, ntervewees were asked to provde ther opnon (and arguments behnd) about the effects of the project. In general, the questons were not provded n advance to the publc and prvate actors nvolved, as they were used by the researcher as a structurng devce for the desk-research. Each of the ntervews lasted for about one hour, and was dgtally recorded wth a voce recorder for whch permsson was asked to the ntervewees pror to ntervewng. Ths enabled the researcher to concentrate on the conversaton wth the ntervewee, rather than havng to lsten and wrte at the same tme. Ths also allowed for askng the queston behnd the queston, and to go nto more detal on subjects that appeared to be relevant to understand the project. At the desk, these recorded ntervews were wrtten down n a complete ntervew transcrpton, fled, and returned to the ntervewees for a member check. These were often returned wth remarks, mnor adjustments and clarfcatons of the wrtten text. Ste vsts were used to get a physcal understandng of the project s poston wthn the cty. Ths was done before, durng, or after the ntervews took place. At occasons, meetngs were held at the project tself. It also enabled the researcher to relate to subjects touched n the ntervews. Sometmes, the ste vsts ncluded conversatons wth home-owners, offce-workers n whch they were asked for ther opnon on the project. In general, the ste vsts amed at judgng the spatal qualty level of the project from the researcher s pont of vew, n whch t s hard to separate personal and academc judgment. Nevertheless, these vsts provded a more balanced understandng of the physcal, socal, and economc characterstcs of the project. 125 Methodology

Data analyss Data collecton technques are just one part of qualtatve research as t also nvolves data analyss. In order to decde what all these data means (analyzng), we must therefore also reduce and organze research data. Ths s done by usng the three flows of actvty of qualtatve research analyss used by Mles & Hubermann (1994): Data reducton: process of selectng, focussng, smplfyng, abstractng, transformng data; Data dsplay: organzed compressed assembly of nformaton; Concluson-drawng: decde what thngs mean. In ths research, the data reducton process on the prvate sector-led urban development cases s related to the objectve of the research. Frst, we are nterested n the roles of publc and prvate actors and therefore, we focused on abstractng data from the contextual, organzatonal and manageral aspects. Second, by dsplayng structurally comparable tables and fgures of these aspects, we provded a compressed assembly of nformaton. Thus, by analyzng and dsplayng data on the bass of the components of the analytcal case study framework we are able to draw lessons from cases wthn ther specfc context. The am of the dsplayng data s to show the dfferences and smlartes of the case study fndngs n more vsually-orented comparatve manner. Ths can be supportve for concluson-drawng. 126 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

3.7 Conclusons Ths chapter provded nsght nto the methodologcal framework and ts man components. We explaned our research phlosophy whch s based on the systems approach as a comprehensve project-orented way of lookng at urban development practce. We appled ths approach to the conceptual analytcal case study model, whch enables us to create an understandng of the cooperatve and manageral mechansm wthn projects. Furthermore, we dscussed the crucal methodologcal challenges and choces for ths research by gettng nto detal about case studes, comparatve analyss and lesson-drawng. Fnally, we provded an overvew of the varous data collecton and analyss technques. In general, ths chapter provded arguments for the choce of collectng and analyzng qualtatve data from prvate sector-led urban development projects. One of the most mportant reasons for ths was that ths level of analyss provdes opportuntes to learn lessons for publc and prvate professonals cooperatng and managng these projects. Furthermore, t flls the knowledge gap left by comparatve studes n scence, as these are mostly focused on comparng and transplantng poltcs, systems, nsttutons, and nstruments between countres, rather than ts specfc project mechansms occurrng between actors. Also, the analytcal case study model could be seen as a tool for studyng the complex urban development projects. By lnkng contextual, organzatonal, and manageral aspects nto a coherent whole, one s able to analyze and make sense of development processes (see Heurkens, 2011). In concluson, the methodologcal choces n ths research hold valuable lessons n partcular for academcs. Studes n spatal plannng, urban development, real estate and management face smlar problems when choosng case studes as research method. The dvson of the methodologcal ssues also structure the followng chapters. In the followng Practces part each chapter follows a clear structure. We start by descrbng the nsttutonal context of the Dutch urban development practce (Chapter 4). Ths s followed by case descrptons and a cross-case analyss of Dutch prvate sector-led urban development projects (Chapter 5). These steps are repeated for UK s urban development practce n Chapter 6 and UK s prvate sector-led urban development projects n Chapter 7. These fndngs result n an nsttutonal comparson and emprcal lesson-drawng n Chapter 8, whch s part of the Synthess of ths research. 127 Methodology

Part 2 Practces 128 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

129 Methodology

130 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

4 Urban Development n the Netherlands Ths chapter provdes nsght nto the contextual and nsttutonal background of prvate sector-led urban development projects n the Netherlands whch are descrbed n the followng chapter. Here n successve order, we dscuss the man soco-economc and urban plannng changes and characterstcs n the Netherlands snce the 1980s nfluencng urban development practce (Secton 4.1). Then, an overvew of the organzatonal roles of publc and prvate actors and partnershp models n urban development projects s presented (Secton 4.2), followed by the man conclusons on contemporary Dutch prvate sector-led urban development (Secton 4.3). The overall objectve of ths chapter s that readers are able to understand how Dutch urban plannng and development evolved over tme nto a more prvate sector-led urban development context. We do so by provdng nsght nto broader poltcal debates and ther practcal mpact on plannng and development processes. 4.1 Context of Dutch Urban Development Ths secton dscusses the context of Dutch urban development n relaton to our research. It explans soco-economc changes (Secton 4.1.1), the Dutch urban plannng system (Secton 4.1.2), and urban area development (Secton 4.1.3). 4.1.1 The Anglo-Saxon Western Wnd Changes n Dutch socety As explaned earler n Chapter 2, Albert (1993) ntroduced the Rhneland model as a broad concept of west contnental European thnkng related to, but dfferent from, the frequently n lterature mentoned Anglo-Saxon model. However, as we saw these models are stereotypcal, they change over tme, and several nuances exst between them. Moreover, varous poltcal, economc and socal studes (such as Brenner & Theodore, 2002; Bakker et al., 2005; Nadn & Stead, 2008) ndcated that some European countres, most promnently amongst them the Netherlands, slowly adopted more Anglo-Saxon and neolberal deologes over the last decades (see also Heurkens, 2008). Nevertheless, we concluded that the Netherlands s stll rooted n the nsttutonal prncples of the Rhneland model. But, also several country classfcatons ndcated that neolberal nfluences have repostoned the Dutch soco-poltcal economc model nto the drecton of more neolberal varants. Herenafter, we explore whether we can see such neolberal shfts n Dutch hstory snce the 1980s, by elaboratng on some reshapng ndcators. 131 Urban Development n the Netherlands

If poltcal and economc deologes have changed n the Netherlands, certan moments must exst n hstorc changes of Dutch welfare state conceptons as well. From a hstorcal perspectve Van der Cammen & De Klerk (2003) to some extent confrm the destructve and creatve moments of neolberalsm, mentoned by Brenner & Theodore (2002), n the changng Dutch State-Market relatonshp. They argue that n the 1980s Dutch socety struggled wth three major problems: structural unemployment, government defcts, and very low busness revenues. The recesson caused an acceleraton of economc reforms. In the words of prme-mnster Ruud Lubbers ths asked for a no nonsense polcy. Two basc prncples drected governmental polces: repellng government defcts and an deologcal turnng pont towards more market mechansms. Enlargement of market mechansms by deregulaton was vewed as a means to ncrease admnstratve effcency and polcy effectveness. Ths related to both the prvate sector as well as to ndvdual ctzens. Well educated and emancpated ctzens no longer could trust on Father State who arranged people s lves and made decsons on ther behalf. A rearrangement of responsbltes between the State, the Market and Cvc Socety had to take place, as ncentve towards more prvate and cvc ntatves and less publc regulatons. Characterstc for three cabnets-lubbers (1982-1994) was the economc and socetal reorganzaton on sx dfferent felds; reducton n the fnancal burdens, reducton of the government s defcts, reorganzaton of the collectve sector (less subsdy expendtures), a moblzed work market, prvatzaton of government busnesses, deregulaton and decentralzaton. The prvatzaton of (natonal) publc servces for nstance nvolved the water, energy, ralway, telecommuncatons and post sector over a number of years. Moreover, the housng market was reformed, whch ncluded the establshment of housng assocatons. Also, publc subsdes for unverstes have been cut; they have become ndependent nsttutons to a large extent relyng on prvate nvestment to fund research projects. These pragmatc reforms n the Netherlands durng the 1980s and 1990s clearly have some sort of smlarty wth the moments of destructon of former soco-economc deologes, and the moments of creaton of neolberal economc deologes ntroduced by Brenner & Theodore (2002). Despte the Dutch natonalzaton of a prvate bank (ABN Amro) and the natonal government provdng loans to other fnancal nsttutons (ING, SNS) at the outset of the fnancal crss n 2008/2009, recent developments show a contnuaton of neolberal polces. The cabnet- Rutte (2010-2012), partly under pressure of ncreasng natonal government defcts, ams at further reorganzaton, deregulatons, decentralzaton of government powers, laws and servces. Further prvatzaton, however, at the moment s not beng expected. But, n general these developments ndcate an on-gong soco-economc trend towards more Anglo-Saxon or neolberal prncples n the Netherlands. Ths on ts turn has strengthened the role of the prvate (and cvc) sector n the Netherlands n several domans and sectors. Now we move towards changes occurrng on an organzatonal level. Changes n Dutch organzatons Bakker et al. (2005) contrbute to the fact of a changng Dutch socety by statng n partcular that organzatons are beng mbued wth what they refer to as the Anglo-Amercan shareholder value thnkng. They argue that Anglo-Amercan thnkng has become more domnant n the Netherlands: We see ths n government polces, n the way frms and ther managers thnk and act, and even n the content of current management courses. They also analyze that 132 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

prvatzatons (Dutch Ralways and energy supplers) and governmental retrenchments from the 1980s are the result of adoptng Anglo-Saxon values, as a result of the new poltcal realty at that tme n the Netherlands. Godjk (2008) referred to ths change as the Anglo-Saxon Western Wnd that came blowng across the Atlantc Ocean, va the Unted Kngdom and the North Sea nto the Netherlands: The wnd has landed n organzatons almost unnotced; t dropped nto the share captal of stock market quoted companes, wthn management boards (wth a hgh number of Amercans and Englshmen and the adopton of an one-ter system), n corporate cultures (wth a more vertcal herarchcal and nstrumental approach), n human resource nstruments (more focused on performance ndcators, judgment and mutual competton), company mergers (more focused on compettve advantages), and even n the more aggressve form of hedge funds and prvate equty funds. Brouwer & Moerman (2005) also ndcate that n recent years Amercan and Anglo-Saxon prncples have become more domnant on several terrans of socety, and more than n the past have become manstream thnkng. It seems that ths s an unstoppable process for whch up tll now good arguments for rejecton are absent on the European sde. Van Aken et al. (2007) confrm the tendency towards Anglo-Amercan thnkng n the feld of management. They argue that t s not a concdence that more and more attenton s pad to the dscusson on European Rhneland thnkng versus Anglo-Amercan thnkng; the consequences of the economzaton of Dutch socety n recent years have become obvous. Prvatzatons, company take-overs, large retrenchments, and top salares for managers are some effects of fnancal economc thnkng smlar to Anglo-Amercan prncples. In the Netherlands, frms and nsttutons are organzed and managed n a dverse way. Hence, the Rhneland roots of Dutch organzatons stll exst n most of the current corporate cultures. However, Anglo-Saxon management thnkng n for example most fnancal busnesses has become the norm. And accordng to the authors above, ths trend s lkely to contnue towards other prvate sectors as well. The am of ths secton was to dentfy major contextual changes whch form the background of the ncreased prvate sector nfluences n urban development. We conclude that Anglo-Saxon thnkng n recent decades has become more domnant by dentfyng f prncples of the Anglo- Saxon model actually occur n Dutch socety and organzatons. We now examne whether or not these contextual changes also nfluenced Dutch urban plannng. 4.1.2 Urban Plannng System Ths secton elaborates on the changes and characterstcs of Dutch urban plannng n relaton to the roles of publc and prvate actors. We do so by dscussng the perod from 1980-2000 n whch neolberal plannng polces gradually were ntroduced, the perod 2000-2008 n whch urban development can be consdered as becomng mature but fragmented. 133 Urban Development n the Netherlands

Dutch urban plannng: 1980-2000 Urban plannng n the Netherlands under government leadershp has a long tradton. In hstorcal respect, Falud & Van der Valk (1994) argue that the Dutch plannng doctrne s all about rule and order. Alexander & Falud (1990) argue that the government became the plannng subject wth jursdcton over gven terrtores n the Netherlands. As a result of ts geographcal poston n the Delta of Western Europe and the relatvely scarcty of land, spatal plannng n the Netherlands became characterzed as a pragmatc approach wth the necessty to balance spatal needs and secure basc lvng condtons. In ths regard, Needham (1997) argues that Dutch plannng practce s characterzed by a pragmatc plannng culture ; a culture that s characterzed by a growng tenson between hgh ambtons and scarce resources, and a strong bas towards consensus. In order to spatally organze these needs, spatal plannng n the Netherlands became a practce predomnantly led by government bodes snce the end of the Second World War n 1945. On natonal, regonal and local levels plannng nsttutons were gven varous powers to reshape the country and rebuld the ctes n urgent need of housng. Thus, n the post-war perod Dutch urban plannng matured nto a professonal government-led plannng system wth the producton of varous spatal plans. In ths plannng prncple, plans for decades have functoned as an organzatonal devce to structure urban and rural development on dfferent spatal scales. The Dutch plannng approach became known as spatal plannng, whch became mostly renowned by ts comprehensve ntegrated approach. Accordng to an extensve study on European plannng systems, known as the EU Compendum of Spatal Plannng Systems and Polces (CEC, 1997), ths comprehensve ntegrated plannng approach requres responsve and sophstcated plannng nsttutons n partcular to coordnate relevant actvtes wthn and between governmental bodes (CEC, 1997:12). Dühr et al. (2010: 182) argue that ths comprehensve ntegrated model of plannng s all about coordnaton: It has a wde scope and ts man task s to provde horzontal (across sectors), vertcal (between levels) and geographcal (across borders) ntegraton of spatal mpacts of sectoral polces. It does ths by usng a mult-level arrangement of plans that are ntended to coordnate spatal development. It has a strong publc sector component. It s characterzed by mature plannng nsttutons and mechansms n a context of poltcal commtment to and publc trust n plannng. As a result of the ntegratve manner of nsttutonalzng and mplementng plans undertaken by several plannng agences on all levels government and across dfferent spatal scales, Hajer & Zonneveld (2000) argue that the Dutch spatal plannng system can rejoce n an almost mythcal reputaton n the nternatonal academc lterature (see Falud, 1991; Alexander, 1988; Alterman, 1997; Premus, 1996). Nevertheless, several Dutch authors lke Boelens (1990), Kreukels (1995), Mastop (1995) and Boelens et al. (2006) have also crtczed the way the Dutch spatal plannng system works. Here, the man argument s that the nsttutonal desgn, whch foregn planners often relate to as postve, not necessarly s best suted to deal wth spatal ssues n modern tmes. Van der Cammen & De Klerk (2003) and Boelens et al. (2006) emphasze the pre-world War II perod of plannng was not characterzed by strong government role n plannng; much development was undertaken by the prvate sector and ndvduals, under the supervson of facltatng local authortes. Therefore n hstorcal perspectve, the post-world War II perod wth a strong publc sector n plannng could as easly be descrbed as an excepton, a hccup n the hstory of Dutch urban plannng (Boelens et al., 2006). 134 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

The decrease of power and trust n Dutch government n charge of spatal plannng most notably took shape n the 1970s at the pont when Dutch socety became more emancpated and cvlans became more crtcal about the control of government and aversve to power and herarchy. Furthermore, durng the 1980s and 1990s the prvate sector entered the realms of spatal plannng n the Netherlands (Daamen, 2010), lke many other countres n Western Europe. In the Netherlands ths shft towards the allowance of more market mechansms throughout socety most profoundly became vsble under the Lubbers-cabnets (1982-1994), resultng n the ntroducton of more market mechansms n urban plannng; the lberaton of the housng market, the prvatzaton of publc transport, the formaton of Publc-Prvate Partnershps, covenants n envronmental management, the decreased protecton of agrculture, recent dscussons on subsdes, and the selectvty of publc nterventons. Notce that, all countres wtness a dmnshng role of natonal governments and rearrangement of formal plannng powers across a dversty of (sem-) publc bodes (Salet et al., 2003). Healey (1997) already argued that n the last few decades, collaboratve experences between publc and prvate spheres have started to change spatal plannng systems throughout Europe. Ths ndcates a shft from a rather herarchcally operatng government towards the more shared cooperatve approach of governance, expressed by Harvey (1989) as the shft from manageralsm to entrepreneuralsm, also took shape n the Netherlands. Ths change of poltcal drecton towards more market economy had a severe mpact on urban polcy formaton and ts focus. Most notably, plannng as enterprse (Van der Cammen & De Klerk, 2003) was ntroduced n Dutch spatal plannng n 1980s; the prncple of strengthenng the economc compettveness and growth of Dutch ctes became a domnatng polcy focus. In order to establsh ths compettveness, the emphass on drectve publc plans for dfferent spatal development levels shfted towards an emphass on mplementng polces based on strategc urban projects. One of the man reasons for ths shft to polcy mplementaton through projects was that topdown produced spatal plans no longer reflected and ncorporated spatal needs and nterests of busnesses and cvc socety; plan formaton was seen as neffectve and neffcent. Due to the ncreased scale and the ambtons of urban development projects - wth the Dutch urban projects Amsterdam Zudas and Rotterdam Kop van Zud as nternatonally most renowned examples - publc bodes no longer were able to solely nvest; they needed prvate nvestment and partcpaton n these projects n order to foremost realze ther publc ambtons. Hence, areas as fnte centerpeces of urban development were more sutable for the prvate sector as they drect prvate nvestment to one locaton, thus creatng compettve advantages over other locatons by clusterng economc actvty. Natonal and local government stmulated the settlement of prvate nvestments n these locatons by gvng development subsdes and buldng general trust by kck startng developments wth the ntroducton of publc functons n these areas. Ths supports the argument by Adams & Tesdell (2010) that planners n the Netherlands for a substantal perod already are operatng as market actors n ther am at securng and drectng prvate nvestments nto ther ctes through plannng nterventons. In 1993, the 4th Spatal Plannng Report (Verde Nota Extra (Vnex), VROM, 1993) came nto beng. In ths Report, flexblty, decentralzaton and legal procedure acceleraton were the key words (Van der Cammen & De Klerk, 2003). For urban plannng practce the Vnex- Report meant that large greenfeld locatons n the proxmty of exstng urban settlements were carefully apponted for housng development to accommodate the large shortage of housng supply at the end of the century. Local authortes were gven more flexblty to 135 Urban Development n the Netherlands

determne the programme, spatal confguraton, and qualty levels of Vnex-locatons. The mplementaton of the Vnex-polcy nearly reaches ts completon at present tme. Wth the sgnng of Implementaton Agreements (Dutch: Utvoerngsconvenanten) the perod of bggest centralzaton n the hstory of Dutch spatal plannng came to an end n the md-1990s (Van der Cammen & De Klerk, 2003). Spatal decson-makng shfted towards regonal and local governments and the market sector. Ths resulted n land acquston by property developers and ncreased prvate sector landownershp n Vnex-locatons, as government polces shaped the condtons for these urban development projects on specfcally apponted locatons. Dutch urban plannng: 2000-2010 Thus, Dutch spatal polcy formaton n the 1980s and 1990s represented a reacton to changes occurrng n socety. At the outset of the new mllennum, the Netherlands Scentfc Councl for Government Polcy (Wetenschappeljke Raad voor het Regerngsbeled (WRR, 1998)) argued that changes both n the socetal context and n the nsttutonal context of plannng have reduced the power of the Dutch system of spatal plannng. Ther nfluental research report on Spatal Plannng Polcy (Rumteljke ontwkkelngspoltek) recommended a change of the central admnstratve poston of governments towards a stuaton n whch the poston of other partes was beng recognzed and strengthened. The need for change was later adopted n the Spatal Plannng Report 2006 by the Dutch Mnstry of Housng, Spatal Plannng and the Envronment (VROM, 2006), whch stated that collaboraton between publc actors, socetal organzatons, ctzens and companes s needed to effectvely handle problems and to cease opportuntes. Despte the WRR and VROM polcy recommendatons, Hajer & Zonneveld (2000) and Boelens et al. (2006) ndcate that local governments stll have dffcultes n recognzng and adoptng recommendatons n daly practce. The shft from government towards governance and the shft towards a stronger focus on plannng mplementaton are stll not yet fully accepted. Accordng to Vnk & Van der Burg (2006) the Spatal Plannng Report 2006 seeks to te n wth socal trends, rather than combatng them, brought together n the approach of development plannng (Dutch: ontwkkelngsplanologe). Ths s a plannng concept whch focuses on stmulatng urban development by nvolvng prvate and cvc actors, rather than the former concept of regulatng and restrctng urban development by publc actors. Accordng to Hobma (2005) the rse of development plannng can be attrbuted to dssatsfacton wth the vsble shortcomngs of the classcal restrctve plannng. In practce, development plannng opts for an ntensve collaboraton between local authortes and prvate actors at an early stage on the substance of any plan beng drawn up for the area. Publc and prvate partes work together on polcy matters, the route to be followed by the process, and the budget. In other words, development plannng practce combnes spatal plan formaton wth agreements about spatal nvestments (Van Loon et al., 2008). If we take a closer look at the changed relatonshp between the publc and prvate sector we have to dstl these changes wthn the 5th Spatal Plannng Report (Nota Rumte, VROM, 2006), whch ndcates a departure from the restrctve plannng dscourse (Spaans, 2006). It makes a radcal break wth the centralst tradton n whch government determnes what wll be buld and where. As a result, deregulaton, decentralzaton, development plannng, and mplementaton-orented plannng became the man themes of the Nota Rumte. The 136 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

objectve of the 5th Spatal Plannng Report (VROM, 2006) s to create space for dfferent spatal needs n a sustanable and effcent manner, to sustan and mprove the lveablty n the Netherlands and to mprove the spatal qualty of urban and rural land, wth specal attenton to create the rght condtons for the mplementaton of development plannng. Here, the polcy emphass les on strengthenng the nternatonal compettve poston, promotng strong ctes, and securng mportant natonal spatal values. In terms of publc roles, the Report contnues to focus on decentralzaton of responsbltes for spatal mplementaton to muncpaltes wth the slogan decentralzaton where possble, centralzaton when needed. Although, publc and prvate actors seem to be aware of ther nterdependency and need to jontly work on development projects, Van Rooy et al. (2006) argue that despte twenty years of publc sector polcy based upon the motto less government, more market, urban area development stll seems to be more of a promse than realty. Its practce, t seems, s stll n the makng (Van Rooy, 2009). In fact, many others (De Zeeuw, 2007; Van de Klundert, 2008; and Daamen, 2010) even argue that urban development practce n the Netherlands s characterzed by a growng sense of neffectveness and neffcency. In relaton to ths, Hajer & Zonneveld (2000) and Tesman (2005) argue that Dutch spatal plannng nsttutons need changng f urban development practce s to dscover the capacty to realze ts ambtons effectvely. Therefore, Janssen-Jansen & Woltjer (2010) argue that Dutch planners have been specfcally nterested n a more Brtsh approach, that s, a more dscretonary and development-led type of approach to spatal plannng. Ths approach seems to te n wth the desred developmentorented approach ntroduced by the WRR (Korthals Altes, 2006), and moreover, to the current ssues n Dutch development practce. Janssen-Jansen & Woltjer (2010) argue that Dutch plannng stll reflects a strong awareness of the need for a more balanced and sustanable spatal development wth open space for future development. But, t ncreasngly assumes that t s the market and not the state that should resolve plannng problems, ether wth or wthout mnor publc fnancal nterventon (Van der Valk, 2002). Therefore, we wll take a closer look at the changng publc and prvate roles n Secton 4.2. 4.1.3 Urban Area Development Thus, Dutch plannng shfted from an emphass on physcal plannng and regulaton towards an emergng awareness of poltcal decson-makng and mplementaton as has plannng n many other European countres (see Albrechts, 2001). Plannng s now beng perceved ncreasngly as acton-orented (Shaw & Sykes, 2007). Plans are now strategc documents whch serve as gudes to project decsons, and they are carred out by local and regonal players n strategc allances, wth less natonal government control (Janssen-Jansen & Woltjer, 2010). Furthermore, the shft towards development plannng also mples a shft n emphass from plannng to the mplementaton of plannng. Alexander (1988) recognzes that n many plannng models there s a mssng lnk between plannng and mplementaton, whereas n realty there s an nteracton. In the Netherlands, the mssng lnk between plannng and mplementaton became known as urban area development (Dutch: gebedsontwkkelng), whch can be consdered as the practce of the development plannng concept. Daamen (2010) 137 Urban Development n the Netherlands

states that gebedsontwkkelng became known as the practcal translaton or nstrument of development plannng, reflectng a jont publc-prvate effort to lnk spatal polces more closely to project mplementaton. No commonly accepted defnton of urban area development exsts as t stands for a complex set of characterstcs. Brul et al. (2004) argue that urban area development can be seen as a socetal task, a development task and a management task. The socetal task les n the fact that changng socetal demands and nterests make adjustments to the bult envronment and spatal structures necessary. These adjustments bascally nvolve the transformaton, restructurng and new developments of areas. As a result, the development task s to ascertan the realzaton of dfferent real estate functons, n whch a balanced match between the demand and supply for a certan area or cty s establshed. Here, plans and functonal programmes functon as ways to express the development task. But most crtcally, urban area development asks for the synchronzaton of and management on dfferent (spatal) levels, dfferent development stages (ntatve, plan development, fnancal feasblty, realzaton, and mantenance), and dfferent sectors and professons (publc, prvate, cvc actors). Van t Verlaat (2003) adds that the most mportant means to realze urban development projects are land, captal, knowledge and sklls that need to be brought nto play. De Zeeuw (2007) argues that urban development can be seen as the art of connectng dfferent functons, dscplnes, actors, nterests, and nvestments amed at the development of an urban area. As matter of fact, often the term ntegrated urban area development s used to descrbe the complex nature of the doman. It mplcates that urban area development can be seen as an nstrument n whch the complex set of nterests, aspects, scales and processes are algned. Therefore, t s often seen and descrbed as a process of algnng dfferences n an ntegrated manner. Also, urban area development nvolves the algnment of plannng and development processes. Here the connecton between plannng and mplementaton comes nto beng. Ths s typcally relevant as both processes can be consdered to evolve from respectvely publc and prvate practces, comng together n area development. The jont effort Daamen (2010) refers to, can actually be seen as the task to algn publc and prvate nterests. In plannng jont efforts often result n the establshment of all knds of formal and nformal (publc-prvate) partnershps, whch we see as nter-organzatonal nstruments to effectuate plannng mplementaton through urban development projects. These are some of the characterstcs of Dutch urban area development wth regard to ths research. For a complete and comprehensve overvew see Franzen et al. (2011). 4.1.4 Changes n Dutch Urban Area Development snce 2010 As a result of the economc crss whch started n 2008, publc and prvate actors n contemporary urban development projects n the Netherlands face substantal fnancal vablty dffcultes due to the decreased demand for urban development (see Secton 1.2.4). It s commonly acknowledged that prevous ways of developng ctes and areas no longer s sutable for current and future demands. At the moment, the noton of publc, prvate and cvc actors seems to move to an emphass on developng nner ctes whch have to be transformed n a sustanable manner. Therefore, professonal and academc debates focus on rethnkng the future characterstcs of urban development practce n several ways. 138 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

A wde varety of Dutch professonals and academcs n the doman of spatal plannng and urban development lke De Graaf (2009), Van Joolngen et al. (2009), Bodewes (2010), Boelens (2010), Bregman (2010), Bosch (2010), Delotte (2010a, 2010b), De Jonge (2010), De Zeeuw (2010), Heurkens (2010), Laverman (2010), Putman (2010), Van Randeraat (2010), and VROM-raad (2010) share the noton that a fundamental new perspectve on the future of the professon s needed to delver sustanable and vable urban development projects wthn Dutch ctes. To brng about vable and sustanable urban development projects wthn ctes, the above mentoned authors and practtoners have put forward several solutons based on practcal pragmatc grounds rather than supported by any scentfc research, whch nclude: Demand-drven and end user-orented approaches; Introducton of dfferent types of allances and partnershps; Other ways of fnancal engneerng; De-rsked phasng and down-scalng of developments; Flexble legally-sound plannng procedures and land use plans; Transparent processes and long-term project commtment. Thus, the economc crss has put slght dfferent requrements on the roles of publc and prvate actors n projects. However, t also shows us that prvate sector-led urban development s a lkely way forward. Prvate developers are lkely to contnue ther nvolvement n urban development as they are the most capable captal nvestors wth a rsk-bearng prncple n mnd. A poston whch local authortes no longer can fulfl due to ther decreased land ownershp, land development revenues and fnancal retrenchments. Moreover, the move towards a more facltatng role s strengthened by the latest research facts and professonal and academc nsghts from several authors and nsttutons (see Joolngen et al., 2009; Butelaar, 2010a, 2010b; Delotte, 2010a, 2011a; Van der Krabben, 2011a, 2011b; Van Djken et al., 2011; and Van Tl, 2011). In general, they argue that the establshed actve land polcy of Dutch muncpaltes has come under serous pressure as a development strategy for the future, and alternatves have to be sought. It s expected that, once market demand pcks up, the prvate sector agan start nvestng n and managng urban development projects (see Heurkens, 2010). However, seen n the lght of the major needs and trends above, unmstakeably, property developers wll act n a less speculatve way and more focused on actual demand. Probably development wll be organzed n a more cooperatve and fnancally less rsk-avodng manner, n whch long-term busness models play an ncreasngly mportant role (see Putman, 2010). Moreover, retreatng local authortes wll have to rethnk ther future role n order to nfluence urban developments to mprove ctes, becomng development facltatng publc nsttutons (see for nstance Urhahn Urban Desgn, 2010; Dekker, 2011; Wcherson, 2011; Van Rooy, 2011b; Bosboom, 2012; Groot Jebbnk, 2012). Here, the common noton s that governng urban development, prevously based on permtted plannng and development plannng concepts, s shftng towards the concept of coalton plannng or nvtaton plannng (Dutch: utnodgngsplanologe). Here, cvc and prvate actors nttate and nvest n urban development projects n a bottom-up fashon based on local demand. Ths requres a facltatng role of governments to make such nttatves possble. Here, the focus of government steerng shfts from determnng development products towards gudng development processes by establshng flexble development frameworks whchh nvte prvate and cvc actors. Tme must tell whether ths shft wll gan sold ground n Western urban practces. 139 Urban Development n the Netherlands

In summary, the governance roles of, and power relatonshps between, publc, prvate and cvc actors n the Dutch urban plannng and development practce have shfted over the last ffty or so years. Fgure 4.1 shows these conceptual urban governance shfts n the Netherlands n three successve perods as descrbed n ths Secton 4.1. Here, power postons and shfts, and development demand and supply approaches, are hghlghted to explan each perod. Notce that, these shfts are conceptual and exemplary for a relatvely long perod, and that n practce several nuances and devatons occur. Moreover, urban governance n essence always requres the nteracton between all three actor groups, and subsequent sngle actor-actons. Importantly, some power shfts from 2010 onwards are not defnte yet. Nonetheless, Fgure 4.1 ndcates the emergng drecton towards more demand-drven development approaches, where busness and people needs become more mportant n Dutch urban development. These needs most lkely, are facltated by publc actors, wth an ncreasng leadng role for prvate actors to determne development demand n cooperaton wth cvc actors, n order to produce a specfc supply for urban areas. The State ` The State power shft Urban Governance 1980 2000 supply power equlbrum Urban Governance 2000 2010 supply Permtted plannng Development plannng The Market supply Cvc Socety The Market supply Cvc Socety The State power shft Urban Governance 2010 > Coalton plannng power shft The Market demand Cvc Socety Fgure 4.1 Dutch urban governance shfts over tme 140 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

4.2 Organzaton of Dutch Urban Development The roles of publc and prvate actors and publc-prvate cooperaton on urban development projects possbly also reflect changes n Dutch socety and urban plannng. Therefore, n ths secton we move to the operatonal level of urban development project. Frst, we descrbe the role characterstcs and changes of publc and prvate actors n urban development (Secton 4.2.1 and 4.2.2), followed by a descrpton of the man features of Publc-Prvate Partnershp models used to realze urban projects (Secton 4.2.3). And fnally, we closely examne the Dutch form of prvate sector-led urban development, the concesson model (Secton 4.2.4). 4.2.1 Role of the Publc Sector The role of the publc sector n urban plannng can be regarded as hghly nsttutonalzed. The Dutch plannng system allows for dfferent roles of natonal, regonal and local publc nsttutons, but the emphass of decson-makng and mandate of dfferent publc bodes has changed over tme. Here, frst, we wll brefly dscuss the roles of natonal and regonal governments, before gong nto detal on the role of local authortes as these are the actors operatng n urban development projects. In the Netherlands there are three levels of government, the central government, 12 provnces at the regonal level, and about 430 muncpaltes at the local level. Louw et al. (2003) argue that there s a long Dutch tradton of extensve governmental nvolvement n the preparaton, establshment and mplementaton of spatal plannng. As descrbed earler, the Dutch central government stll retans ts nvolvement n spatal polcy-makng on a natonal level. Snce the 1990s, natonal plannng polcy statements (see Secton 4.1.2) are manly ndcatve of nature, meant to smulate local spatal polcy mplementaton and to allocate natonal spatal nvestments to regonal and local projects. They are accompaned by strategc spatal plans whch serve as comprehensve devces to spatally organze the bult envronment n economc, socal and ecologcal aspects. Here, we wll focus on the dfferent plannng laws and nstruments at the dsposal of dfferent publc authortes. Plannng law & nstruments Hstorcally, the Dutch plannng system grew from mere local plannng of land use by muncpaltes towards a system n whch governng agences at hgher levels gradually became nvolved (Wolsnk, 2003). However, despte the drectve roles of natonal and regonal governments, ths nvolvement n mplementaton now has become hghly decentralzed. Accordng to Louw et al. (2003) current characterstcs of the system are the lack of nstruments of power for natonal and regonal governments. The ncreased power for local plannng authortes has been establshed n the New Spatal Plannng Act 2008 (Dutch: neuwe Wet Rumteljke Ordenng (nwro)), whch gves a stronger role to lower government n 141 Urban Development n the Netherlands

terms of development control. Accordng to Nadn & Stead (2008) the nwro strengthens the role of provnces (regonal publc bodes) and muncpaltes and reduces the number of rules and regulatons mposed by central governments on others, whle creatng more scope for local and regonal governments, socal organzatons, prvate actors and ctzens n the plannng process. Nevertheless, stll a herarchy of plannng nstruments s ncluded n the nwro. On central, regonal and local level a structural vson (Dutch: structuurvse) needs to be produced. Although they do not have any legally bndng status n admnstratve sense, top down plannng polcy contnues to nfluence plannng polces on lower levels. Furthermore, these spatal documents are ndcatve for the use of plannng law and nstruments. The central government uses orders n councl (Dutch: Algemene Maatregelen van Bestuur, (AMvB) and Provnces use bye-laws (Dutch: verordenngen) to ensure that general spatal ssues are ncorporated n law and that general rules can be formulated for local land use plans, management regulatons. These rules are legally bndng for the lower publc bodes. However, the only legally bndng plannng nstrument s the land use plan (Dutch: bestemmngsplan) whch s produced by local governments. Van Zundert (1990) declares that although the only bndng power for land use s lad down n the land use plan, the ntenton of the system s a plannng herarchy. Hence, we already stated that plannng nstruments lke the land use plans can be seen as management nstruments n the process of prvate sector-led urban development projects. Wth ths legally bndng nstrument they are able to (n)drectly nfluence and thus manage the outcome of urban projects. Local authortes & land use The use of land s lad down n statutory land use plans drawn up by muncpaltes. In land use plans specfc functonal arrangements are made for housng, ndustral, ecologcal or mxed land uses for dfferent parts of the cty. These functonal land use arrangements are thus legally bndng for urban development. They can be consdered as strong management nstruments for local authortes n terms of development control. Nevertheless, land use plans are mostly altered and updated by local authortes when market stuatons change over tme. Although land use plans are not consdered as flexble for market demand, procedural land use plan revsons n the nwro have been reduced from one year to twenty sx weeks. To mplement land use plans muncpaltes can be nvolved n the land development process as actors n the land market (Louw et al., 2003). Therefore, especally the bgger Dutch muncpaltes have Land Development Companes (Dutch: Gemeenteljke Grondbedrjven) n charge of land use polcy and thereby nvolved wth plannng polcy mplementaton. Muncpaltes have the freedom to choose a so-called actve or passve land use polcy. The actve land polcy means that local authortes buy land n order to servce t, dvde t nto buldng lots and release t to bulders or occupers (Louw et al., 2003). Furthermore, a land use plan provdes muncpaltes wth the legally base to apply, when necessary, pre-empton (Dutch: ontegenng) or compulsory purchase rghts (Dutch: voorkeursrecht gemeenten) to acqure land. The opposte of the actve land polcy s passve or facltatng land polcy. Here, the nstruments of land acquston are not pro-actvely used. In ths stuaton the prvate sector has the ntatve for urban development and government restrcts ther own land acqustons to land for publc servces and functons. Important to notce s that actve land 142 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

polces gve more opportuntes to exert nfluence on urban development processes than passve land polces. But most of all, the sale of land obtaned by executng the actve land polcy generates the necessary revenues to contrbute to the local authorty s general budget. Ths money s partly determned for and nvested n publc functons for the cty lke publc spaces, nfrastructure and real estate. Furthermore, a stuaton of actve publc nvolvement and legal rght to operate n the land market gves local authortes the freedom to take on an entrepreneural role n plannng. They manly operate as market actors by nvestng n nfrastructure and servcng, takng rsks and obtanng revenues from urban development projects. Ths stuaton wll be most clearly demonstrated n the secton on Publc-Prvate Partnershps. Furthermore, ths role of local authortes s n lne wth Adams & Tesdell (2005) statement that planners already have become market actors. For two decades land development companes were beng regarded as the cash cows of muncpaltes. Nevertheless, as a result of larger amounts of prvate land ownershp, accompaned by the recent economc downturn and declnng demand for development, land purchase and land development revenues for local authortes have drastcally declned (see for nstance Delotte, 2010a). Thus, wthn such an actve Dutch land development model, local authortes tradtonally have been able to secure publc nterests and objectves. But, at the same tme they have become subject to hgh fnancal development rsks, as the current stuaton shows. As a result, the publc delvery of and nvestment n nfrastructure and servcng, an ntegral and rskbearng aspect of actve land polces, mght prove dffcult to realze n the comng years. Also, especally nner-cty brownfeld redevelopment projects, crucal areas for regeneratng ctes, nowadays are hard to realze. Fnancal margns for development are low and development costs are hgh. Ths also has to do wth the tradtonal role of Dutch local authortes n land supply. Korthals Altes (2009) argues that ths role s one of ensurng all possble demands are met and that no shortage exsts, n contrast to urban contanment polces n the UK amed at lmtng sprawl by restrctng out-of town development (Mayhew, 1997). As a result, there s more polcy pressure and thereby market demand for UK brownfeld redevelopment. Hence, due to Dutch land use polces, greenfeld and brownfeld land values dffer relatvely less when compared to the UK. Ths means that less proft can be reaped from the process of land converson n Dutch nner ctes. Therefore, t becomes a more rsky (and often not feasble) development actvty, whether undertaken by publc or prvate actors. 143 Urban Development n the Netherlands

Multple publc roles Woltng (2006) descrbes that wthn development processes Dutch local authortes have multple roles dependng on the development stage of urban projects. He descrbes that the role of the local authorty as publc nsttuton n essence s to mplement self-formulated socetal polcy objectves. However, such self-formulaton does not do rght to the ncreased role of prvate and cvc actors wth a stake n the bult envronment. Furthermore, t does not comply wth the role of muncpaltes n practce where we see that local authortes ncreasngly are operatng as market actors, takng nto account economc market-orented objectves n ther polces. Woltng (2006) dstngushes the followng four roles of Dutch local authortes: Intator: as project ntator, problem owner or polcy maker; Drector: as commssoner or development partner; Partcpant: as shareholder, fnancer or contractor; Facltator: as stmulator, examner, advsor or permsson gver. Ths classfcaton ndcates that local authortes have several optons to manage urban development projects at dfferent tmes wthn development processes. Furthermore, ths qute wde scope of publc roles shows that a clear defnton of the role of publc actors n Dutch urban development practce cannot be gven. Several authors (see Secton 1.2.2) have argued that the smultaneous legslatve publc role and executve prvate role of local authortes can be regarded as a fundamental problem for Dutch urban development. Once publc actors are operatng smultaneously as (publc) commssoner and (prvate) development partner, objectves become blurred. The queston s whether publc actors n ths hybrd role are able to make a dstncton between decsons based on ther role as commssoner or development partner. Furthermore, for prvate actors t s unclear whether publc actors are operatng as ther commssoner or as a development partner, or n other words as regulator and shareholder (Bult-Sperng & Dewulf, 2006: 56). Moreover, the current development dead-lock stuaton and fnancal dffcultes of Dutch muncpaltes, have resulted n searchng for alternatve publc land polcy strateges (Lujten, 2011a). It possbly results n a less actve publc role n land use polcy and development n the Netherlands, and thus potental less nfluence to manage urban development projects. Ths stuaton s one of the motves for redefnng the role of local authortes (see Secton 1.2.2). 4.2.2 Role of the Prvate Sector The prvate sector n Dutch urban development can be dvded n dfferent actors, each of them wth ts specfc professonal specalsm. Van t Verlaat (2008) qualfes them as rsk takng partes who create and realze projects for the market. Furthermore, wthn the spectrum of prvate actors a dvson can be made between the perod of nvolvement of the actors wth urban areas or real estate portfolos. Ths nvolvement relates to the tme of commtment wth a project, whch s defned by the dfferent development stages. The followng three Dutch prvate actors can be dstngushed.. 144 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Project developers In ths research, we manly focus on project developers when we talk about prvate actors. Accordng to Delotte (2010b) developers are the lnk between the demand and supply of real estate and the connecton between end user and contractor. Ths prvate actor core busness s the preparaton and realzaton of real estate project for one s own account and rsk. Furthermore, Van der Fler & Grus (2004) argue that the man objectve of developers s to realze a maxmum yeld aganst a manageable rsk level. The yeld of real estate development s obtaned after the realzaton and sale of real estate. Ths ndcates a rather short-term nvolvement of Dutch developers, as t s not common for them to own and mantan real estate objects or publc spaces after project realzaton. Accordng to Nozeman (2008), Helleman (2005) and Kazem et al. (2009), the man characterstcs and competences of Dutch developers are: Rsk-bearng nvestors n land postons; Rsk-bearng nvestors n plan development and preparaton; Real estate development; Concept development; Product development; Project management; End user market knowledge; General market knowledge; Contractng & organzng expertse; Communcatng & marketng expertse; Network relatons. Putman (2010) concludes that the man smlartes and core competences of Dutch project developers relate to the rsk-bearng nvestment n land, plan and real estate development. Furthermore, Putman (2010) argues that developers can also be recognzed by weaker ponts: Lack of transparency; Reputaton crss real estate sector; Strong nternal focus; Busness model based on producton repetton; Lack of end user market knowledge. However, as these are fundamental characterstcs of Dutch project developers, roles can dffer wthn urban development processes whch relate to the type of developer. Therefore, we based on Nozeman (2008), Vlek (2009), Woltng (2010) and Putman (2010), we brefly ndcate the fve dfferent types of Dutch project developers: Independent developers: ths s, n absolute numbers, the bggest group of often small-szed developers. These developers often focus on specfc or nche markets lke housng, offces, retal, or even areas. Once they operate successful, bgger developers related to constructon frms sometmes take over ndependent companes; Developers related to constructon frms: ths s the group wth the largest share of development quanttes wth a strong relaton to the constructon and development process. One of the man objectves s the constant generaton of cash flow to secure the contnuaton of the company and therefore the contnuous development and producton s 145 Urban Development n the Netherlands

of mportance. Under nfluence of the ncrease of scale n the constructon sector and the decrease of market demand proft margns n recent years have lowered; Developers related to nvestors: ths group partcularly purchases or develops for ther real estate portfolo of the nsttutonal nvestment company. The man objectve of ths type of developer s to secure and ncrease yelds wth real estate portfolo for a long-term operaton perod. Important characterstcs of these developers are the constant generaton of cash flow and the nvolvement of end users as fnal occupers of the real estate; Developers related to banks: ths bg-szed development companes are related to banks whch act as fnancers of developments. These frms have a strong focus on contnuty and turnover. As a result of the suffcent avalablty of and access to captal, these developers n recent decades acqured large amounts of land for development; Other developers: ths type of developers orgnates from companes wth another type of core busness from other sectors. They are, for nstance related to ralway or retal companes, who often obtaned postons on the bass of ther conduct of busness. In terms of nvolvement n urban development processes, at least untl 2008, we have seen that especally project developers ncreased ther nfluence n urban development. The reason for ths was the ncreased prvate land ownershp due to large amounts of land acqustons n the 1990s under the Vnex-polcy. As a result, De Zeeuw (2007) descrbes that market actors (and project developers n specfc) ganed more nfluence n the ntatve stages of the development process, that he labelled as the forward ntegraton of market actors. However, as a result of the latest recesson, project developers reconsder ther fnancal poston and execute a strategy to sell land to local authortes wth the am of relevng ther accumulatng land nterest rates and obtanng lqudty. At the moment, lke all other actors n Dutch urban development, project developers are reconsderng ther future role, as the socal, economc, spatal and organzatonal context for urban development has changed dramatcally. Housng assocatons Housng Assocatons n the Netherlands can be consdered as a specal group n the prvate sector. Accordng to Neboer & Grus (2006) Dutch housng assocatons can be categorzed as manly market-orented (see Overmeeren & Zjlstra, 2009; Zjlstra, 2011), and often are labelled as prvate nsttutons. However, due to the long hstory of government control over and delvery task of socal publc housng, whch was transferred to housng assocatons n the 1980s, housng assocatons often also are regarded as sem-publc nsttutons. As a consequence, Dutch housng assocatons are often typfed as hybrd organzatons, whch carry out publc tasks, but are ndependent, prvate organzatons, havng market-drven objectves as well (Premus, 2001: 247-249). Van Djk et al. (2002) llustrate that the dffculty of postonng these actors as publc or prvate les n the dscrepancy between msson and busness model; A housng assocaton has a socetal msson, whle at the same tme they are actve on the market, operatng on the bass of a busness model. Grus (2007) has ndcated four types of Dutch housng assocatons accordng to ther busness model: socal housng manager, socal housng nvestor, socal nnovator, and socal real estate entrepreneur. He argues that housng assocatons do thnk market-orented on the bass of market demand, but not completely n conformty wth the market as they do not solely steer 146 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

on fnancal nterests. Conjn (2005) determnes housng assocatons as a prvate entty whch operates on the bass of long-term socal objectves to realze publc goals. In urban development, housng assocatons are often nvolved n nner-cty projects where they usually have a stake because of ther housng stock. Furthermore, we also have seen the growth of commercal housng assocatons focusng on the development of owner occuped dwellngs n greenfeld locatons. Nevertheless, snce the crss, an ntense both practcal and academc debate on the future role of Dutch housng assocatons takes place. Here, we notce a rskavodng atttude whch mostly ponts nto the future drecton of housng assocatons focusng on ther core task beng socal housng managers or nvestors. Investors Investors are often nvolved n urban development projects as a result of ther ownershp poston. The nvestor has a long-term busness model by constantly nvestng n ther real estate portfolo n order to maxmze returns (KEI, 2010). They also partcpate by extendng ther portfolo by purchasng new real estate object n strategc urban development locatons, wth the am of mprovng yelds for penson funds nsttutons. Investng n real estate s based on generatng yelds, through returns from the rental (drect yelds) or the growth of real estate value (ndrect yelds). In contrast to project developers, nvestors do not have to cope wth presale housng percentages, as they do not focus on the sale market but the rent market. Dependent on the poston as a partner n a partnershp model for urban development, nvestors can also be rsk-bearng actors n real estate development (Putman, 2010). Nevertheless, the partcpatng role of nvestors n urban development projects manly can be consdered as passve, although they are crucal for the purchase of real estate objects and thus the vablty f urban development schemes and projects. Consultancy frms Consultancy frms are specalsts who offer ther expertse n the real estate development process of urban development aganst a fnancal compensaton (Putman, 2010). Ther contrbuton to urban development projects s content-related or process-orented, and they operate n dfferent stages of development processes. Examples of advsors are urban desgners, archtects, fnancal engneers, and process managers. The often take on specfc task from the commssoner of urban development projects, beng publc or prvate organzatons, or on the behalf of Publc-Prvate Partnershps. An mportant characterstc of consultancy frms s that they do not take on any drect rsks. Due to the decrease of expertse and the labor capacty of publc actors n mplementng urban development projects, advsors have become ncreased n numbers and specalzaton. At the moment, due to the fnancal dffcultes n schemes and process stagnaton of development projects, consultancy frms have become more nvolved n urban development. 147 Urban Development n the Netherlands

4.2.3 Publc-Prvate Relatonshp & Partnershps Wth the man Dutch development actors n place, we now focus on the way these actors nterorganze urban development projects. In the Netherlands, t s common to speak of partnershp or cooperaton models. Ths s a rather nsttutonalzed organzatonal project-orented approach to jon up actors nterests, means and objectves. A wde varety of deal theoretcal types of Publc-Prvate Partnershp models exst n Dutch development practce. Here, we focus on the major characterstcs of these models, followed by a more detaled descrpton of the concesson model as the Dutch form of prvate sector-led urban development. In Secton 2.4 a bref overvew of the theoretcal characterstcs of Publc-Prvate Partnershps (PPP) has been gven. Here, t s suffcent to recall the defnton of PPP as stated by Njkamp et al. (2002) whch s used for ths research: A PPP s an nsttutonalzed form of cooperaton between publc and prvate actors who, on the bass of ther own ndgenous objectves, work together towards a jont target, n whch both partes accept nvestment rsks on the bass of a predefned dstrbuton of revenues and costs Njkamp et al. (2002). Publc-Prvate Partnershps were frst ntroduced n the 1980s as an nsttutonal nstrument ncorporatng organzatonal, legal and fnancal aspects for the cooperaton on urban projects. As a result of the need for prvate sector nvestment, PPP models n urban development came nto beng. The government s Knowledge Center PPP (Kennscentrum PPS, 2004) ndcates that fve deal types of cooperaton models are commonly used n Dutch urban development: Publc Realzaton, PPP Buldng Rghts, PPP Jont Ventures, PPP Concessons, and Prvate Realzaton. Table 4.1 shows the dfferent roles of publc and prvate actors n Dutch PPP models for dfferent development process stages and the underlyng land use polces of publc actors (see Kennscentrum PPS, 2006). All models are currently used for a varety of development projects. However, n the last decade, the repertore of cooperaton models has been extended wth prvate sector-led models lke the concesson. In lne of reasonng wth our conceptual typology of urban development projects (see Secton 2.2.4). Dutch cooperaton models can be seen as publc sector-domnated (publc realzaton), publc sector-led (buldng rghts) publc-prvate sector-led (jont ventures), prvate sector-led (concessons) or prvate sector-domnated (prvate realzaton). The choce for one of these models depends on a lot of factors. Frst, there are condtonal urban development characterstcs lke the desred functonal programme (mxed or monofunctonal use), the exstng urban stuaton (complexty and poltcal mportance), and the estmated project duraton (long or short term). Second, the avalablty of means from publc and prvate actors for the development are of crucal mportance for the choce of the PPP model, whch are the avalablty of land (ownershp and land polcy), fnancal capacty (nvestment), and organzatonal capacty (knowledge and personnel). And thrd, the allowance of sharng or separatng and avodng or acceptng rsks, revenues, responsbltes and tasks can be crucal factors for the PPP choce. Hence, these choces also determne the role of publc and prvate organzatons and the amount of management measures they have throughout urban development projects. Another nterestng aspect of the dfferent cooperaton models s 148 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

the relatonshp between fnancal aspects (rsks) and organzatonal aspects (responsbltes) on the other hand. These aspects are of mportance for publc and prvate roles. Theoretcally, Fgure 4.2 shows that the more projects become prvate sector-led, the less rsks and responsbltes publc actors have. But, ths also means that the prvate sector s growng mportance results n hgher rsks and responsbltes. Development Stage Sub-stage Publc Realzaton Intatve Publc Publc or Prvate Plan & feasblty Realzaton Operaton Land use polcy Vson and program Publc Buldng Rghts Jont Venture Concesson Prvate Realzaton Publc & Prvate Desgn plan Publc Publc & Prvate Land development Real estate development Publc or Prvate Publc & Prvate Publc & Prvate Publc Publc Publc & Prvate Publc or Prvate Prvate Together or Prvate Publc Publc & Prvate Prvate Prvate Prvate Publc or Prvate Prvate Prvate Prvate Prvate Constructon Prvate Prvate Prvate Prvate Prvate Mantenance Publc Publc or Publc or Publc or Publc or publc space Prvate Prvate Prvate Prvate Actve < > Passve Table 4.1 Publc & prvate roles wthn Dutch PPP models (based on Kennscentrum PPS, 2006) Fnancal aspect Low Prvate Rsks Hgh Prvate Rsks Hgh Publc Rsks Low Publc Rsks Prvate Realzaton PPP Concessons PPP Jont Ventures PPP Buldng Rghts Publc Realzaton Hgh Publc Responsbltes Low Prvate Responsbltes Low Publc Responsbltes Hgh Prvate Responsbltes Organzatonal aspect Fgure 4.2 Responsbltes & rsk relatonshp n Dutch PPP models (based on Kennscentrum PPS, 2006) 149 Urban Development n the Netherlands

To provde foregn readers wth a better understandng about the Dutch cooperaton models, we wll descrbe the basc characterstcs of these deal type models. An excepton s made for the concesson model whch s descrbed n more detal n the next secton as t s our research subject. Several authors have theoretcally defned the nter-organzatonal publc and prvate roles on dfferent nsttutonal aspects of such models. For nstance, Woltng (2006) focuses on fnancal and organzatonal aspects, and Bregman & De Wn (2005) descrbe legal aspects of cooperaton models. Publc realzaton Publc Realzaton n essence s not a Publc-Prvate Partnershp model as the jonng up of rsks and responsbltes between publc and prvate actors does not take place. In Publc Realzaton publc actors acqure land wthn the development area, prepare the land for buldng and housng, and sells buldng plots to nterested partes who on ther turn can develop the land for functonal purposes n lne wth the publc land use plan. Through the land prce governments are able to nfluence the land development result, but also bear the rsks nvolved (Woltng, 2006). In ths regard, Publc Realzaton can be seen as a publc sectordomnated model. Bregman & De Wn (2005) argue that t nvolves an actve publc land polcy n whch governments can also use compulsory purchase powers to acqure land from land owners. Furthermore, they add that Publc Realzaton can be seen as one of the classcal development models (the other s Prvate Realzaton) wth a tradtonal publc-prvate role dvson. Buldng rghts The Buldng Rghts model n general s consdered to be a Publc-Prvate Partnershp model n urban development n the Netherlands. The buldng rghts model s often used n stuatons of spread landownershp n greenfeld locatons, wth the am of brngng landownershp nto one hand (often muncpaltes). The prncple of the model s that prvate actors often own land whch they then sell t to publc actors aganst the legal rght to develop (parts of) ths land after the muncpaltes prepared ths land for development and constructon. The transacton of land from prvate to publc actors often happens aganst a lower than market conform prce as prvate actors am to counterbalance these losses wth the revenues from the real estate development n the realzaton stage. As land s owned by the publc actor, ths model s often descrbed as beng publc sector-led. The rsks and revenues for land development stay wth the publc actors, whle the real estate development rsk and revenues are taken by the prvate actors. In theory, publc tasks and prvate tasks are beng separated accordng to Woltng (2006). However, Van der Hee (2011), n a study on the buldng rghts model, argues that actors n practce work together on plan development, as prvate actors am to secure the preferred functon for ther plot n plan negotatons. Bregman & De Wn (2005) state that usng the Buldng Rghts model for urban development also requres an actve publc land polcy. Van der Cammen (2007) argues that ths model was the common way of developng n the Netherlands for years. In the last decade, however, a wthdrawng movement of local governments from the land market can be notced 150 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

(Prem, 2008). At the moment ths model s stll used n places where local authortes are fnancally and techncally able to buy and prepare land for development. Fgure 4.3 shows the relatonshp between publc and prvate roles n land and real estate development n the Buldng Rghts model. Development Doman Land Unprepared Land Land Development Developed Land Land Operaton Prepared Land Real Estate Real Estate Development Developed Real Estate Real Estate Operaton Development Operaton Development Process (tme) Publc Prvate Together Fgure 4.3 Publc & prvate roles n buldng rghts model (based on Van Ophem, 2007 & NLBW, 2010) 151 Urban Development n the Netherlands

Jont ventures The Jont Venture model can be consdered as a pure Publc-Prvate Partnershp model as jonng up takes place on organzatonal, legal and fnancal aspects. It s an often used co-operaton model n the Netherlands for large scale and complex urban development projects, for whch nsuffcent publc captal s avalable to realze development ambtons, so prvate captal becomes needed. In jont ventures publc and prvate actors found a jont Land Development Company (Dutch: GEM). However, there are also purely contractual jont ventures wthout an ndependent legal entty. In a GEM, publc and prvate actors hand over all land n the development area to the GEM whch prepares the land for constructon and releases land parcels for development. In prncple, the GEM has the character of a Prvatzed Land Development Company on locaton level (Bregman & De Wn, 2005), n whch concrete agreements on land prces, revenue and loss sharng, rsk sharng and responsbltes are made. Here, publc actors operate wthn a prvate entty and under prvate agreements, thus very much lke market partes to recall Adams & Tesdell (2010). The rsk for land development s beng shared between the publc and prvate organzaton n proporton of ther share of partcpaton n the GEM. Often ths s based on a ffty-ffty publcprvate share n the GEM. The rsk for the real estate development often les wth the prvate actor wthn the GEM, but another varant called the jont Land & Real Estate Development Company (GVM) can set up to nclude publc actors to partcpate n the development of real estate. Besdes the land and real estate development task, GEMs also propose a jont up plan development for the locaton at hand. Fgure 4.4 shows the relatonshp between publc and prvate roles n the land and real estate development n the Jont Venture model. 152 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects Accordng to Woltng (2006) publc and prvate actors n jont ventures have to preserve themselves from the so-called double hat problem: For publc actors ths s the case when they fnancally take advantage of the development under prvate law, whle at the same tme they could act as a caretaker of publc nterests possbly negatvely nfluencng the fnancal result of the development. For prvate actors ths s the case when a prvate actor s represented n the GEM and at the same tme acts as real estate developer. In ths stuaton the prvate actors on the one hand serve the GEM amed at optmzng the result of the land development, whle at the other hand they am at optmzng the result of the real estate development for whch the prvate actor tres to purchase land for a mnmum amount. These hybrd publc and prvate roles and typcal Dutch cooperaton practce also have caught the eye of the European Commsson, whch supports a more Anglo-Saxon based clear separaton of publc and prvate roles (see Secton 1.2.3). As a matter of fact, the European Commsson (2004) has frequently dagnosed that the tasks apponted to publc and prvate partes wthn the sngle corporate body are defned naccurately and n some case are totally absent n the contracts and agreements. Ths leads to problems wth the transparency and equalty prncples and the detrment of the pursut objectves of common nterest by publc bodes. Furthermore, the double hat problem creates frctons wth European Unon prncples, because t threatens publc legtmacy, and brngs along unnecessary publc fnancal rsks. Even so, current Dutch PPP jont ventures can be contradctve to the statement of the European Court of Justce (C-220/05) that close fnancal nvolvement of muncpaltes n urban development projects whch are meant to be brought on the market, may well be n conflct wth publc procurement rules. Accordng to Bregman (2010) the recent Müller

judgment by the European Court of Justce (C-451/08) mplcates that future PPPs wll be based on a clear role dvson by law, n whch publc bodes operate wthn the publc doman and developers wthn the prvate doman. From a European perspectve, ths odd Dutch jont venture stuaton seems to be caused by the unclear role of publc actors as publc commssoners and prvate developers. Even more, ths stuaton s a result of the establshed practcal habt of publc and prvate actors to nsttutonalze publc-prvate cooperaton n rather complex nter-organzatonal partnershps n urban development, nstead of searchng for other methods of cooperatng whch mght acheve smlar results. These arguments support our search for new manageral nstead of nsttutonal solutons to publc-prvate cooperaton, n whch publc and prvate roles are clearly defned wthout blockng the process of jonng up both nterests. Development Doman Land Unprepared Land Land Development Developed Land Land Operaton Prepared Land Real Estate Real Estate Development Developed Real Estate Real Estate Operaton Development Operaton Development Process (tme) Publc Prvate Together Fgure 4.4 Publc & prvate roles n jont venture model (based on Van Ophem, 2007 & NLBW, 2010) 153 Urban Development n the Netherlands

Prvate realzaton Prvate Realzaton cannot be consdered as a Publc-Prvate Partnershp model but as an operaton agreement between publc and prvate actors. Ths agreement s constructed when prvate landowners wsh to develop ther own land. In some cases there s a need for a change n the land use plan and n others there s not. In both cases the muncpalty s able to ask for a fnancal compensaton for publc servces, whch are agreed upon n the operaton agreement or attached to the buldng permt. Publc actors can also wthhold support for land use plan adjustments and dsapprove development permts. Thus, although prvate actors seem to domnate the process of development, Dutch local authortes stll are able to nfluence the outcome of Prvate Realzaton by usng ther plannng nstruments to regulate development. 4.2.4 Concessons: Dutch Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Form Development Doman Land Unprepared Land Land Development Developed Land Land Operaton Prepared Land Real Estate Real Estate Development Developed Real Estate Real Estate Operaton Development Operaton Development Process (tme) Publc Prvate Together Fgure 4.5 Publc & prvate roles n concesson model (based on Van Ophem, 2007 & NLBW, 2010) 154 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

In the prevous sectons we have outlned the changes n Dutch urban plannng and development and the dfferent exstng deal type publc-prvate cooperaton models used n practce. Now, we turn more specfcally to a relatvely new Publc-Prvate Partnershp model whch can be seen as the Dutch form of Prvate sector-led urban development, the concesson model. Ths model has been subject to professonal and academc plannng debates and lterature for some years now. In practce, the concesson model has been used more and more as a form of publc-prvate cooperaton, although the latest recesson has mpacted the ntal enthusasm about, and drect use of t. Though, t s expected for the future, based on the trends descrbed n Secton 4.1, that some sort of prvate sector-led urban development wll be of great sgnfcance for urban development n the Netherlands. The concesson model n recent years s presented as a new type of publc-prvate cooperaton nstrument for urban development. Nevertheless, concessons are well nternatonally well known for ther applcaton n sngle object developments lke nfrastructure projects. Accordng to Bult-Sperng & Dewulf (2006) concesson contractng s known varously as prvate fnance ntatve (PFI), desgn-buld-fnance-mantan (DBFM), desgn-buld-fnance-operate (DBF), buld-operate-transfer (BOT) and by many other names (see Mller, 2000; Wnch, 2002; Zhang, 2004). Furthermore, even n the Netherlands, concessons used n plannng can be traced back to the twelfth century n the development of the Dutch polders, dkes, dams, ralways and waterways, accordng to Van de Klundert (2008). Nevertheless, for current urban development practce concessons can be consdered as a qute new addton to the repertore of publc-prvate cooperaton models as t has been absent n Dutch urban plannng for centures under government leadershp. We now take a closer look at the characterstcs of the concesson provded n lterature. Untl recently no clear defnton for the concesson model was provded n lterature. The defnton used by Gjzen (2009) based on emprcal research s, n our opnon the most approprate for ths research as t contans a good overvew of concesson characterstcs: A concesson n urban area development s a contract form wth clear precondtoned (fnancal) agreements between publc and prvate partes, n whch a conscous choce from publc partes has been made to transfer rsks, revenues, and responsbltes for plan development, land preparaton, land and real estate development and possble operaton for the entre development plan towards prvate partes, wthn a prevously defned publc bref n whch the objectve s to create an effectve and effcent task dvson and a clear separaton of publc and prvate responsbltes (Gjzen, 2009). Bregman & De Wn (2005) argue that at the outset of concesson developments prvate actors predomnantly own land, or n some cases acqure land from local authortes. Other key concesson prncples are; fxed fnancal agreements; lmted publc rsks; predefned publc condtons for development whch functon as a framework for developers to desgn plans; and a combned prvate land and real estate development. Woltng (2006) emphaszes that local authortes n concessons delberately choose to lmt ther nfluence by solely predefnng condtons for development. As a result of the land and real estate development undertaken by prvate actors the rsks and revenues are also attrbuted to developers. Nevertheless n theory, after the project delvery project developers transfer the land to publc actors on the bass of agreed condtons, so publc actors own and mantan the publc space. Fgure 4.5 shows the relatonshp between publc and prvate roles n the land and real estate development n the concesson model based on Van Ophem (2007) and NLBW (2010). 155 Urban Development n the Netherlands

Thus, n theory the basc characterstcs of the Dutch concesson model are known. The promsng aspect of the characterstcs of the concesson model, put forward by the Commsson Fundamental Examnaton Buldng Sector (Commsse Fundamentele Verkennng Bouw, 2008), s that publc and prvate partes both are dong what they are good at: determnng and legtmsng frameworks respectvely nnovatng and enterprsng. These somewhat deologcal clams are based upon the dssatsfacton and shortcomngs of the jont venture as a publc-prvate cooperaton model, and several ssues n the current urban development practce as well. Advantages & dsadvantages Van Rooy (2007) declares that current urban plannng practce s confronted wth several problems whch are n need of a soluton. He opts for smplfcatons n order to solve these problems. Some of these solutons n essence can be found n a smplfcaton of publc and prvate roles. Van Rooy (2007) argues that the hybrd character of the Rhneland and Anglo- Saxon management model n Dutch decson-makng processes creates (unnecessary) hybrd roles of publc and prvate actors. A soluton can be found n the clarfcaton of these roles. Especally n urban area development a way to cope wth ths s the ntroducton of the concesson model. In ths model, n essence, roles are clearly separated, whch creates a clear management task apponted to publc and prvate actors. Also, Van de Klundert (2008) argues that the concesson model could be a soluton for several specfc ssues n urban plannng, f used correctly. He states that the possble advantages of the concesson model are: Competton and transparency throughout dfferent stages of urban development; Creatvty and nnovaton through prvate actor s contrbuton to vsons, desgns and programs; Less vulnerable to poltcal dscontnuty through fxed publc prvate agreements; Multversty and equalty can be secured through parallel processes; Complex procedures can be managed more professonally by prvate actors; Delays n procedures can be managed more accurately by prvate actors; Complex decson-makng s reduced through the transfer of responsbltes from a poltcal to a busness context; Complex role of publc actors n land polces and cooperaton models s avoded. De Zeeuw (n Heurkens et al., 2008) clams that the development of areas based upon the concesson model has several advantages compared to other partnershp models: Optmal task and rsk dvson between publc and prvate actors; An effectve use of the prvate land ownershps; Better sutable wthn the European tenderng procedures. De Graaf (2009) formulates several other advantages or expectatons of concessons: A possble end to extensve negotatons common n PPP jont ventures Better sutable n a stuaton n whch the government operates lean and mean A possble end to the dual role of governments n PPPs 156 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

All these promsng concesson aspects can be narrowed down to four advantages: More effectve: objectves are acheved easly; More effcency: reduces project delays and budget overruns; More spatal qualty: supports nnovaton and creatvty; More transparency: clarfes publc and prvate roles. However, some dsadvantages of the model exst as well. For nstance, OGA (2008) (Ontwkkelngsbedrjf Gemeente Amsterdam) argues that there s a lack of management and control possbltes for governmental nsttutons after the concesson agreement has been sgned. Another dsadvantage can also be vewed as a condton for the applcaton of the concesson model. Ths concesson model s thought not to be sutable for complex urban area projects. Wth complex projects the contract formaton and rsk management s too dffcult accordng to OGA s experences wth concessons n Amsterdam. Furthermore, De Zeeuw (2010) argues that the concesson model asks for rsk-bearng atttudes from market partes whch are dffcult to establsh under severe market crcumstances. As housng sales fall due to a decrease n market demand, the agreed condtons on housng delvery wthn concesson agreements functon as a fnancal burden for project developers. Hence, ths can be seen as the nflexblty of legal agreements, whch makes plan and programme durng the development process dffcult. Furthermore, Van der Weerd (2007) argues that concessons often resolve n a project management approach rather than process management approach whch possbly cause stern publc-prvate relatonshps. Thus, n summary, the dsadvantages of the concesson model found n lterature are: Lack of management and control possbltes for publc actors. Not applcable for complex urban area projects; Dffcult contract formaton and rsk management dffcult; Dependence on prvate nvestment n all market crcumstances; Inflexblty to change plans and programme durng development process; Stern publc-prvate relatonshp due to rgd project management approach. Condtons In addton to ths, the man condtons for a successful applcaton of the concesson model n urban area development are mentoned n Heurkens et al. (2008): Manageable project scale: urban developments wth a clear functonal program; Mnmal poltcal and socal project complexty: urban developments wth low (potental) poltcal & socal rsk profles; Manageable project duraton: urban developments wth a long duraton are consdered to be less approprate; Maxmum freedom for prvate acton: wthn the publc actor s defned boundares. 157 Urban Development n the Netherlands

Motves The possble motves or reasons for the publc actors to choose the concesson model as a prvate sector-led urban development project have been dscussed n Heurkens et al (2008). These motves mght be more or less applcable to specfc concesson model cases but they also gve a good ndcaton of the decreasng nfluence of publc actors snce the 2000s. The publc actor motves to choose concessons are: Labor capacty of publc actor (lack of competences and sklls); Requste capacty of publc actor (lack of fnancal means); Rsk transfer to prvate actor (avodng fnancal burdens); Intatve by prvate actor (plan proposal for the development); Land ownershp stuaton (prvate sector or fragmented land ownershp). In addton to the above, Heurkens et al. (2008) argue that the basc theoretcal assumpton for the use of the concesson model s that publc and prvate roles are clearly separated or apponted to one another, nstead of beng shared among the actors. Table 4.2 shows the theoretcal tasks separately performed by publc and prvate actors as stated by Heurkens et al. (2008). Publc Actor Rough ndcaton functonal program Spatal condtons Qualty condtons publc space Condtons vsual qualty plan Land use plan adopton Land sale (transfer to prvate actor) Prvate Actor Detaled functonal program Desgn spatal plan Vsual qualty plan (ncl. publc space) Communcaton plan Land use plan preparaton Land acquston Land & real estate development Realzaton publc space Table 4.2 Theoretcal tasks of publc & prvate actors n concessons (Heurkens et al., 2008) Thus, the lterature revew provdes nformaton about theoretcal characterstcs of the concesson model. However, these statements can be consdered to be based on somewhat fragmented practcal experences rather than based on systematc emprcal research. In other words, the concesson model s presented as a possble new publc-prvate cooperaton model for several dfferent problems at the tme beng. The urge to explore the possbltes of the applcaton of the concesson model as the panacea for urban development, materalzed n dfferent professonal publcatons from Van de Kundert (2008), Twynstra Gudde (2008) and Delotte (2008) and was subject to several professonal debates and meetngs. Nevertheless, Delotte (2008) took a more dstnctve vew towards the concesson model by recommendng to experment wth publc-prvate cooperaton models that contan features of both concesson and jont venture models. Nonetheless, after ths frst wave of promsng effects of concessons, dfferent scholars lke Prem (2008), Wezenberg (2009), Gjzen (2009), and Peek (2010) the latter two n close cooperaton wth ths research conducted 158 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

systematc emprcal research on concesson cases n the Netherlands. The publcatons by Heurkens et al. (2009), Heurkens (2010) and Heurkens & Peek (2010) can be seen as the frst contrbuton to provdng emprcally-founded knowledge about concessons. 4.3 Conclusons Ths chapter amed to sketch the characterstcs and changes n the context and organzaton of prvate sector-led urban development n the Netherlands. We reconstructed the socoeconomc changes towards neolberal values and emphaszed the changng role of and relatonshp between the State, the Market and Cvc socety n the Netherlands n dfferent perods. Furthermore, we ntroduced the Anglo-Saxon Western Wnd as a metaphor for descrbng the slow adopton of Anglo-Saxon values n Dutch organzatons and ther management. Even so, we showed that the Dutch plannng system from the 1980s on slowly evolved from beng herarchcal to beng decentralzed, from polcy formaton to polcy mplementaton, and from government control towards ncreased prvate sector nvolvement. Then, we took a closer look at the characterstcs and change n the roles of publc and prvate actors, followed by a descrpton of the nsttutonal aspects of publc-prvate cooperaton n urban development n the Netherlands. And we fnshed ths chapter wth a detaled theoretcal descrpton of the Dutch form of prvate sector-led urban development, the concesson model as the latest addton to the repertore of Publc-Prvate Partnershps. However, despte the fact that we have provded some theoretcal nsghts about the nsttutonal context and organzaton of prvate sector-led urban development n the Netherlands, we stll notce a knowledge gap between ths theoretcal knowledge and the emprcal knowledge. Hence, ths research ams at contrbutng to the theoretcal knowledge on the concesson model by confrmng, rejectng, sharpenng or opposng clams on the bass of emprcal research data. Therefore, Chapter 5 ams at the fllng ths gap by analyzng the prvate sector-led urban development practce n the Netherlands by conductng several emprcal case studes on the concesson model. Furthermore, concesson model supporters have gnored other possble cooperaton methods rather than cooperaton models between publc and prvate actors that mght be more sutable n the changng context of urban development. Therefore, besdes dentfyng the nsttutonal characterstcs of concessons, we wll also focus on the actual management and effects of these prvate sector-led urban development projects. Ths s n lne wth Kljn (2008) who argues that organzatonal arrangements are of less sgnfcance to the development of projects than the management by actors tself. 159 Urban Development n the Netherlands

160 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

5 Cases n the Netherlands Ths chapter provdes an nsght nto the prvate sector-led urban development practce n the Netherlands by showng the results of an extensve case study research on the concesson model. Before descrbng the results of the case study research on ten dfferent prvate sectorled urban development cases (Secton 5.2-5.11), the case study framework (Secton 5.1) s ntroduced n order to clarfy the objectves and choces for the case studes. In Secton 5.12 the results of the cross-case analyss are presented, followed by the some general conclusons we can draw from the cases n Secton 5.13. 5.1 Case Study Framework The ncreased use of the concesson model as the Dutch form of prvate sector-led urban development can be vewed as an organzatonal response to changng relatonshp between publc and prvate actors descrbed n Chapter 4. In the last decade numerous projects have been undertaken on the bass of ths cooperaton model. However, a systematc emprcal analyss of the concesson model to confrm or reject the statements provded n lterature has been absent so far. Conductng emprcal case studes seems to be a sutable method to fll the knowledge gap. In ths secton we brefly dscuss the man ssues nvolved wth the Dutch case study research. Queston, objectve & methodology The man case study queston, objectve and methodology (see Secton 3.2) are: Queston: How do publc and prvate actors organze and manage Dutch prvate sector-led urban development projects, what are the project effects and actor experences?; Objectve: The objectve of ths stage s to create a better understandng of the publc and prvate roles, project effects and actor experences n emprcal Dutch prvate sector-led urban development projects; Methodology: Ths stage conssts of multple emprcal case studes, n whch ntervews are held wth practtoners and case documents are analyzed. Furthermore, we use a cross-case analyss and lterature revews to valdate our case study fndngs wthn each context. In lne wth the presented analytcal model n Chapter 3 we wll focus our case descrpton on the organzaton, management and effects of the concesson projects. Frst, the descrpton of the man organzatonal role characterstcs of the publc and prvate actors nvolved takes nto account organzatonal tasks and responsbltes, fnancal rsks and revenues, and legal rules and requrements of both organzatons. Second, the descrpton of the used management measures by publc and prvate actors takes nto account project management, process management, management nstruments and management resources performed by ether 161 Cases n the Netherlands

one of both publc and prvate actors. Thrd, the descrpton of the effects takes nto account the effectveness of the cooperaton, the effcency of the process, and spatal qualty of the product. Furthermore, we add a descrpton of the experences of publc and prvate actors by takng nto account the motves and problems wth the use of the concesson model to contrbute to the debate and lterature fndngs on the applcaton of the concesson model. The fnal objectve s to structure the Dutch case study fndngs at the end of ths chapter by cross-analyzng the cases wth the assstance of tables used n Chapter 2. Formulatng research questons allows us to acheve ths objectve. To provde a bass for a systematc cross-case comparson and overvew of the prvate sector-led urban development practce n the Netherlands (presented n Secton 5.12), the Dutch case study research tres to answer the followng questons: What are the nter-organzatonal roles of publc and prvate actors? What organzatonal tasks and responsbltes are apponted to the actors? What fnancal rsks and revenues are apponted to the actors? What legal requrements and rules are appled by the actors? How are the management measures used by publc and prvate actors? How are project management actvtes carred out by the actors? How are process management actvtes carred out by the actors? How are management nstruments used by the actors? How are management resources used by the actors? What are the effects of the cooperaton based on the concesson model? Is the cooperaton beng consdered effectve n reachng actors objectves? Is the process beng consdered effcent by lmtng tme and costs? Is the product beng consdered to have a satsfyng spatal qualty level? What are the experences of publc and prvate partes wth the cooperaton? What are the motves to choose the concesson model? What are the problems encountered n the cooperaton? What are the condtons to use the concesson model? Case study selecton Before a selecton of case studes comes about, two ssues are addressed here to avod data collecton and data analyss problems. Frst, and foremost, there s the ssue of selecton crtera. Wthout selecton crtera, reasons for choosng partcular cases are absent. In other words, we mght than research somethng we don t want to research. The man reason to formulate selecton crtera s the contrbuton to case study objectves. To get a good vew of the amount of actual Dutch concesson model, a lterature revew was conducted In Aprl 2009, leadng to a long lst of twenty-two concesson cases n the Netherlands. At that tme t was the most accurate lst, whch formed the bass to defned selecton crtera. Second, there s the ssue s scope versus depth. As t s not practcal to analyze all twenty-two cases wthn a tme span of sx months, and the objectve s to retreve data that gves nsght nto the current status and ssues of prvate sector-led urban development projects, a selecton of these cases must be made. Here, we must decde what a szeable number of cases s as explaned by Kantor & Savtch (2005) (see Secton 3.5). In ths research we thnk that the 162 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

analyss of ten cases s a szeable number. Ths number of cases allows the researcher to fnd an optmum between a far number of cases and the n-depth nformaton, eventually provdng a vald bass for cross-analyzng and concluson-drawng. On the bass of ths frst quck-scan and the determnaton of a szeable number of cases, the followng case study selecton crtera are used to select our fnal cases: Defnton by Gjzen: The project should meet the defnton of the concesson model made by Gjzen (2009) (see Secton 4.2.4). Several other ought to be concesson cases n ths way are sorted out; Balanced mx of nner-cty and urban frnge locatons: As urban development takes place at dfferent locatons, the ssues nvolved tend to be dfferent as well. In order to gve an adequate nsght nto Dutch concesson model cases, t s logcal to use a balanced mx of both types of developments; Mxed-use functonal program: As urban development s bult upon the thought of beng mult-functonal, we choose mxed-use developments as a case. However, some concesson cases tend to be characterzed by a relatve hgh percentage of the housng functon. But, the development of publc space s often ncluded whch can be seen as a (rather small) addton of another functon next to housng; Presence of both publc and prvate actors: As we are nterested n the way publc and prvate actors cooperate n concesson case, t s necessary that both actors are present. On the publc sector sde ths wll most often be the local authorty, at the prvate sector sde t could be a project developer, a prvate consortum and even housng assocatons; Project completon untl plan development stage: The project status must at least be progressed nto the plan development phase. Otherwse learnng from the project n later development stages becomes problematc. However, projects that are well on ther way n the realzaton stage are preferred. Then, t s possble to determne the effects of the development as well; Pragmatcs: It s mportant to obtan enough data for drawng conclusons. So, the avalablty of data n the form case documents (agreements and lterature), and the avalablty of contacts wthn the researcher s professonal network, s a crteron. Cty Project Locaton Scale (ha/acres) Program Amsterdam Park de Meer Inner-cty 14 / 34.6 700 dwellngs, facltes Den Haag Deelplan 20 Greenfeld 5 / 12.4 470 dwellngs Enschede De Laares Inner-cty 30 / 74.1 450 dwellngs, 2,500 m2 retal, 5,000 m2 offce Maasslus Het Balkon Greenfeld 22 / 54.4 1,000 dwellngs, facltes Mddelburg Mortere Greenfeld 100 / 247.1 1,500 dwellngs, 3,000 m2 offce, golf course Naaldwjk Woerdblok Greenfeld 30 / 74.1 900 dwellngs Rotterdam Neuw Crooswjk Inner-cty 30 / 74.1 500 dwellngs Tlburg Wagnerplen Inner-cty 10 / 24.7 600 dwellngs, 9,000 m2 retal, 60,000 m2 offce Utrecht De Woerd Greenfeld 17 / 42 550 dwellngs Velsen Oud IJmuden Inner-cty 12 / 29.7 350-650 dwellngs Table 5.1 Case study overvew the Netherlands (data from 2009) 163 Cases n the Netherlands

Wth the cases study ssues and the case study selecton crtera n place we selected ten cases as part of our research presented n Table 5.1. What s vsble n Table 5.1 s the varety n case characterstcs. For nstance, the 50/50 nner-cty/urban frnge rato s n place, the scale of the cases dffers tremendously, and the functonal program shows a lot of dfferentaton. Furthermore, these projects are stuated throughout dfferent geographcal regons n the Netherlands. Ths stuaton allows us to come up wth a wde varety of research fndngs and to elaborate under whch condtons the concesson model s applcable n order to confrm or reject the statements provded n lterature. The scale of the cases, varyng from 5 to 100 hectares, has not been a partcular case selecton crteron. It can be regarded as a specfc characterstc of Dutch urban development; these projects tend to be of consderable sze. In terms of scale, Table 5.1 ndcates that prvate sector-led urban development projects are no excepton to ths general Dutch rule. Here, t s mportant to note that the delberate choce was made to exclude footnotes and references n the Dutch case study descrptons to present a more compact overvew of the ten cases ncreasng ther readableness. Also, APA-reference style prescrbes to exclude footnotes n general, a style rule we wll follow n general for ths research. Moreover, we lmt the case study descrpton to the research varables as dentfed above, other more specfc sngle varables are excluded. Nonetheless, mportantly, the fndngs of each Dutch case are supported by a varety of case study sources, whch can be found n Appendx I. These nclude varous lterature and case document revews, stakeholder ntervews and surveys, and ste observatons. Successvely, the followng Sectons 5.2-5.11 present the fndngs from ten Dutch prvate sector-led urban development projects n a smlar structure. 5.2 Amsterdam, Park de Meer Project context Park de Meer s an nner-cty development located n the Southeast of Amsterdam n Watergraafsmeer. As a result of the re-allocaton of football club Ajax to the ArenA stadum n 1996, the former Ajax-terran was destned to become a housng neghborhood. The regeneraton of the ste contans 700 new houses, wth a mx of affordable, mddle and hgh segment houses on 14 hectares. The Amsterdam local authorty s dvded nto several dfferent urban dstrct councls (Stadsdeelgemeente) who have a mandate for takng decsons on ther terrtoral area. The project lfe cycle of Park de Meer was 7 years, the ntatve started n 1995 and the realzaton was completed n 2002. In 1996 the Stadsdeelgemeente Oost-Watergraafsmeer wrote out a plural study assgnment (and not a tender or desgn competton) for the prvate sector. The partcpants had to comply wth a concept Schedule of Spatal Requrements (Dutch: Stedenbouwkundg Programma van Esen) and were judged on varous crtera. The most mportant crteron of the urban dstrct councl for selectng a prvate consortum was the presence of both a property developer and housng assocaton. The prvate consortum consstng of the housng assocatons De Dageraad (later De Allante), Wonngbedrjf Amsterdam (later Ymere) and property developer BAM was 164 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

selected as the preferred concessonare for the development of Park de Meer. These partes organzed themselves n the Park de Meer CV. The publc-prvate cooperaton based on the concesson model was fnalzed wth the sgnng of the Development Agreement (January 1997) and Cooperaton Agreement (May 1998) between the Stadsdeelgemeente Oost- Watergraafsmeer and Park de Meer CV. Interestng to note s that the Amsterdam muncpalty has a very actve land polcy. Throughout the cty the local authortes holds long leases on buldngs and stes. Seen n ths lght, t s remarkable that ths prvate sector-led concesson case has been used n the cty. Organzaton The tasks performed by the publc and prvate actors for Park de Meer are shown n Table 5.2. These tasks performed by actors on paper are completely n lne wth the (prncple) tasks wthn the concesson model descrbed by Heurkens et al. (2008) n Table 4.2. The responsbltes of the dfferent actors are descrbed n the Cooperaton Agreement of 1998. The local authorty has the followng responsbltes; sale and avalablty of land, publc law procedures, on tme judgment of plans, control delvery status, adopton of land (publc space). Park de Meer CV has the followng responsbltes; purchase land from government, desgn the spatal plan, on tme request buldng permt housng, delvery houses and publc space, and land transfer. Publc Actor Rough ndcaton functonal program Spatal condtons Qualty condtons publc space Condtons vsual qualty plan Land use plan adopton Land sale (transfer to prvate actor) Prvate Actor Detaled functonal program Desgn spatal plan Vsual qualty plan (ncl. publc space) Communcaton plan Land use preparaton Land acquston Land & real estate development Realzaton publc space Table 5.2 Tasks of publc & prvate actors n Amsterdam Park de Meer The rsks nvolved for the prvate actor are lnked wth the development of the ste; they buy the land from the local authorty, prepare the ste, and develop the real estate. The publc actor dd not have any major rsks, but they have to pay ther own admnstratve procedural costs. As a consequence of the clear separaton of rsks, the prvate sector also takes the revenues. The publc actor obtans a certan amount for sellng ther land and the publc space s handed over to them after project completon. The requrements for the prvate actor are defned by the publc schedule of spatal requrements and condtons for the vsual qualty of the plan. Furthermore, the dstrct councl regulates development by approvng the land use plan. The contract contans the rule that when unforeseen crcumstances occur actors deal wth t by delberaton. 165 Cases n the Netherlands

Management In terms of project management, the Stadsdeelgemeente Oost-Watergraafsmeer ntated and operated the project. They set out a plural study assgnment (and not a tender or desgn competton) for the prvate sector, by whch they were able to manage the spatal requrements. Furthermore, they became owner of the publc space after project completon, resultng n drect nfluence on the desgn of the publc space. In terms of process management, the prvate consortum desgned and planned the project. They were responsble for the spatal plan, the nvestment and plannng of the project through whch they were able to realze ther functonal and fnancal objectves by composng an optmal spatal plan wthn a short tme span. Publc and prvate actors were both able to nfluence the process on the management functons of negotatng and decson-makng. The largest part of the negotatons between the publc and prvate actors took place n the desgn stage of the development process. Furthermore, due to the future publc space ownershp stuaton the local authorty s mantenance department kept controllng and negotatng cost and techncal benefcal spatal nterventons on sometmes very specfc detals. The most mportant decson-makng moments took place at the transton towards a new development stage. Communcaton was clearly a management actvty performed by the prvate actor whch ncorporated publc partcpaton n the desgn of plans. In terms of management tools, the publc actor shaped the development for the prvate sector by ntroducng a study assgnment. Publc regulaton manly ncluded global restrctons and requrements for the prvate actor ncorporated n the publc schedule of spatal requrements whch ncluded a descrpton of the global program and spatal and qualtatve condtons. Stmulaton n the form of fnancal ncentves has not taken place. Nether was there any capacty buldng wth other nvolved stakeholders. Rather t was a qute straghtforward sngle publc-prvate cooperaton. Land was used as a management resource to nfluence the project. The muncpalty owned the land and sold t to the prvate consortum under the agreed upon permts negotated n the ntatve and desgn stage. The prvate actor performed the land development and therefore could use t at ther dsposal to mnmze development costs. The eventual land transfer also enabled the publc actor to nfluence the features of the publc space at the outset of the development. Captal as a resource solely came from the prvate consortum s stakeholders. Furthermore, as housng assocatons held extensve meetngs wth resdents they used ther market knowledge at ther advantage, supported by the publc knowledge on the surroundng areas. Effects In terms of effects both actors ndcate that the use of the concesson model n Park de Meer meets all the ntended effects. It s consdered effectve, because the socal, economc and ecologcal objectves are acheved. Also the process has been very effcent because the project was delvered n a record-breakng tme span for Amsterdam, accordng to a representatve from the prvate consortum. Nevertheless, the local authorty argued that the tme they had to spend n the realzaton phase was more than expected. The roles of both partes n ths cooperaton n general were very clear. However, the prvate actor ndcated that the actve nterference of the publc actor n the realzaton stage sometmes made the role separaton 166 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

unclear. In terms of spatal qualty, both actor argue that the realzed spatal qualty level n general s hgh. The publc actor declares that some parts of the development have excellent qualty but that other parts turned out to have a less qualty n terms of user and experence value. Fgure 5.1 shows an mpresson of the housng development. Fgure 5.1 Amsterdam Park de Meer, mpresson ( Erwn Heurkens) Experences The local authorty made the delberate choce to choose the concesson model as a means to realze the project. The most mportant motves to do so were the lack of labor capacty and transferrng rsks to the prvate actor. Other motves lke the lack of fnancal means, unsolcted proposals by prvate actors, and prvate sector land ownershp often nvolved wth the choce for the concesson model are not applcable to ths case. In addton to ths, the choce for the concesson model was also made because the local authorty wanted to experment wth a new publc-prvate cooperaton model, and they wanted to become a more effectve and effcent organzaton, spendng less tme and reducng publc overhead costs. The general experence from both publc and prvate representatves s that ths was a good cooperaton, the most mportant reason beng the trust that exsted between the partes. However, the local authorty argues that f they are gong to use the concesson model next tme they wll further detal ther schedule of spatal requrements. The prvate actor declares that ths has a lot to do wth the transfer of the publc space to the local authorty after completon, together wth the long-term mantenance of t by the publc actor. Because publc sector mantenance often s based on standards, the local authorty s mantenance departments often nterfered n the realzaton phase tryng to solve future mantenance problems before 167 Cases n the Netherlands

the offcal judgment moments occurred. Ths however has not caused too many delays for the development process. The representatve from Park de Meer CV mentons that the process was very manageable. Two man problems and related recommendatons have been mentoned by the ntervewees based on ther experence of the Park de Meer development: Publc-prvate communcaton needs to be structured. There are steerng groups, but often decsons need to be made on a short notce. Often these were not communcated wth the publc actor, creatng tenson. Furthermore, dfferent departments of the local authorty often operated n ther own doman and were not aware of the objectves of other departments, resultng n less effcent processes; The prvate actor argues that the culture of publc control and departmental thnkng results n less effcency. Ths s not somethng that s solved very easly. The pragmatc recommendaton for both problems n the actors vew s the appontment of a publc project leader that can facltate communcaton between publc and prvate actors and between dfferent muncpal departments. 5.3 Den Haag, Ypenburg Deelplan 20 Project context Ypenburg Deelplan 20 s an urban frnge project located n The Hague (Den Haag). The total area surface s 5 hectares, wth a functonal program that contans the development of 470 dwellngs, wth both affordable and owner-occuped dwellngs. In ths concesson the publc actor nvolved s the local authorty Den Haag, the prvate actor nvolved s ING Real Estate. The objectve for the local authorty to choose a concesson was to speed up the housng producton of the Vnex-area Ypenburg. For the Deelplan 20 development the local authorty set out a publc tender competton among sx preselected developers n 2006, wth predefned qualtatve publc condtons. Furthermore, they formulated that the development should take place on the bass of the concesson model. Out of the competton three partes were selected and ING was selected as wnner on the bass of ther bd, plannng and enthusasm. Organzaton Before we descrbe the roles, management, effects and experences of the actors nvolved, we note that the Deelplan 20 development dd not yet commence at the tme of the case study research as there were several unsolved ssues at that tme. Nevertheless, the ntended tasks from both actors for Ypenburg Deelplan 20 are shown n Table 5.3. These tasks performed by actors on paper are completely n lne wth the (prncple) tasks dvded wthn the concesson model descrbed by Heurkens et al. (2008). The responsbltes of both actors are well descrbed wthn the Realzaton Agreement. Matters lke the sale and purchase of land are explaned formally. Furthermore, agreements on process related ssues lke the on-tme 168 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

judgment of plans and control of the delvered product are descrbed, alongsde procedural matters. For ING the responsbltes are related to the on tme, and wthn the agreed condtons, delvery of Deelplan 20. Publc Actor Rough ndcaton functonal program Spatal condtons Qualty condtons publc space Condtons vsual qualty plan Land use plan adopton Land sale (transfer to prvate actor) Prvate Actor Detaled functonal program Desgn spatal plan Vsual qualty plan (ncl. publc space) Communcaton plan Land use plan preparaton Land acquston Land & real estate development Realzaton publc space Table 5.3 Tasks of publc & prvate actors n Den Haag Ypenburg Deelplan 20 The rsks nvolved for the prvate actor can be lnked wth the feasblty and realzaton phase of the development process. Each tme the local authorty makes adjustments to plan proposals of ING Real Estate the costs nvolved for the approval of plans totally les wth the prvate actor. The development rsks also are taken by ING relatng to the feasblty of the plan. The muncpalty only bares the rsks of the procedural costs n relaton to ther oblgaton to determne a land use plan for Deelplan 20. The revenues (or losses) of the land and real estate development are lnked wth ING. The local authorty has the beneft of a free land purchase of the publc space, whch they wll operate for the perod after project delvery. The rules and requrements appled n ths project bascally nvolve the spatal condtons and program for the development and fnancal matters. For nstance, there s a penalty of a certan amount of money for each housng unt that s not delvered on tme by the project developer. Besdes ths, the publc responsblty s to secure that publc law procedures are runnng smoothly to prevent that delays occur. Management As we explaned earler, the realzaton of project has never commenced. Therefore, we stck to the ntatve, desgn and feasblty stage of the development process to descrbe the used management measures. In terms of project management, the local authorty ntated the project wth the publc tender. Here, they were well able to descrbe area boundares, qualtatve condtons and ntended housng program. Spatal condtons were also bounded by the ntenton to develop a publc swmmng pool wthn the area, whch was done by the local authorty. The prvate actor therefore needed to ncorporate ths object nto the spatal plan. The swmmng pool could not be seen as a desgn obstacle but more as a gven fact to cope wth. Nevertheless, n practce we notce that the publc actor had a lot of nfluence n the desgn decson-makng process. Desgns made by ING are not only judged on the agreed spatal condtons; several wshes of 169 Cases n the Netherlands

the publc actor not defned n advance were ncorporated durng the prvate desgn process. The legal bass for ths s a passage wthn the contract whch explans that t s the rght of the local authorty to dsapprove desgns by the prvate actor for reasons not ncorporated wthn the agreement. The ntensve nvolvement of the publc actor wth the desgn process on the bass of ths agreement by the prvate actor s seen as one of the major problems for the process effcency. Furthermore, t was the duty of ING to secure fnance for the development. However, as the development took place at the outset of the economc crss, prvate fnancng as a way to manage the development process was not n place. Ths resulted n an even less manageable project for the prvate actor as they were faced wth vrtually no practcal management measures for the ntatve, desgn and feasblty stages. In terms of process management, negotatons between both actors on the content of the plan and fnancal ssues took place after the tenderng was completed. Both actors were able to put ther objectves nto place at the tme. ING concluded that they should not have compled wth the contractual rules enforced by the muncpalty; these rules mpled that prvate decson-makng on the plan and program content would be dependent on the constant muncpal judgment, leavng them no room to optmze the desgn wthn the predefned publc spatal requrements. The prvate project manager ndcated that ING, n the economc favorable 2007, was unable to clearly judge the dsadvantages of cooperatng on the bass of the concesson model on the bass of rather publcly favorable condtons. Ths process resulted n a rather dffcult communcaton process between the actors, and a constant struggle for role postons. In terms of management tools, the local authorty shaped the development by ndcatng the number of housng unts and spatal boundares. Despte the spatal desgn responsblty of the prvate actor on paper, n practce ths hardly ever was a sole prvate manageral task. Furthermore, the regulatng management measures ndcated n the contract resulted n a rather strct development control by the publc actor. Hence, n terms of stmulatng development the publc actor dd almost nothng; no publc funds or fnancal ncentves were provded for the prvate actor to work wth. The publc nterpretaton of usng the model seems to be based on holdng control over the development by puttng strct rules n place. Ths does not comply wth the basc prncples of the concesson model whch ndcates that prvate actors take on rsks and revenues, and therefore n return obtan a certan degree of freedom to act. Despte the fact that ING obtaned the land for development after the tenderng stage, nfluencng based on prvate management resources hardly took place. Ths s manly s caused by the nsuffcent provson of prvate captal. The ING Real Estate board, despte the fact that ths developer s backed by an nvestment bank, never mandated suffcent nvestment n the project, leavng the project team n despar on the project contnuaton. Furthermore, t seems that the knowledge on executng urban development projects, rather than real estate development projects, was not a feld of expertse for ING Real Estate, let alone ther practcal experence wth a rather new type of publc-prvate cooperaton, whchh the concesson model was at the tme for all nvolved practtoners. We argue that f prvate captal and knowledge for the project would have been n place, matters could probably have taken a dfferent route. 170 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Effects It does not come as a surprse that both actors argument that the concesson model appled here, n ths form, does not meet ts ntended effects. They both ndcate that t s not an effectve tool to realze objectves, t s not benefcal for the effcency of the process, roles are not performed n a transparent manner (although they exst on paper), and spatal qualty s not obtaned. Ths s caused by a lack of cooperaton on desgn ssues whch does not evolve nto a commonly supported urban plan. Fgure 5.2 shows an ndcatve aeral vew of the project desgned on behalf of ING Real Estate. Fgure 5.2 Den Haag Ypenburg Deelplan 20, aeral vew ( ING Real Estate) Experences The local authorty made the delberate choce to choose the concesson model as a means to realze the project. The most mportant motves to do so were the lack of labor capacty and transferrng rsks to the prvate actor. Other motves lke the lack of fnancal means, unsolcted proposals by prvate actors, and prvate sector land ownershp, often nvolved wth the concesson model choce, are not applcable here. When we look at the ntervewees general experences wth ths cooperaton based upon the concesson model we notce the followng. The local authorty declares that the communcaton wth ING Real Estate has not been optmal because of the dsconnectve character of the concesson model; the performng of tasks and the decsons made by each partner are not 171 Cases n the Netherlands

made n cooperaton. For nstance, durng the process several unforeseen crcumstances (examples of whch were unfavorable market condtons) caused adjustments to desgns and the housng program made by ING Real Estate. Because ths type of decsons are solely made by ING Real Estate and no explanatons are provded alongsde new plan proposals delvered to the local authorty, msconceptons n the cooperaton arse. Ths s further affrmed by the project leader of ING Real Estate who explans that there s a stuaton of dstrust among both partes caused by the clear task dvson whch s characterstc for the concesson model. There s no cooperatve sphere between the actors, but a sphere of we aganst them. Furthermore, ING mentons that there s no common ground for cooperaton because the fnancal sense of urgency s not felt by the publc actor, a result of whch was the rather slow handlng of land use plan procedures. Furthermore, a number of problems and related recommendatons have been mentoned by the ntervewees based on ther project experence: Unforeseen crcumstances cannot be defned n advance. The prvate actor recommends that t s crucal to defne what s consdered unforeseen, and what process agreements are consdered sutable to alter unforeseen crcumstances when they occur; Prvate actor management of local authorty departments s unrealstc and an unwanted task. In the plan development phase ING Real Estate had to hand n ther plans to the local authorty for consultaton. The problem that occurred was that dfferent departments separately judged the plans; there was no coordnated comprehensve judgment by the local authorty. Because the publc project leader dd not manage these departments, ING as a prvate actor started to manage these departments, tryng to reach agreements on plan detals amongst the departments. Ths caused a lot of frustraton and progress neffcency. ING recommends the need for a strong responsble publc project leader who s both a manager of the publc apparatus and a communcatng partner for the prvate actor; The prvate actor ndcates that t s mportant to emphasze that the publc actor should use a pure plan judgment nstrument nstead of a plan control nstrument as there s a thn lne between the two n practce. A recommendaton s that n contractual agreements the nstrument of publc control of plans has to be defned and agreed upon beforehand; There s a we aganst them relatonshp whch results n an uncooperatve sphere. Due to the dvson of publc and prvate tasks, responsbltes and rsks, common grounds and urgences for the project dsappear creatng a lack of cooperatve sphere. The recommendaton s to fnd an ncentve for publc actors to stay nvolved wth the project. 172 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

5.4 Enschede, De Laares Project context De Laares s an nner-cty development n Enschede, a cty n the East of the Netherlands. As a result of the economc declne of the textle ndustry n Enschede, De Laares physcally, socally and economcally declned as a result. The area before the current urban regeneraton was characterzed as a neghborhood wth a relatvely hgh unemployment rate, unlateral socal structures, crmnalty, no sgnfcant economc functons, and 70% affordable housng. The local authorty establshed a Spatal Development Vson for Enschede wth the reversal of the unbalanced cty populaton composton as a major polcy objectve. As a result of ths De Laares was chosen as a ste to ncrease the representaton of hgher ncome groups; the local authorty amed to alter the percentage of affordable housng nto prvately owned housng to a 70% share. The development of the ste contans 450 new houses from whch 30% s affordable housng, together wth small offces and shops developed on 30 hectares. The project lfe cycle of De Laares s estmated at eleven years, the ntatve started n 2001 and realzaton s estmated to be completed n 2011. In ths concesson the publc actor nvolved s local authorty Enschede, and the prvate actor s a prvate consortum called WjkOntwkkelngsMaatschappj De Laares CV (WOM). The WOM conssts of three local housng assocatons (Wonngstchtng Ons Hus, Lcht en Lucht, and Domjn), one local developer (Njhus/Hegeman) and one natonal developer (AM Wonen). Because of the long hstory of De Laares and the fact that the local housng assocatons owned a large part of housng stock the process of reachng an agreement on the redevelopment of De Laares s not characterzed by a publc tender. In 2001, the Local Authorty and local Housng Assocatons sgned several Performance Agreements per area. Because of the fact that the housng assocatons had lttle experence n redevelopng an urban area of ths scale, Njhus/Hegeman and AM Wonen were nvted to partcpate as project developers, resultng n the establshment of the WOM. At that pont t became clear that the local authorty would wthdraw tself from the actve development of De Laares. The local authorty and WOM negotated the terms for a development agreement durng 2003, whch resulted n a Cooperaton Agreement on 1 December 2003. In the same perod a more detaled desgn was made by WOM that was put nto the Publc Plan Procedure for approval n 2003. Development started wth the land delvery from the local authorty to the WOM n 2004. Organzaton The tasks performed by the publc and prvate actors n De Laares are presented n Table 5.4. It ndcates that several tasks are shared by publc and prvate actors nstead of the theoretcal task dvson common n concessons. Especally n the plan development phase a lot of publc-prvate negotatons and communcaton on the desgn of plan took place. Ths can be explaned by the fact that there was not a Concesson Agreement n place before the desgns for De Laares were made. Furthermore, both partes very pragmatcally decded that communcaton matters could be best solved by the best equpped actor for a certan stuaton and moment, so they share the task of external communcaton. Most mportantly, 173 Cases n the Netherlands

the local authorty performed the land acquston nstead of the prvate actor. The actors responsbltes are descrbed n the Cooperaton Agreement. The responsbltes of the local authorty are; land acquston, sale and avalablty, publc law procedures, on tme judgment of plans, control of delvery status, adopton of land, securng subsdes for development, promote ndvdual housng mprovements, demolton of some buldngs, and operate publc space after delvery. The responsbltes of the prvate actor are; purchase land from government, desgn spatal plan, delvery houses and publc space, mantan publc space before real estate delvery, and land transfer to the local authorty. Publc Actor Rough ndcaton functonal program Spatal condtons Qualty condtons publc space Condtons vsual qualty plan (+ prvate actor) Land use plan adopton Land sale (transfer to prvate actor) Land acquston (not prvate actor) Prvate Actor Detaled functonal program Desgn spatal plan (+ publc actor) Vsual qualty plan (+ publc actor) Communcaton plan (+ publc actor) Land use plan preparaton (+ publc actor) Land & real estate development Realzaton publc space Table 5.4 Tasks of publc & prvate actors n Enschede De Laares The rsks nvolved for the publc actor are related to the land acquston from dfferent landowners n the area, and the costs for underground nfrastructure. The rsks nvolved for the prvate actor are the development rsks. One of the major rsks was socal opposton to the plans, because a large group of nhabtants had to be relocated nto new homes n the cty. The housng assocatons played a crucal role n ths process, whch s valued by the local authorty as an excellent job. The revenues of the development for the prvate actor are manly based on profts from the real estate development, not from the land development whch s kept neutral. The revenues for the publc actor are related to the sale of land. The rules and requrements put n place n the Cooperaton Agreement n the De Laares project on unforeseen crcumstances nclude that when they occur both actors have the responsblty to nform the other n order to fnd solutons. As there s no publc tender n place most of the spatal and vsual condtons for the development are agreed under close negotaton between the actors. Management In terms of project management, the publc actor manly ntated the development. Furthermore, as they also prepare land, publc condtons for development have been put nto place n the desgn process n relaton to the operaton of the publc space at the end of the project. The prvate actor bascally was able to nfluence the development by desgnng and plannng the development. One of the most remarkable ways to nfluence the development was the decson to plan hgh segment vllas at the start of the realzaton stage. Through market research, t became clear that ths type of housng was lackng n the nner-cty and therefore 174 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

could rely on hgh demand, mnmzng the rsk of hgh upfront fnancng due to almost certan sales. Ths also happened and t arguably settled the qualty standard for De Laares probably havng a postve effect on the speed of housng sales n the area. De Laares seems to be a case n whch both actors were able to manage the process n a collaboratve way as negotatng, decson-makng and communcatng took place n close publc-prvate cooperaton. One of the man reasons for ths has been the relatve dffcult soco-demographcal stuaton at the start of the project. Therefore both the WOM and the muncpalty Enschede decded to jon-up effort to create and mantan publc support for the plans. Both actors n ths sense were able to nfluence the process of the development. The management tools used by the publc actor mostly relate to stmulatng the development. Ths was done by acqurng land for development by the muncpalty through whch they releved some upfront nvestment for the prvate actor, and securng central government development subsdes. Nevertheless, regulatng on the bass of the land use plan also took place on behalf of the local authorty. Shapng tools n the form of plans were not used by the publc actor, as the WOM manly desgned dfferent spatal plans durng several stages of the project n order to secure prvate nterests. In terms of management resources, the publc actor acqured and owned most of the land before development and thus adopted an actve land polcy. In preparng the land for development they also solved dffcult underground works that needed to be replaced n close cooperaton wth energy supplers. As ths often needs specfc knowledge project developers often lack n nner-cty urban development projects, ths seemed to be favorable task for the speed of the project. Furthermore, by sellng the dfferent land parcels to the WOM they covered land preparaton costs upfront. The captal and knowledge as a means to nfluence the development were n prvate hands. By combnng the local housng knowledge of the local housng assocatons and knowledge about the Enschede market from the large developer, WOM was able to carefully drect the development n the rght drecton. Effects In terms of effects, both publc and prvate actors are very postve. The cooperaton s consdered very effectve, as all the objectves are met. The local authorty Enschede argues that the process s very effcent; the use of the concesson model has saved a lot of tme and costs for the local authorty. Nevertheless, the prvate actor mentons that a competent publc project leader s crucal for the effcency, as government tends to operate n a dfferent modus due to the absence of fnancal rsks n the project. Strkng n De Laares case s the pragmatc way both actors handle the role dvson n daly practce. Although the tasks, responsbltes and fnancal agreements are descrbed very explctly n the agreement, day to day cooperaton shows a large amount of sharng tasks and responsbltes when socetal or fnancal problems arse. In Enschede, t seems to be evdent to solve occurrng problems n close harmony between the actors nvolved. Both actors further declare that they are very satsfed wth the spatal qualty of De Laares so far. Fgure 5.3 shows an mpresson of the connecton between the old and new buldngs n De Laares. 175 Cases n the Netherlands

Fgure 5.3 Enschede De Laares, mpresson ( Erwn Heurkens) Experences As a result of other prortes n the cty (Roombeek redevelopment), the local authorty made the delberate choce to loosen control on De Laares. However, the term concesson model was unknown by both actors. The most mportant publc motves to choose the cooperaton were the lack of labor capacty and transferrng rsks to prvate actors. Another motve was the shared ntatve for regeneraton by both housng assocatons and the muncpalty, whch made t easer to choose a concesson for the publc actor. Other motves lke the lack of fnancal means and prvate sector land ownershp are not applcable as motves n ths case. The land was not owned by developers, but by the local authorty and dfferent prvate landowners. When we look at the general experences wth the cooperaton n De Laares the muncpalty Enschede n general s very postve. There has been a good cooperaton, frst wth the housng assocatons and later wth the WOM. One of the man reasons for ths s the fact that ths s consdered a harmony model by the local authorty rather than a we aganst them model mentoned n Den Haag Ypenburg Deelplan 20. The prvate actor mentons that n general the decson-makng s faster. However, some dffcultes also are applcable to the concesson model n ths case. WOM and the local authorty argue that at the start of the project several condtons were not optmal for the cooperaton. For nstance, the frst publc project leader focused too much on poltcal support of the project whch resulted n the unclear management of the dfferent muncpal departments and a lack of awareness wthn the dfferent department on the new type of workng. Furthermore, n the desgn stage several plots n the master plan were undefned, n the realzaton phase ths caused a lot of dscussons between the partes and fnancal rsks for the prvate actor. The prvate actor also stated that the land transfer from government to them was absolutely unsatsfactory. The local authorty delvered 176 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

a ste wth land contanng a lot of grt whch was not yet suted for constructng buldngs; the condtons of land transfer were not descrbed suffcently n the agreement. For the future, the muncpalty declares that t s necessary to transfer the land acquston to the prvate actor to reduce publc fnancal rsks. Furthermore, WOM declared that the phasng of the project was also crucal for ts success. They buld the hgh segment housng frst aganst at a very reasonable prce wth the dea of benchmarkng the new development because De Laares stll had the mage of a somewhat deprved area, but the sale went surprsngly fast. The dscussons between both actors on desgn matters before reachng agreements are consdered to save tme and problems n later stages of the process. A number of problems and related recommendatons have been mentoned by the ntervewees based on ther experence of the De Laares development: Communcaton and trust between partes s consdered crucal n concessons. As actors are not workng n a jont organzatonal body, both partes could lose contact wth each other, possbly leadng to publc actors not beng lned-up. Ths can be avoded by regular jont meetngs wth development progress updates; The publc house should be n order. Wthout a strong and competent publc project leader, prvate actor s management becomes dffcult, ncreasng the development rsks. A project leader has to manage the jont workng of muncpal departments and make ndvdual cvc servants aware of ther project tasks are based on concesson prncples; Flexblty n the desgn and open dscussons between the publc and prvate actor before agreements are made are consdered to be crucal for the success of the development. Flexblty enables the prvate actor to react on changed market crcumstances, whle cooperatve dscussons on desgns n the pre-agreement stage are crucal for a common support of the development n the long run and for buldng up a strong publc-prvate relatonshp. Settng spatal constrants to tght possbly could do more harm to a project than flexble constrants; Especally n nner-cty projects t s necessary to nclude local resdents n the decsonmakng. It s consdered crucal for the project s success to communcate plans wth the local communty n both the plan development and realzaton phase. Prvate partes should be aware of ther socal responsbltes to the exstng communty. Housng assocatons seem to be well equpped n performng that role, whle local authortes should gude ths process and handle publc opnon. 177 Cases n the Netherlands

5.5 Maasslus, Het Balkon Project context Het Balkon s an urban frnge development Maasslus, along the Neuwe Waterweg (New Waterway), West of the cty of Rotterdam. Het Balkon has a long hstory; n the md-1990s the local authorty took the ntatve to develop two areas n the cty, Het Balkon and De Haven. The authorty decded to fnancally connect both developments; by transferrng revenues from the proftable Het Balkon development the necessary fnancal means for the unvable nner-cty De Haven project could be generated. Ths resulted n an Intenton Agreement n 1997 for the development of both projects between the local authorty Maasslus and three prvate organzatons; Rabo Vastgoed (later Bouwfonds Ontwkkelng), Maasstede Wonng Ontwkkelng I and Wonng Stchtng Maasslus (later Stchtng Maasdelta Groep). Research on the fnancal feasblty of the plans resulted n the sgnng of a Cooperaton Agreement n 1999 and a Realzaton Agreement n 2001. The prvate actors n the meantme organzed themselves n the prvate consortum Ontwkkelngscombnate Balkon en Haven CV. In a Development Protocol for Het Balkon (unknown date) t became clear that De Haven no longer was part of the publc-prvate cooperaton between the partes. The development for Het Balkon thus became the bass for the Purchase Agreement (2005) based on the concesson model prncples between the local authorty and the Ontwkkelngscombnate Balkon Maasslus CV (OCBM), n whch Maasstede Wonng Ontwkkelng wthdrew tself as partcpant. The development conssts of 1006 houses, consstng of land-bounded dwellngs and apartments on a total surface of twenty-two hectares. The project lfe cycle of Het Balkon s estmated at seventeen years as the frst ntatve for Het Balkon started n 1997 and s estmated to be completed n 2014. Organzaton Table 5.5 shows the tasks performed by the publc or prvate actor for Het Balkon. The table ndcates that several tasks are shared by the publc and prvate actors. Especally n the plan development stage both publc and prvate actors work n close cooperaton. The spatal condtons for nstance are determned by both partes, at the same tme the local authorty has the rght to secure a number of mportant elements (housng development program, accessblty, parkng rato, global spatal vson). The desgn of the spatal plan and land use plan was commssoned by both actors to an external archtectural frm. The responsbltes of the actors are descrbed n the Purchase Agreement. The responsbltes of the local authorty are; sale and avalablty land, publc law procedures, judgment and control spatal plans, on tme judgment of plans, scheduled control of delvery status, adopton of land, and mantan publc space after delvery. The responsbltes of the prvate actor are; purchase land from government, desgn spatal plan, delvery houses and publc space, mantan publc space before real estate delvery, and transfer land (publc space). 178 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Publc Actor Rough ndcaton functonal program (+ prvate actor) Spatal condtons (+ prvate actor) Qualty condtons publc space (+ prvate actor) Condtons vsual qualty plan Land use plan adopton Land sale (transfer to prvate actor) Prvate Actor Detaled functonal program Desgn spatal plan (+ publc actor) Vsual qualty plan (+ publc actor) Communcaton plan (+ publc actor) Land use plan preparaton (+ publc actor) Land acquston Land & real estate development Realzaton publc space Table 5.5 Tasks of publc & prvate actors n Maasslus, Het Balkon OCBM bares all the rsks and cost for the development. OCBM also has rsks relatng to market crcumstances (real estate take-up, housng purchase prce, and functonal program) and plan development changes (plannng framework, hgher qualty level). However, there s a complex fnancal arrangement between the local authorty and OCBM. In terms of revenues, OCBM s the prmary organzaton for takng profts on the real estate development. At the same tme the local authorty wll beneft from the amount of sold houses through a certan fxed and varable percentage of the housng prce. Ths s somethng qute extraordnary as n the concesson model n theory only prvate actors proft from real estate development. However, both partes consder ths as crucal for the commtment of the local authorty. Furthermore, the local authorty develops the essental nfrastructural elements connectng the area wth the surroundngs and thus makes some costs here as well. The rules and requrements n place are descrbed n the Intenton Agreement (1997) Cooperaton Agreement (1999), Realzaton Agreement (2001) and Purchase Agreement (2005). As there was no publc tender for ths project due to the long hstory of the project, rules and regulatons are found n these contracts. In specfc, both partes agreed that when unforeseen crcumstances occur and ths results n an unreasonable oblgaton for one of the actors, they can restart negotatons, thus provdng flexblty to react on crcumstances. Management The project management actvtes of the local authorty are ntatng and fnally operatng the project of Het Balkon. Already n 1990s the publc actor ntated the development, n combnaton wth the De Haven project n the nner-cty of Maasslus. They also took the decson to dsconnect the busness cases and to solely start wth the Het Balkon project as these had prorty n delverng housng. As an operator of the publc space the local authorty s mantenance department proactvely nterfered durng the realzaton stage of the project, securng mantenance favorable wshes. The prvate actor managed the project by desgnng and plannng the development. Ths enabled them to decde when to plan the dfferent functonal delveres. For nstance, the OCBM scheduled the apartment blocks at the end of the project, as a result of the lack of demand n 2009. Furthermore, at ths ste they also took the effort to temporary provde a publc space for chldren to ncrease communty satsfacton and sale of urban vllas. 179 Cases n the Netherlands

The process management performed by the publc actors nvolves negotatng, decsonmakng and communcatng. In terms of negotatng and decson-makng they carefully judged the plans produced by the OCBM n the plan development stage and n the realzaton stage. Furthermore, they kept nformng nhabtants from Maasslus about the progress of the project. The prvate consortum was also able to manage the process on all actvtes. The major dfference between the local authorty and OCBM was the communcaton wth the local resdents of Het Balkon tself, nstead of the whole muncpal communty. Ths was done n the form of publc partcpaton wth nformng leaflets durng the realzaton stage, n whch OCBM also asked resdents for specfc wshes for the publc space for nstance. In terms of management tools, the local authorty most profoundly used ther regulatng tools. The land use plan procedures and buldng permts were used qute forcefully to regulate the development. In shapng the development, the publc actor performed desgns for a ralway tunnel to ndcate the mportance of access to the ste. However, they dd not stmulate the project whatsoever n terms of fnancal subsdes. The management resources for ths development were wth the prvate consortum. After the land acquston, securng of nvestment captal, and market analyss, they were able to optmze the land and real estate development revenues. Although the local authorty dd not nvest captal nto the development tself, despte the provson of the nfrastructure, they negotated to receve a revenue margn from real estate sales. Ths seems a qute odd stuaton, as they do not take on any development rsks and responsbltes. Wth these revenues they secured part of the nfrastructure provson. Effects Fgure 5.4 Maasslus Het Balkon, mpresson ( Erwn Heurkens) 180 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

The effects of the use of the concesson model on the cooperaton, process and product are as follows. The effectveness of the model to acheve objectves s judged as good; both actors state that the development wll acheve all ts objectves. The development process s consdered to be neffcent, as both actors menton that the ntended fnancal result wll probably not be reached due to several reasons. The publc actor for nstance states that a tradtonal government-led model s more effcent, whle the prvate actor mentons that the tme spend on ther own preparatons and publc plan judgments s hgher than expected. The manageral roles were very much ntertwned; the local authorty states that t s dffcult to separate publc from prvate roles, whle the representatve of OCBM clearly states that the rsks and responsbltes are apponted to the prvate actor but the management s (partly) carred out by the publc actor. Nevertheless, the spatal qualty of the project s expected to meet the ntended gudelnes, although the project s stll underway and the dffcult market condtons mght result n lower proft margns and eventually a decrease n qualty. Fgure 5.4 gves an mpresson of the dfferent types of housng, publc space, and access tunnel to Het Balkon. Experences Both publc and prvate actors dd not make a delberate choce to use the concesson model for the project. Actually the long hstory of the project shows several changes to the preference for a certan publc-prvate cooperaton model. In the 1990s the local authorty preferred the tradtonal model, n the begnnng of 2000 both partes preferred the jont venture model. In the end, the decson to transfer the rsks for the development to OCBM resulted n the choce for the concesson model wth several agreements that have the character of a jont venture model, for nstance the partly shared revenues for the local authorty on real estate sales. The motves to choose the concesson model were lack of publc labor capacty and rsk transfer to the prvate actor. Other motves lke the lack of publc fnancal capacty, prvate ntatves or prvate landownershp are not applcable here. The general experences wth the cooperaton n ths development are qute contrastng. The publc actor states that the cooperaton s good, whle the prvate actor s not satsfed at all. Ths has to do wth the manageablty of the project. The OCBM bares the rsks for the development but experences a lot of nterference of the local authorty durng the realzaton stage. As OCBM wants to manage the fnancal rsks of the project they also would lke to be n control of decson-makng. Although both partes agreed that the management and development s n hands of the prvate actor, the publc actor (especally the Mantenance Department) seems to have qute some dffcultes to stck to ther task of judgng plans, nstead resultng n the day to day control of constructon work on ste. The publc control, nstead of judgment of plan elements, probably or partally s caused by the fact that the local authorty has a contractual fnancal stake n the development. Furthermore, the prvate actor argues that the commtment of an external consultant operatng for the local authorty n Het Balkon was nsuffcent. Effcent arrangements wth the local authorty on desgn ssues were dffcult to make. The publc actor emphaszes the postve transparent publcprvate cooperaton on the spatal gudelnes and the general consensus ths acheved before agreements were sgned. However, ths process took some tme and therefore t also created uncertanty for the OCBM n terms of securng the project to commence. Strkng enough, just 181 Cases n the Netherlands

opposte the general experences of both partes, the publc actor declares that they would never use the concesson model agan. The prvate actor certanly consders ths under the condton that role are descrbed clearer. The local authorty explans that publc responsblty n developments always remans and therefore t s reasonable to be n control of projects. They also argue that when both partes n ths case dd not have a common fnancal objectve, ncentves for the local authorty to cooperate would have been less. Two problems and related recommendatons have been mentoned by the ntervewees based on ther experence of Het Balkon development: The local authorty took a qute drect control over the realzaton stage of the project, thus resultng n an unclear role dvson between both actors. One of the mportant reasons for the contnung nterference of the publc actor n day to day practce mght have been the contractual fnancal stake t has n sellng the amount of houses as quck as possble. Nevertheless, the prvate actor argues that they found t hard to deal wth a repettve nterference and detaled control by the local authorty. Ths was regarded by the prvate actor as resultng n an neffcent process n terms of dsturbng the progress; There s a prncple dfference between judgng and crtczng prvate plans. In the concesson model publc actors are expected to judge plans on pre-defned spatal crtera or gudelnes. However, ths case shows that there s a thn lne between judgng and crtczng urban plans. Dfferent muncpal departments added new objectves and elements nto the plan proposals from the prvate actor. Ths causes an neffcent process and ncreasng costs for the developer. The recommendaton could be that the prvate actor needs to stck wth the condtons of the ntal agreement; however prvate actors prefer to gve n on the publc actor s wshes to sustan ther relatonshp. Ths seems to be a dffcult ssue to solve. 5.6 Mddelburg, Mortere Project context Mortere s an urban frnge development n Mddelburg, a cty n the Southwest of the Netherlands. The hstory of Mortere started wth the governmental document Kwaltetsatlas 2030 by Rek Bakker who formulated hgh ambtons to (re)develop large parts of the cty Mddelburg n 1997. Mortere was apponted as a large scale greenfeld development, the land was owned by the local authorty and several prvate landlords. Because the local authorty wanted to develop several other developments wthn the cty center they had nsuffcent fnancal means and labor capacty to develop Mortere. Therefore, the local authorty nvted three prvate organzatons, Hejmans Vastgoed Realsate BV, Amstelland Ontwkkelng BV (later AM Wonen) and IBC Vastgoed BV (later part of Hejmans) to desgn a Masterplan (1998) and a Vsual Qualty Plan (1999) for Mortere n close collaboraton wth the local authorty. The market partes organzed themselves nto the Consortum Mortere and sgned an Intenton Agreement and Cooperaton Agreement wth the local authorty Mddelburg n 2000 based on a concesson model. In 2001 the Spatal Plan, and n 2002 the land use plan paved the way 182 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

for the prvate consortum to develop the 100 hectares ste wth 1500 houses (manly hgher segment), a publc park, a golf course, and a busness park. The project lfe cycle of Mortere s estmated at 14 years, the frst ntatve started n 1998 and realzaton s estmated to be completed n 2012. However, current economc condtons probably wll resolve n postponng the project s delvery date. Organzaton Table 5.6 shows the tasks performed by the publc and prvate actors n Mortere. The table ndcates that there has been some cooperaton n the early stages on the detaled functonal program and qualty condtons for the development. Furthermore, the local authorty takes on some prvate tasks n the concesson model; the land use plan, communcaton plan and land acquston. The responsbltes of the muncpalty are land acquston, sale and avalablty of land, publc law procedures, judgment of spatal plans, adopton land after real estate delvery. The Consortum s responsbltes are the purchase land from government, desgn spatal plan, delvery houses, publc space and nfrastructure, transfer land publc space, and the mantenance of publc space durng two years after delvery. Publc Actor Rough ndcaton functonal program Spatal condtons (+ prvate actor) Qualty condtons publc space (+ prvate actor) Condtons vsual qualty plan Land use plan adopton Land sale (transfer to prvate actor) Communcaton plan (not prvate actor) Land use plan preparaton (not prvate actor) Land acquston (not prvate actor) Prvate Actor Detaled functonal program Desgn spatal plan Vsual qualty plan Land & real estate development Realzaton publc space Table 5.6 Tasks of publc & prvate actors n Mddelburg Mortere As a result the publc rsks nvolved are the land acquston and sol decontamnaton. The Consortum Mortere has the land development rsk and takes all the fnancal rsks for the real estate development. Revenues for the local authorty nvolve land sale, whle the Consortum can make a proft from the real estate development. In terms of rules and requrements, the publc schedule of spatal requrements has been made by the local authorty, although t has been formulated very rough. It manly ndcates the nfrastructural needs surroundng the ste. When unforeseen crcumstances occur partes wll delberate on a proper soluton. Furthermore, buldng volumes per development secton are beng determned for each stage of development by the local authorty n the land use plan. 183 Cases n the Netherlands

Management In terms of project management, the publc actor ntated and fnally wll operate the publc space of the project. Nevertheless, the local authorty also nfluenced the development by preparng the land use plan on the bass of the prvate actor s spatal desgns. The Consortum Mortere s able to manage the project through desgnng and plannng the development. Especally n the realzaton stage of the development, t has become clear that the prvate actor s solely determnng the slower delvery of houses as market demand has dropped dramatcally, despte the efforts of the local authorty s pressure to pursut wth housng delvery as ntended. The process management by the local authorty has been qute frm as they actvely take part n negotatng, decson-makng and communcatng actvtes. In an earler stage the local authorty forced the decson to wthhold the Consortum of developng an Event Park, as they beleved t was not a task the developers could perform well. Furthermore, communcatng wth local resdents became a responsblty of the muncpalty as the prvate actor was not used to do ths. Thus, n a sense the prvate actor engaged n acceptng rather few process management possbltes to nfluence the project, than theoretcally applcable for prvate actors n concessons. The publc actor most profoundly used the regulaton management tool to nfluence the project. Hardly any stmulatng or shapng tools were used, although the local authorty tred to ease the fnancal burdens for the Consortum by attemptng to take over the nfrastructural provson of roads and brdges. Nevertheless, ths stmulaton tool was accompaned by a ferce and constant sharpenng of development control prncples. In ths regard, the Consortum was not able to manage the project. The prvate actor bascally managed the project wth ther management resources land, captal and knowledge, whle lackng behnd n the other management measures, as descrbed above. Ths narrow vew of developng the project under prvate leadershp, and the qute actve acton and reacton of the local authorty eventually results n a qute tense relatonshp between both the publc and prvate actors. Effects The Mortere development n the eyes of the alderman of Mddelburg s not effectve and not effcent. Hs strong opnon s that the local authorty s better equpped to delver the development n tme and that objectves are acheved more accurately. The publc actor also mentons that the role dvson s not that clear; they declare that the Consortum could not delver the ZEP (Zeeuws Evenementen Podum), whch eventually was done by the local authorty. Furthermore, the publc actor states that the Consortum s n need for addtonal publc nvestment for nfrastructural works n the near future. The local authorty also mentons the communcaton to local resdents whch has been taken up by them rather than the Consortum, whch n ther opnon could have done ths a lot better. An outstandng example to the unclear role dvson was the reacton of a local resdent gardenng durng my observaton of the area. The resdent sad; Beautful here sn t t? The only thng s that now there s only one access brdge to the neghbourhood. The local authorty certanly seems to be out of money. The man dd not realze t s the Consortum s responsblty to fnance and realze the 184 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

nfrastructure ncludng the access brdges. So, on paper the roles are clear, n practce t s very unclear who does what. In terms of spatal qualty, the local authorty s qute satsfed wth the temporary results, especally the dfferentaton n housng types and styles s apprecated, t meets the qualty gudelnes. The prvate actor declares that the concesson model n Mortere wll be effectve, objectves wll be acheved. However, the process effcency can be questoned. Ths s manly caused by the fact that the publc actor does not have a fnancal stake n the cooperaton. Therefore, the prvate actor argues that the local authorty does not feel a fnancal ncentve to reduce tme and costs of the project. Daly practce also shows that the local authorty s not able to mantan some dstance to the project. They nterfere on a lot of dfferent ssues, so t s rather a polder concesson than a clear role dvson. Fgure 5.5 shows an mpresson of some of the realzed housng n Mortere. Fgure 5.5 Mddelburg Mortere, mpresson ( Erwn Heurkens) Experences The local authorty made a delberate choce for the applcaton of the concesson model for Mortere, because at the tme there were more urban development projects n need for publc nvestment. Furthermore, the regonal authorty (Provnce Zeeland) has a mandate to vew and approve government budgets of local authortes. In the case of Mddelburg the fnancal rsk was consdered too hgh n relaton to the other nvestments n the cty, so ths forced the local authorty to gve way for the market sector to take up the rsks n ths large scale development. When we look at the motves for choosng the concesson model t becomes clear that the lack of labor capacty, the lack of fnancal capacty, and rsk transfer to the prvate sector have been nvolved n Mortere. There have not been unsolcted proposals or other ntatves of prvate organzatons for the area, nor dd they own the land n Mortere. In fact, there were more than 185 Cases n the Netherlands

twenty dfferent prvate landlords n the area concerned, whch resulted n the decson of the local authorty to acqure the land from those landlords and sell t to the Consortum, resultng n some revenue that could be used as an nvestment to other nner-cty projects. Another reason to choose the concesson model mentoned by the local authorty has been the nput of market knowledge and sklls. The general experences of the publc actor n Mortere can be summed up by a clear statement by a local alderman n Mddelburg; We never do ths agan. Not everythng can be foreseen and publc management takes a lot of energy (Heurkens et al., 2008). The local authorty prefers to follow ther actve land polcy n the future, securng publc control and revenues n urban developments, leavng market partes takng ther share n real estate development. The local authorty mentons the fact that the trust level n the cooperaton has been gong up and down over the years, however, the cooperaton remans professonal. The major problem causng ths uneasy cooperaton s the fact that market sales have dropped dramatcally due to the economc crss. Wthout real estate ncome, the Consortum s not able to nvest n nfrastructure upfront, and s not able to delver houses and publc space on schedule, eventually frustratng local resdents and therefore the local authorty. At the same tme the local authorty prases the Consortum for the professonal delvery of a busness park whch s part of the frst phase of the development. However, the Consortum Mortere s not as pessmstc about the concesson model as the publc actor. In ther experence, for nstance, the urban plans have been made n a cooperatve sphere. Furthermore, the ntegraton of the land development and real estate development n the concesson model gves them the opportunty to determne the speed of the development, although the market condtons at the tme of the ntervew are vewed as rather problematc; houses are developed n smaller blocks, postponng the delvery deadlne and ultmately reducng proft margns. However, the local authorty frustrates the developer by pushng them to speed up the development. Nevertheless, they must understand that they do not have any means to do so when based on agreed concesson contracts. Most mportantly, the Consortum argues that the scale of the development and therefore the project duraton could be consdered as too large n the case of Mortere. Market demand, common nsghts, and poltcal drecton change qute often over a ten year perod. Therefore, the fxed nature of the functonal program n the concesson agreement n the Mortere case does not gve enough flexblty to react on changed crcumstances. A number of problems and related recommendatons have been mentoned by the ntervewees based on ther experence of Mortere development: The concesson agreement was not flexble enough to react to changed crcumstances. Especally the slow delvery of houses and postponement of nfrastructure delvery s a result of weak market condtons. As people s housng wshes also change, market demand n the near future mght not pck up as prevously expected, because agreements and land use plan were made n 2002 and are fxed to a large extent. Ths causes a fnancal burden for the Consortum and a project delay eventually also affectng the muncpalty wth an unfnshed ste; Second, the scale of the development s consdered to be too large for the concesson model. The amount of houses (1500) and the project duraton (about fourteen years) make the development hard to manage by one prvate organzaton. Ths type of development seems to beneft from a local authorty that could secure the contnuaton of the development. The recommendaton s to phase a large scale development nto dfferent 186 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

areas, wth dfferent concessonares for each sub-area. Ths mght reduce the enormous rsks nvolved for the prvate sector and t provdes local authortes wth a possblty to manage development speeds and changng development objectves over a longer perod, ntally also securng plan outreachng nfrastructural works; A clear communcaton wth local resdents seems to be crucal for poltcal and project support. The fact that local resdents have come to the local authorty to complan on the delayed delvery of nfrastructure and publc space ndcates the prvate Consortum s not aware of the ndrect consequences of ts lack of communcaton. The local authorty s duty s to lsten to ctzens and take approprate acton f needed. Poltcal support for a development wll decrease f market partes are not nformng local resdents about the project progress, the arguments and reasons behnd new choces, and takng resdent s wshes serously. Then, the local authorty starts to nterfere n the development process, often resultng n cooperatve tensons and sometmes further process stagnaton; Publc management of the project turns out to be very lmted. The local authorty mentons that t has not enough possbltes to manage the development. Ths however s a consequence of choosng concessons. The recommendaton s that local authortes should be very aware of the consequences when choosng the concesson model. Ther management n theory then s lmted to the pre-development stage; n the realzaton stage only perodcal control s possble. 5.7 Naaldwjk, Woerdblok Project context Woerdblok s an urban frnge (transformaton) project on a former glass agrculture ste on the edge of the urban area of Naaldwjk, a cty n the West of the Netherlands. The local authorty n the 1990s searched for an expanson locaton for housng development, the Northwest sde of Naaldwjk, an area characterzed by several agrculture frms seemed to be best suted for a number of dfferent reasons. The local authorty frst developed a Concept Masterplan for Woerdblok n 1999. As a result of the allocated housng locaton three local constructon companes Grondvest Woerdblok BV, Hoekhus BV, and Bouhusen Projectontwkkelng BV started to acqure land n the area. The fnancal fundng was provded by Rabobank Vastgoed BV. The three constructon companes entered nto a prvate consortum called CV Woerdblok Naaldwjk, Rabobank was not part of ths consortum. The consortum and Rabobank on ther turn together produced a Masterplan for Woerdblok n 2001. A Cooperaton Agreement (2002) and a Development Agreement (2003) were sgned between the Consortum, Rabobank and the local authorty Naaldwjk, effectvely startng the publc-prvate cooperaton wth the concesson model. In 2004, some organzatonal changes occurred; the local authorty Naaldwjk merged nto a new local authorty called Westland together wth some other local authortes n the regon and n 2007 Rabobank merged nto Bouwfonds Ontwkkelng BV. The development conssts of 913 houses (20% affordable) on a total surface of thrty hectares. The project lfe cycle s estmated on sxteen years, startng n 1999 and estmated to be completed n 2015. 187 Cases n the Netherlands

Organzaton Publc Actor Rough ndcaton functonal program Spatal condtons Qualty condtons publc space (+ prvate actor) Condtons vsual qualty plan (+ prvate actor) Land use plan adopton Land sale (transfer to prvate actor) Communcaton plan (not prvate actor) Prvate Actor Detaled functonal program Desgn spatal plan Vsual qualty plan (+ publc actor) Land use plan preparaton Land acquston Land & real estate development Realzaton publc space Table 5.7 Tasks of publc & prvate actors n Naaldwjk Woerblok Table 5.7 shows the tasks performed by the publc and prvate actors n Woerdblok. The table shows that publc space and vsual qualty condtons have been determned n close cooperaton between the local authorty and the consortum. Furthermore, the Masterplan was made n close cooperaton, but t was commssoned by the consortum. The consortum performs all tasks descrbed by Heurkens et al. (2008), except for the communcaton plan whch s done by the local authorty. The responsbltes of both actors are mentoned n the Cooperaton Agreement and Development Agreement. The publc actor has the followng responsbltes; publc law procedures, judgment and control of spatal plans and progress, and the adopton of publc space after delvery. The responsbltes of the prvate actors are; desgn of a spatal plan, desgn of a land use plan, delvery of housng and nfrastructure, the remanng land acquston, and land transfer of publc space. ####The local authorty n Woerdblok does not have any rsks, because they do not have to acqure land form prvate landowners, ths s done by the dfferent prvate actors. Therefore, the Consortum bares all rsks for the plan development, land acquston and land development, real estate development, and the fnancal rsks. In ths partcular case the land acquston has been a qute costly one as prvate land owners and ther agrculture frms had to be bought out by the Consortum. In terms of revenues the local authorty does not have the land purchase and sale advantages but obtans a free transfer of publc space transfer after delvery. The prvate actors obtan revenues from the real estate development. In terms of rules and requrements, a publc schedule of requrements has not been made n Woerdblok. The local authorty, at the tme of sgnng the concesson agreement, solely gave an ndcaton for a mnmum amount of housng. Unforeseen crcumstances are part of the agreement and nvolve a delberaton when they economc or techncal crcumstances occur that could possbly lead to necessary the adjustments of plans. Changed poltcal crcumstances were not dentfed as unforeseen crcumstances. At the tme the local authorty merged nto a larger admnstratve muncpalty whch s characterzed by a more pro-actve role and fnancal capabltes the local authorty could not clam to add new publc development objectves under the changed poltcal and admnstratve envronment. 188 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Management The publc actor s project management nvolves ntatng, desgnng and operatng actvtes. As the local authorty frst came up wth a master plan for the area, they were able to set programmatc parameters for the development. However, they dd not use a publc tender n whch a publc schedule of spatal requrements was used. After the delvery, the muncpalty wll mantan the publc space and therefore has a stake n the development. Nevertheless, they do not have the management possbltes to nfluence decsons made by the consortum as they are not responsble for the delvery of underground and publc works. The prvate actor s project management nvolves desgnng and plannng, effectvely beng able to nfluence the project to ther lkng. The process management by local authorty focused negotatng, decson-makng and communcatng actvtes. Negotatng, for nstance nvolved the ncorporaton of new muncpal parkng ratos. Changed ratos had to be taken nto account by the prvate Consortum n desgnng plans for the project s sub stages. Effectvely, ths was caused by subdvson of the total area nto smaller sub areas, for whch land use plans needed to be approved durng the project. Ths gave the local authorty the opportunty to negotate new parkng ratos nto the project. The prvate actor decded to leave the formal responsblty for resdent communcaton to the local authorty. The local authorty used the management tool of the master plan to shape the condtons for the development through whch developers became nterested n developng the ste. Intally, the local authorty took qute some dstance n regulatng the market actor by mplyng condtons for development, although ths atttude changed at the tme of the merge of the muncpaltes was a fact. Stmulatng development and capacty buldng as a management tool was not used by ether the publc actor. By acqurng land and captal for the development the prvate Consortum obtaned the basc management resources for the development, thereby beng able to manage the project. Furthermore, they obtaned knowledge of the local housng market whch showed that there was enough demand for dfferent housng segments as Naaldwjk turned out to be a potental growth muncpalty for resdents lvng n nearby ctes. The local authorty dd not have any of the management resources and therefore was not able to nfluence the development as such. Effects In terms of effectveness, the local authorty and the prvate are sharng the thought that the development wll meet all the ntended objectves, once fnshed. The effcency of the process by both actors n general s not consdered to be greater than wth other cooperaton models. The amount of tme spend n publc-prvate meetngs, the dfferent prvate nterests and some resstance of the muncpal departments are consdered not to contrbute to an effcent process. In terms of role dvson both actors declare that t s very clear whch actor does what. The spatal qualty of the development pants a dfferent pcture. The local authorty states that they are qute satsfed wth the result. However, n the ste preparaton carred out by the consortum, the underground dam-walls put n place have a shorter lfe span than other dam-walls avalable. Because the prvate actor can save some money here (the condtons for a certan choce for dam-walls were not agreed upon), and the fact they wll not own the 189 Cases n the Netherlands

publc space once delvered, n the future ths potentally could result n a costly mantenance busness for the publc actor. The publc actor explans that f they had prepared the land they would have chosen for a long-term opton nstead of the low-cost opton. Remarkably, the prvate actor descrbes that they would have lked to obtan a hgher spatal qualty. The man reasons for adjustments to spatal qualty are the hgh land acquston costs whch causes the need for a hgher densty, and the numerous temporary adjustments made to the plan and archtecture based on new muncpal car parkng ratos for nstance. Fgure 5.6 shows a street mpresson of the housng n Woerdblok. Fgure 5.6 Naaldwjk Woerdblok, mpresson ( Erwn Heurkens) Experences The local authorty made a delberate choce for the concesson model; they were confronted wth a prvate landownershp stuaton. Furthermore, all other motves lke the lack of labor capacty, the lack of fnancal capacty, the transfer of rsks to the prvate sector, and the ntatve by prvate partes apply to Woerdblok. In the ntervew t was mentoned that the local authorty Naaldwjk at that tme was a rather small local authorty wth a lmted apparatus, whle the current local authorty Westland s equpped better to take a more proactve role n urban development projects. The general experences of both actors wth concesson model as a publc-prvate cooperaton can be summed up by a good relatonshp wth laborous moments now and then. The local authorty sometmes senses a we aganst them relatonshp rather than a cooperatve one; they prefer Publc-Prvate Partnershps for the near future n Westland. The prvate actor 190 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

argues that the unclear agreements made between the local authorty Naaldwjk and the developers, and the fact that four dfferent prvate organzatons are nvolved, causes some troubles durng the process. The management of these prvate-prvate relatonshps takes a lot of tme due to the sometmes opposng development objectves. But n general the concesson model s vewed as a postve cooperaton model because the prvate actor can manage the urban development to a larger extent, fndng a fnancal optmum by combnng the land and real estate development. However, the addtonal acquston of small ndvdual plots and the nexperence of the muncpal departments to work wth a concesson meant puttng n much fnancal and communcatve effort to proceed wth the development. The prvate actor further mentons that the mportance of a professonal publc project manager should not be underestmated, as they experenced several dfferent ndvduals wth fewer capabltes resultng n less effcent processes. The prvate actor also mentons that the use of the concesson model probably s better suted to less complcated urban projects, as the exstence and land acquston from the local agrculture busnesses were underestmated. Two man problems and related recommendatons have been mentoned by the ntervewees based on ther experence of the Woerdblok project: The fnal publc judgment of spatal plans could best be preceded by a prvate consultaton meetng or platform to avod long lst of specfc adjustments by the local authorty. Local authortes judge plans on the bass of crtera made n advance, however, changed crcumstances often result n dfferent specfc solutons made by the prvate actor. Despte the fact that the reasons to devate from the agreed condtons often can be very reasonable (gven the crcumstances), publc cvc servants are not aware of them. Therefore, the prvate actor recommends that they should be able to explan and defend ther choces n an organzed prvate consultaton meetng n whch the publc offcers are nvted pror to the judgment of spatal plans on paper. Ths creates a greater commtment from muncpal departments to the project, possbly resultng n a faster decson-makng process and smarter physcal solutons and hgher spatal qualty n the end; Too many prvate actors as part of a consortum often create management dffcultes as prvate objectves can vary. The prvate actor argues that managng dfferent nterests from prvate actors s tresome and fnancally rsky. Especally when short-term constructon companes and long-term property developers cooperate based on a concesson model. The prvate actor recommended that the competences and knowledge of prvate actors n a consortum should be leadng for the choce of a lmted number of prvate actors workng n a concesson model. 191 Cases n the Netherlands

5.8 Rotterdam, Neuw Crooswjk Project context Neuw Crooswjk s an nner-cty development n the East of Rotterdam. The name refers to a new development for the muncpal neghborhood Oud (Old) Crooswjk, a neghborhood consdered to be slghtly deprved n the eyes of the Rotterdam muncpalty. The project started wth an ntatve of the housng assocaton Stchtng Wonngbedrjf Rotterdam (WBR) (later Woonstad Rotterdam) for the upgradng of ther outdated housng stock to alter socal deprvaton n Neuw Crooswjk. Because the housng assocaton dd not have the fnancal means and knowledge to redevelop the whole area they nvted two property developers ERA Bouw bv and Proper Stok bv to cooperate on the development. These two prvate partes organzed themselves n the Ontwkkelngscombnate Neuw Crooswjk cv (ONC) n 2001. ONC, WBR and the local authorty Rotterdam sgned a concept Intenton Agreement (2002), later followed by an Intenton Agreement (2004). After that agreement the ONC submtted a Masterplan for Neuw Crooswjk n 2005. In 2005 the ONC conducted a Fnancal Rsk Analyss before the Masterplan was approved by the local authorty. Eventually the ONC, WBR and the local authorty sgned a Cooperaton Agreement (2005) based on concesson model prncples. The development wll consst of 1753 new houses (25% affordable housng) on approxmately thrty hectares of land. The project lfe cycle has been nfluenced severely by market condtons; t s estmated to take fourteen years fnshng n 2016. Organzaton The tasks performed by the publc and prvate actors n Neuw Crooswjk are shown n Table 5.8. Because of the early ntatves of the prvate partes the local authorty has not provded a global functonal program, spatal condtons, condtons vsual qualty plan. However, the ONC and WBR ntensvely cooperated on desgn matters wth the local authorty. Only for the publc space, transferred to the local authorty after the delvery, dd the local authorty made qualty condtons, manly for mantenance reasons. The ONC carred out all the tasks except for preparng the land use plan, whch was done by the publc actor. As the development also nvolves a lot of demolton works of the exstng housng stock the land acquston of prvate landlords has been an mportant task of the ONC as well. The land made avalable by the local authorty only nvolves the publc space. The responsbltes for the dfferent actors are mentoned n the Cooperaton Agreement. The local authorty Rotterdam has the followng responsbltes; an effort oblgaton for publc law procedures, on tme judgment of plans, control delvery status, adopton of publc space after delvery, secure external governmental fundng, and prepare the land use plan. The ONC had the responsblty to; desgn the spatal plan, demolsh the housng, prepare the land surface, delver houses, nfrastructure and publc space, and the transfer publc space. The local authorty does not take on any substantal fnancal rsks; all the rsks are transferred to the ONC and WBR. These rsks nvolve land acquston, demolton, land preparaton, land development, real estate development and nvestment. Furthermore, the outplacement of 192 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

exstng resdents could be consdered a rsk as they could not cooperate. However, the WBR made some good arrangements wth the local resdents for housng substtuton, gudng the process of relocatng households. The revenues as a result of the rsk dvson are also for the ONC and WBR. In terms of rules and requrements, there has not been a publc schedule of requrements for Neuw Crooswjk. Nevertheless, for the publc space several qute strct regulatons have been put nto place by the local authorty. For some years now the Rotterdam muncpalty uses the document Rotterdamse Stjl to prescrbe three standardzed levels of publc space materals wth the am of creatng recognzable unform publc space dfferences and to mnmze mantenance costs throughout the cty. These standardzed forms of publc space, however, were stll under negotaton wth ONC n summer 2009. Unforeseen crcumstances are part of the agreement and nvolve a close delberaton between the partes, possbly leadng to adjustments. Publc Actor Qualty condtons publc space Land use plan adopton Land sale (transfer to prvate actor) Land use plan preparaton (not prvate actor) Prvate Actor Detaled functonal program Desgn spatal plan Vsual qualty plan Communcaton plan Land acquston Land & real estate development Realzaton publc space Table 5.8 Tasks of publc & prvate actors n Rotterdam Neuw Crooswjk Management The project management undertaken by the publc actor n Neuw Crooswjk on paper conssts of operatng the publc space after delvery. As the ntatve for the development of the area came from the housng assocatons, management by the publc s lmted to the gudelnes of the publc space. The prvate actors performed ntatng, desgnng, and plannng actvtes, hereby nfluencng the project s progress. The process management for publc and prvate actors conssts of negotatng, decson-makng and communcatng. Durng the project, the local authorty became more closely nvolved n the process by fnancng upfront nvestment to kck-start development. As a result of the economc crss, n June 2009 the Rotterdam local authorty and ONC negotated a 23 mllon deal to kck-start the development whch was n an mpasse. The local authorty secured 11.5 mllon from ISV-gelden (a Natonal Subsdy for Urban Revtalzaton) backed by the ONC who devoted another 11.5 mllon to the project (see Koenen, 2009). However, t remans unclear what arrangements for ncorporatng publc wshes have been made n that negotaton process. Decson-makng on the lay-out of the spatal plan and the housng program manly was a matter of the ONC, although the local authorty prepared the land use plan and therefore ONC had to comply wth the wshes of the publc actor. Communcaton manly was a prvate management actvty, especally to the local resdents and households. Here, the housng assocaton WBR dd much of the earler communcaton n relaton to relocate households, 193 Cases n the Netherlands

whle the ONC held nformaton meetngs on the project. Despte these caretakng actons, the neghborhood rose aganst the radcal demolton plans of the ONC and WBR and appealed aganst the changes n the land use plan prepared by the Rotterdam local authorty. Ths created tensons the local authorty solved by puttng some compromses n place. In terms of management tools the publc actor regulated and stmulated the development. The man regulatory tools used were the land use plan and the request for the publc space on the bass of the standardzed Rotterdamse Stjl polcy. But, more mportantly, the local authorty stmulated the development by securng the ISV-subsdy from central government thereby effectvely kck-startng the development. The prvate actor was manly shaped the development by producng dfferent plans lke the Master Plan, Vsual Qualty Plan and a Scale model of Neuw Crooswjk. But, most notably, the OCN and WBR tred to buld capacty for the development by nformng local resdents n the early stages of the project. The management resources for development n essence are wth the prvate organzatons OCN and WBR. OCN became owner of the land and WBR owned most of the housng blocks, thereby effectvely beng able to nfluence the development at ther stake. Captal was brought together by both prvate partes, but was also backed by the Rotterdam local authorty n the feasblty stage to kck-start development, although ths captal became part of the OCN development budget. In terms of knowledge, the housng assocaton WBR played an mportant role n determnng the socal housng market needs, whle the ONC focused on the commercal housng market of Rotterdam East. The local authorty encouraged the development of commercal houses as the Rotterdam spatal polcy emphass s to delver more were of hgh segment houses n nner-cty as these are n undersupply. Effects Fgure 5.7 Rotterdam Neuw Crooswjk, mpresson ( Erwn Heurkens) 194 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

The prvate actor states that the use of the concesson model n Neuw Crooswjk wll reach all the ntended effects. Nevertheless, at the tme of case study research real estate development was not yet underway, so only the pre-development stages can be actually be judged. The process s consdered effcent as ONC foresees that the process eventually wll pck up speed n the realzaton phase. Furthermore, both actors declare that essentally the roles of both actors are clear. And the prvate actor s convnced that some characterstcs of the concesson model, beng the ntegraton of the land and real estate development and the possblty to optmze fnancal and qualtatve objectves, wll generate a hgher qualty level than other publcprvate cooperaton models can facltate. The ntervew wth the local authorty took place n an early stage of the research wthout askng questons regardng the effcency, effectveness and spatal qualty, so no data s avalable on those effects. Fgure 5.7 shows an mpresson of the new housng development n Neuw Crooswjk. Experences The local authorty dd not make a delberate choce for the concesson model n Neuw Crooswjk, because t was faced wth a prvate ntatve t almost could not reject. ONC ndcates that the term concesson model as the cooperaton model for ths project was not recognzed as such; publc and prvate partes just made agreements ftted to the stuaton at hand. However, the cooperaton contans all features of the concesson model. The motves to choose ths type of cooperaton for the local authorty were; the rsk transfer to prvate partes, the ntatve of the prvate actor, and a prvate landownershp stuaton. Furthermore, the publc actor wanted to gve room for prvate ntatves. ONC adds that the prvate motve to choose for ths cooperaton approach was the fact that land and real estate development were n prvate hands, creatng optons for program flexblty and fnancal optmzaton. The general experence n Neuw Crooswjk wth ths prvate sector-led approach dfferentates. The local authorty declares t would never use ths type of cooperaton agan, t prefers more management possbltes on developments. The ONC, despte the market sale dffcultes, holds the opnon that ths model defntely creates a synergy for achevng publc and prvate objectves. However, the man problem n ths development s the task normally carred out by publc actors, the desgn of publc space materalzaton and underground nfrastructure works. The local authorty mentons that the prvate partes are not well equpped for carryng out underground works; t takes a lot of cooperaton wth publc utlty organzatons who work wth specfc standards. Furthermore, ONC mentons that the nvolvement from the local authorty on the publc space materalzaton sometmes became a frustratng process. As part of local authorty s publc space standardzaton, ONC s hgh qualtatve proposals for the materalzaton and decoraton of publc space were constantly debated. Hgher qualty envronments for ONC means hgher market values for ther new houses trggerng them to nvest n publc space, whle the mantenance work actvtes of the muncpal mantenance departments are amed at standardzaton and characterzed by nflexblty. Furthermore, ONC clams that the muncpal departments are not workng n cooperaton on the judgment of plans wth contra dctonary comments to ther submtted plans whch results n laborous publc-prvate communcaton, leadng to a less effcent process than they expected. Also, there has been some opposton to the presented plans; n the frst place n resdents opposed 195 Cases n the Netherlands

to the outplacement and n the second place there have been qute some appeals to the land use plan durng the publc consultaton stage. Fnally, the local authorty declares that the housng assocatons WBR share the same publc nterests as them and therefore are beleved to be a good cooperatve partner wt, gvng the local authorty the confdence that WBR wll perform an essental role n the development. A number of problems and related recommendatons have been mentoned by the ntervewees based on ther experence n the Neuw Crooswjk project: The fact that the Rotterdam muncpalty works wth publc space standardzaton procedure does not favor the qualtatve prospects of concessons. Because the publc actor has to mantan the publc space after project delvery, they tend to tghten the constrants for the desgn of the publc space. The prvate actor argues that the full possbltes of the concesson model for creatng a hgh qualtatve envronment are not met. The fact that prvate actors need to cooperate wth the local authorty as they depend on the approval of the land use plan means that they eventually are forced to gve n on qualty and ambton. It s recommended by the ONC that publc space qualty standardzaton should not be appled when the concesson model s used n order to create a hgher valued envronment. Housng assocatons seem to be well equpped to manage problematc ssues wth local resdents. The fact that the Crooswjk area n the opnon of the exstng local resdents was a well-functonng neghborhood created a lot of opposton aganst the new plans. Housng assocatons can effectvely gude the household replacement process and provde resdents wth housng alternatves manly because of ther socal nterests. It s recommended by the local authorty and ONC that n nner-cty developments, n whch housng demolton takes place, concessonares should decde to ncorporate local housng assocatons n order to resolve possble socal objectons occurrng durng the project. Prvate nexperence wth underground nfrastructural works can result n delays. The dffcultes wth the progress of underground works n Neuw Crooswjk show the mportance of well experenced and sklled actors wth experence n workng n close relatonshp wth utlty organzatons. As the De Laares case showed us, local authortes are well experenced to perform ths task wthn tme and budget. The recommendaton made by the local authorty s that when underground nfrastructural works are part of the prvate tasks, the prvate actor should commsson an experenced utlty company or even the muncpal utlty department to carry out the work as t seems to ncrease the development speed. 196 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

5.9 Tlburg, Wagnerplen Project context The cty of Tlburg les n the South of the Netherlands. Remarkable enough, wthn Tlburg three concesson model projects were carred out at the same tme: Koolhoven (urban frnge), Stappegoor (transformaton) and Wagnerplen (nner-cty redevelopment). We have chosen Wagnerplen as t s an nner-cty project surrounded by some nterestng poltcal debates at the tme of nqury. Wagnerplen s located n an exstng local neghborhood n Tlburg North. The project conssts of 612 new dwellngs (manly apartments), the redevelopment of a shoppng center, a parkng garage, a park and square, 9.000 m2 new retal space and 60.000 m2 non-commercal space. Bouwfonds advsed the local authorty on the redevelopment of the shoppng center. In order to gve the area enough future perspectve t was decded to carry out a larger mxed-use regeneraton project. The local authorty desgned a Development Plan for Tlburg North n 1998, followed n 2000 by a Development Vson, and a Masterplan Wagnerplen n 2003. A Concept Desgn Spatal Plan (2005) formed the bass for a Concesson Agreement (2006). Durng the 2007-2008 plan development stage, the local authorty performed a feasblty study on a large shoppng mall close to Wagnerplen whch has nfluenced the start of Wagnerplen. In 2009, the shoppng mall was dsapproved through publc referendum, pavng the way for the Wagnerplen redevelopment. The project was estmated to take eleven years, and fnshed n 2013, but the several factors have caused substantal project delays. Organzaton Table 5.9 shows that two tasks n Wagnerplen have been conducted n close cooperaton; the fnal spatal plan and the communcaton plan. The responsbltes of the publc actor nvolve; publc law procedures, and judgment and control of spatal plans. The responsbltes for the prvate actor n Wagnerplen nclude; fnancal compensaton of publc overhead costs, desgn spatal plan, and program delvery. Publc Actor Rough ndcaton functonal program Spatal condtons Qualty condtons publc space Condtons vsual qualty plan Land use plan adopton Land sale (transfer to prvate actor) Prvate Actor Detaled functonal program Desgn spatal plan (+ publc actor) Vsual qualty plan (ncl. publc space) Communcaton plan (+ publc actor) Land use plan preparaton Land acquston Land & real estate development Realzaton publc space Table 5.9 Tasks of publc & prvate actors n Tlburg Wagnerplen 197 Cases n the Netherlands

In Wagnerplen, all rsks are wth the prvate actor. Nevertheless, ths project shows a hgh dependency on poltcal decsons. Therefore, eventually ths project became a poltcal rsk for the local authorty. The revenues related to the rsks also le wth the prvate actors. The local authorty further mentons that they dd not own much land n the developments and therefore could not obtan revenue. Furthermore, the local authorty n all the cases has been compensated for ther publc overhead costs. In terms of rules and requrements, unforeseen crcumstances are part of all concesson agreement and nvolve openng up negotatons when these crcumstances occur whch possbly leads to adjustments. Notce that n Wagnerplen unforeseen crcumstances occurred. These ncluded the possble allocaton of a mega-mall nearby Wagnerplen, whch for some tme affected the decsons on the amount of retal, and therefore the feasblty of the busness case. Eventually the Cty Councl refused plannng permsson for the mega-mall, creatng some relef for the Wagnerplen actors. Management Project management actvtes from the Tlburg local authorty and Bouwfonds are qute mxed. In Wagnerplen, the publc actor performed ntatng, desgnng and operatng actvtes, as ths project had been on the agenda for development for a long tme, ndcated by the several development studes and plans that were made pror to the eventual publc-prvate concesson cooperaton choce.. Thereby, despte the fact that the developers performed the actvtes of desgnng and plannng the development, they were not fully able to manage the project on ther own. The case shows a close cooperaton between Bouwfonds and the Tlburg muncpalty n negotatng, decson-makng and communcatng process management actvtes. In Wagnerplen, the project developer was not able to manage the process as decsons were dependent on the local authorty s fnal decson of the megamall locaton, whch eventually was refused by the Cty Councl n 2010. From that moment on, the developer was able to make ther own decsons n the development process. In terms of management tools, the local authorty manly appled shapng and regulatng actvtes. In Wagnerplen, they shaped the development by presentng dfferent studes and desgns, prortzng the project pror to the nvolvement of Bouwfonds as prvate developer. Stmulatng and capacty buldng tools were not used by the muncpalty. When we look at the management resources, we notce that Bouwfonds n prncple used land, captal and knowledge at ther dsposal to manage the project. The local authorty dd contrbute captal to the developments, and dd make knowledge on the areas avalable to the prvate actor n the form of market studes. Bouwfonds had to acqure land from prvate landowners n Wagnerplen, whch after hard negotatons eventually was establshed, but at the expense of not beng able to start wth development as ntended. Here, the absence of land as a management resource thus resulted n a decreased manageablty for Bouwfonds. 198 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Effects The effects of the concesson model n the opnon of the publc and prvate actors dffer. In Wagnerplen the process s consdered not very effcent. The local authorty clams that the n all Tlburg cases fxed functonal programs were determned n the concesson agreement, whch can be consdered as nflexble to react on changed market crcumstances. An example of ths was the dscusson about the Megamall, whch created uncertanty about the market demand for retal n Wagnerplen, thus Bouwfonds wated for the outcome of the dscusson before commencng wth the real estate development. The prvate actor adds that the consultaton wth local busnesses and resdents and land acquston from local land owners have been very tme-consumng. In terms of effectveness and spatal qualty, the local authorty declares that at the pont of the ntervew nothng has been realzed and t s hard to estmate whether or not objectves wll be acheved n the near future. Fnally, a clear role dvson exsts on paper but n practce ths becomes blurry due to the complex nature of the nner-cty development for whch the publc actor became needed. Fgure 5.8 shows an aeral vew of Wagnerplen ndcatng a mass study for the project n 2009. Fgure 5.8 Tlburg Wagnerplen, aeral vew ( Bouwfonds) 199 Cases n the Netherlands

Experences The Tlburg local authorty made a delberate choce to realze the case on the bass of the concesson model. In terms of motves, the ntervewees state that publc labor capacty and rsk transfer to the prvate actor were the two most mportant motves to choose the concesson model. The other motves vary from case to case. When we look at the general experences of the local authorty t must be notfed that the Alderman for Cty Plannng of Tlburg has a strong opnon about the role of muncpaltes n publc-prvate cooperaton. He states that the role performed by a publc actor n for nstance the jont venture model s not the role local authortes should play n urban development projects (see Heurkens et al., 2008). He prefers a low publc rsk profle and therefore s also wllng to experment wth the concesson model n Tlburg. Ths fundamental convcton from a local publc offcal mght be the man reason for the exstence of three prvate sector-led urban development projects n Tlburg; the poltcal support paved the road for market nterests n the cty. However, an ntervew wth the local authorty s urban development drector resulted n another opnon due to her daly nvolvement wth the dfferent Tlburg cases. Her general experence s that the concesson model s well suted for relatvely smple projects (lke Tlburg Koolhoven for nstance), but that t s not suted for complex regeneraton or transformaton developments such as Wagnerplen. Here, the hgh number of stakeholders and ther wshes and nterests nfluence the poltcal arena, make t dffcult for prvate actors to manage such a process. The publc actor further experences that the general relatonshp between the local authorty and developers s good, although the Wagnerplen case has not commenced fully due to changed market condtons. As the publc actor s not able to manage the development process, frustratons crop up because the development s crucal for Tlburg North and a lot of tme and money has already been spend on the development. Furthermore, n another concesson project n Tlburg (Stappegoor), problems arose when a new plan and agreement had to be made due to a shft n poltcal objectves and market crcumstances. Ths was consdered to be very panful for both actors n fnancal terms, especally for the prvate actor who nvested a huge amount of money n the development of a sport accommodaton before the development of the lucratve housng area had begun. The prvate actor also experenced a lot of dffcultes n the communcaton wth and comng to agreement wth local busnesses and sport unons. Ths part of the prvate responsbltes has been underestmated whch often result n publc actor nterference to solve matters. Both actors share the thought that they wll not use concessons agan n cases lke Wagnerplen or Stappegoor whch prove to be too complex to handle by prvate actors. Two man problems and related recommendatons have been mentoned by the ntervewees based on ther experence n Tlburg Wagnerplen: The project taught them that when a development s nfluenced by poltcal ssues, due to publc cooperatve resstance for nstance, t s no longer possble for the prvate actor to effcently and effectvely manage the process. The Dutch dual poltcal system, whch enables the councl to commsson Aldermen to change drecton when necessary, accordng to the prvate actor ncreases development rsks as t effectvely means that publc-prvate agreements on paper can be changed at the slghtest poltcal preference change. Both partes recommend that when a project s expected to be complex n a 200 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

socal, cultural and poltcal way t s better not to choose for a prvate sector-led urban development approach. Complex urban developments often ask for a closer publc-prvate cooperaton than the concesson model can facltate; The need for flexble arrangements for prvate actors to optmze spatal plans functonally and fnancally does not comply wth the nflexble character of performance targets and fnancal agreements made wthn a concesson agreement. The recommendaton by Bouwfonds was to take nto account dfferent market scenaros as a bass for developng dfferent performance ndcators for functonal programs accompaned by fnancal consequences. Scenaros wth dfferent bandwdths n program and budgets possbly lead to more flexblty to react on changng markets and at the same tme meet performance crtera. 5.10 Utrecht, De Woerd Project context De Woerd s an urban frnge greenfeld development part of the larger Ledsche Rjn Vnexdevelopment n Utrecht West, a cty n the center of the Netherlands. De Woerd s a project of 500 dwellngs (450 hgh segment and 50 mddle segment) on a locaton of seventeen hectares. The frst ntatve for De Woerd was made by Bouwfonds Ontwkkelng BV, who was the landowner of the ste. Bouwfonds sgned a Cooperaton Agreement wth the local authorty Vleuten-De Meern n the early 2000s on the bass of a spatal desgn made by Bouwfonds. Later, the local authorty Vleuten-De Meern became part of the local authorty Utrecht and new condtons for the De Woerd development had to be appled. In 2002, Bouwfonds, n close cooperaton wth the publc actor, made a Publc Schedule of Spatal Requrements whch was approved by the local authorty n 2003. Ths document forms the bass for the Development Agreement and Fnancal Agreement whch were sgned by the prvate actors Bouwfonds, Vastgoedontwkkelng Ledsche Rjn vof, Interkoop Propertes BV, and the local authorty n 2003. The project has been completed n 2009, havng had a lfe cycle of eght years, takng the frst ntatve nto account. Organzaton The tasks performed by the publc and prvate actors n De Woerd are shown n Table 5.10. The table ndcates that, because of several exstng plan studes made by the prvate actor, the publc actor dd not have the opportunty to determne varous condtons n advance. These condtons are made on behalf of Bouwfonds n close cooperaton wth the local authorty, ncorporatng ther specfc wshes for nfrastructure for nstance. Because the land was owned by the developer the publc actor dd not perform the tasks of land avalablty. The prvate actor n essence performed all tasks on ther own, except the determnaton of the vsual qualty plan, whch was performed n close cooperaton. The publc actor has the followng responsbltes; judgment spatal plan, effort oblgaton land use plan procedures, effort oblgaton buldng permts, effort to obtan publc fundng (f needed), and a mantenance test. The prvate actor 201 Cases n the Netherlands

has the followng responsbltes; desgn spatal plan, desgn land use plan, land clearance and development, delvery real estate, nfrastructure and publc space, a mantenance perod of 6 months after project delvery, and a tme lmt of 6 months for the realzaton of publc space once a part of the development s delvered. The publc actor does not have any rsks. All the rsks ncludng plan development, real estate development, and land development are wth the prvate actor. Ths also apples to revenues. The publc actor obtaned some fnancal compensaton for the publc project overhead costs. In terms of rules and requrements, unforeseen crcumstances are part of the agreement, and lke n other cases, are dealt wth by delberaton between the partes. Few other rules exst except for the spatal qualty gudelnes for the publc space. Publc Actor Spatal condtons (+ prvate actor) Qualty condtons publc space (+ prvate actor) Condtons vsual qualty plan (+ prvate actor) Land use plan adopton Prvate Actor Detaled functonal program Desgn spatal plan Vsual qualty plan (+ publc actor) Communcaton plan Land use plan preparaton Land acquston Land & real estate development Realzaton publc space Table 5.10 Tasks of publc & prvate actors n Utrecht De Woerd Management In De Woerd the prvate actor almost entrely managed the project on ther own as they performed ntatng, desgnng, and plannng actvtes. The local authorty was able to manage part of the project as they took a stake n operatng the publc space. Ths case can be seen as a pure prvate sector-led urban development project as Bouwfonds took the lead n the project by ntatng the development and dd not let go of the other project management tasks untl the completon of the project. In comparson to other cases presented n ths chapter substantal less common negotatng, decson-makng and communcatng process management actvtes took place durng the project. Ths manly has to do wth the scale and smplcty of the project, the role consstency and professonal atttude of the actors, the upfront prvate landownershp, and the management prorty of the local authorty for other developments n the cty. Nevertheless, negotatons took place on the desgn of the publc space as ths eventually became publc ownershp. In terms of management tools the local authorty only shaped and regulated the development by formulatng some condtons for the qualty of the publc space. Stmulatng development was not needed as Bouwfonds had a vable busness case from the start due to the relatve low land prce they pad for the land several years for development started. Capacty buldng also was not needed as ths development dd not need any other actors n order to proceed. All management resources were n the hands of the prvate actor and were used effectvely to develop the area. Land and captal were avalable at an early stage of the project, secured by the 202 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Rabobank as ths bank provded captal to Bouwfonds. Furthermore, market research had shown that there was market demand for hgh segment urban vllas n de Vnex-development Ledsche Rjn whch manly conssts of mddle segment housng, resultng ndeed n rapd housng sales. Effects Fgure 5.9 Utrecht De Woerd, mpresson ( Bouwfonds) De Woerd, can be consdered as very successful n terms of effects. Both actors are unanmous about the acheved results. The use of the concesson model has been very effectve, all objectves are acheved. One of the major reasons for ths, mentoned by the project drector of the Bouwfonds, s the concesson model s possblty to optmze fnance, plannng and qualty by combnng the land and real estate development. The process can be consdered as very effcent; the product was delvered on tme and wthn budget. The developer states that n specfc the realzaton phase has been very effcent. Furthermore, the local authorty mentoned that De Woerd project has resulted n very low publc overhead costs. The publc and prvate role dvson from day one were clear; everybody was aware of ther tasks and responsbltes. However, the local authorty mentons that local resdents stll communcated wth them when they had complants. The spatal qualty s regarded as excellent by both partes; t s even consdered to be better than expected and, n comparson to other developments n Ledsche Rjn, as one of the best. The varatons of tradtonal Dutch facade desgns, fnshng materal, and publc spaces all are consdered of hgh user, experence and future value. Fgure 5.9 shows an mpresson of De Woerd. 203 Cases n the Netherlands

Experences The local authorty and the project developer made a delberate choce for the concesson model n De Woerd. The fact that the land was owned by Bouwfonds and the fact that they already produced several plan documents made the choce very obvous. The followng motves further apply; lack of labor capacty publc actor, rsk transfer to the prvate sector, the prvate ntatve for development, and the prvate land ownershp stuaton. Because of the large scale greenfeld development of Ledsche Rjn the local authorty was workng at ts maxmum labor capacty. Both actors declare that the experences wth the concesson model have been very postve; there was a strong wllngness to cooperate, mutual trust, and a professonal atttude of both publc and prvate organzatons. The plan development stage was used to ntensvely cooperate on the optmzaton of the desgn and spatal qualty gudelnes. As the local authorty for a large extent could play a more facltatng role and the fact that the prvate actor performed accordng to the agreements the development was delvered on tme and wthn budget. Other contrbutons to the success have been the favorable economc stuaton whch secured the market sales. Furthermore, the sklled publc project leader can be seen as a condton for success, as he managed the dfferent muncpal departments and provded substantated arguments for desgn mprovements. Both actors declare that they would defntely consder choosng the concesson model for a smlar knd of urban frnge development on a greenfeld ste. Two man problems and related recommendatons have been mentoned by the ntervewees based on ther experence n De Woerd: Rather a statement than a problem, s that a successful project depends on human qualtes, trust, equvalence and nteracton. The soft socologcal ssues often are overlooked as a condton for successful publc-prvate cooperaton. Human qualtes are needed n partcular to understand each other s objectves and nterests. The openness n communcaton expressed by both actors n De Woerd created trust and led to partes whch vewed themselves as equal partners. Other cases show that actors experence a we aganst them relatonshp the recommendaton from De Woerd s for both actors to make clear process and communcaton agreements that can create a shared commtment and hgh trust among the publc and prvate partners; Fnancal lqudty of the prvate actor s a condton for market sales. The current economc crss has an mpact on the nvestment possbltes for project developers. De Woerd had the luck of a favorable market crcumstances and has not been affected by the crss. However, a strong lqudty poston of Bouwfonds resulted n possbltes to nvest upfront n nfrastructure and publc space. The fact that these plan elements were n place before the dwellngs were completed resulted n fast market sales as the buyers were able to see how ther envronment looked lke. The recommendaton from a prvate sector pont of vew s to attempt to secure nvestment for publc space upfront n order to ncrease market sales. However, t remans to be seen f ths recommendaton s taken as a prorty n the current tme of dffcult project fundng by banks. The concesson model at least gves the opportunty to maxmze prvate profts through upfront nvestment, wthout decreasng the project s spatal qualty. On the contrary, ths case shows that fnance and qualty can get along. 204 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

5.11 Velsen, Oud-IJmuden Project context Oud-IJmuden s an nner-cty project located n the old cty center of IJmuden whch s part of the muncpalty Velsen, a cty located at the North Sea Canal connectng the North Sea wth Amsterdam. The IJmuden cty center for several decades has not seen any strategc nvestment. As a result the area s stll characterzed by ts former ndustral hstory. In the 2003 an Intatve Group of local landowners and a housng assocaton formulated the wsh for a regeneraton of ther area, supported by a major objectve of the local authorty Velsen to add 2000 new homes to the cty before 2015 and to combne housng wth small busnesses. At that tme Bouwfonds Ontwkkelng BV became nvolved, a project developer able to add the necessary fnancal means to deas of the ntatve group, who made a Feasblty Study for the development. In 2004, the publc actor developed a Publc Schedule of Spatal Requrements for Oud-IJmuden whch contaned condtons for a global functonal program and spatal objectves. On the bass of the Feasblty Study and a Concept Spatal Plan and Intenton Agreement between the local authorty Velsen and Bouwfonds was sgned n 2004. Bouwfonds started to acqure land from the ndvdual landowners before a Concesson Agreement was sgned. The fnal cooperaton agreement for Oud-IJmuden had to wat for the Waterland Akkoord, an agreement on the possbltes of combnng housng development wth the presence of the envronmental restrctons of the steel factory Corus nearby the cty, to be sgned by regonal and local authortes, and local steel busness. The Velsen Councl decded to go ahead wth the Waterland Akkoord n 2006, whch made housng development possble n Oud-IJmuden. Then, Bouwfonds desgned a Vsual Qualty Plan and a Spatal Plan n 2006 resultng n a Concept Cooperaton Agreement between Bouwfonds and the local authorty Velsen. Both partes agreed to be responsble to make the project fnancally vable; the local authorty n specfc s responsble for obtanng and securng publc funds. Furthermore, plans were dscussed and more detaled desgns went hand n hand wth feasblty studes. In 2008 a fnal Cooperaton Agreement on the bass of the concesson model was sgned between the publc and prvate actor followed by a land use plan carred out by the local authorty. The area has a surface of approxmately ten hectares, contanng a functonal addton of 500 houses and small busness unts. The lfe cycle s estmated at twelve years and the project s estmated to be fnshed around 2015. Organzaton Table 5.11 shows the tasks performed by the publc or prvate actors n Oud-IJmuden. What can be concluded s that the local authorty and prvate actor have cooperated qute often on desgn matters. The most mportant dfference to the deal tasks by mentoned Heurkens et al. (2008) s the preparaton of the land use plan whch was a task of the publc actor nstead of Bouwfonds. Furthermore, both actors decded that the local authorty could best realze the publc space and nfrastructure as they had the expertse of carryng out land preparaton work. Here, the local authorty acted as a contractor commssoned by Bouwfonds. So, two tasks normally performed by prvate actors are transferred to the publc sector, puttng the clarty of 205 Cases n the Netherlands

model under pressure. A communcaton plan called Wjkplatform was set up by Bouwfonds to nform and dscuss the development progress and content wth the local resdents and busnesses. The publc actor has the followng responsbltes; publc law procedures, effort oblgaton publc funds, judgment of spatal plans, desgn land use plan, and delvery of publc space and nfrastructure. The prvate actor has the followng responsbltes; desgn spatal plan, desgn vsual qualty plan, land and real estate acquston, demolshment exstng buldngs, delvery houses, communcaton. Publc Actor Rough ndcaton functonal program Spatal condtons Qualty condtons publc space (+ prvate actor) Condtons vsual qualty plan (+ prvate actor) Land use plan adopton Land sale (transfer to prvate actor) Land use plan preparaton (not prvate actor) Realzaton publc space (not prvate actor) Prvate Actor Detaled functonal program (+ publc actor) Desgn spatal plan (+ publc actor) Vsual qualty plan (ncl. publc space) Communcaton plan Land acquston Land & real estate development Table 5.11 Tasks of publc & prvate actors n Velsen Oud-IJmuden In Oud-IJmuden the prvate actor takes the rsks; the land acquston, land preparaton, land development, real estate development and fnancal development. However, the land preparaton on paper was attrbuted as a responsblty for the prvate actor, but durng 2009 t became clear that the local authorty preferred to prepare the land themselves. So, Bouwfonds commssoned the local authorty to carry out the work for them, mnmzng the rsks on ths responsblty by transferrng the land preparaton rsks to the local authorty at the expense of Bouwfonds. As Bouwfonds takes most of the rsks they also generate the revenues. Thus, the local authorty n case of the land preparaton work could obtan revenues but runs the rsk as well. The rules and requrements n place have been the Publc Schedule of Spatal Requrements determned by the local authorty n the so-called Nota van Utgangspunten. Furthermore, both partes agreed that n case unforeseen crcumstances arse, both actors wll delberate on fndng a soluton. Other requrements lke qualty condtons also are n place, both actors comply wth these gudelnes, and products are beng judged accordng to those requrements at certan moments n dfferent development stages. Management The project management actvtes used by the publc actor to nfluence the development are desgnng and operatng. The local authorty prepared the land use plan, was closely nvolved n the spatal desgn wth the project developer, obtaned development subsdes from central government, and eventually was gong to own the publc space thereby puttng several spatal requrements nto place durng the project. The prvate actor Bouwfonds bult 206 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

upon the ntatve of the local landowners and housng assocatons to manage the project. Furthermore, by securng fnance for development they were able to acqure land from local landowners pror to the start of the development. Thereby they were able to manage the project, although purchasng prvate propertes happened at hgh costs. At the tme of the ntervew realzaton was not underway, but t can be stated that the local authorty also nfluenced the project n ths sense, as they had to secure the possblty for houses to be bult n the area, thus postponng the realzaton stage. In terms of process management actvtes, Oud-IJmuden can be characterzed by a close cooperaton and therefore both partes were able to use the negotatng, decson-makng and communcatng actvtes to nfluence development. Especally the decson-makng on the Waterland Akkoord was not n favor of the development, as agreements between the actors were already n place, and Bouwfonds was already acqurng land upfront wthout the approval of the ISV-gelden (a Natonal Subsdy for Urban Revtalzaton). Furthermore, communcaton wth local resdents was a management actvty of Bouwfonds. The local authorty used all management tools at ther dsposal; they shaped the development by ndcatng the need for housng n the area, regulated the development by preparng a land use plan, stmulated development by securng natonal subsdes, and buld capacty by encouragng a deal n the Waterland Akkoord, a partnershp they were part of. The prvate actor shaped the development n the form of dfferent desgns and they were nvolved n capacty buldng by seekng collaboraton from local resdents and housng assocatons, and thereby ncreasng publc project support. Land, captal and knowledge were not forceful management resources for the developer. As land frst had to be acqured from local landowners, and the fact that the local authorty nssted on developng the publc space tself, the result was a fragmented prvate landownershp stuaton durng the development. And, although captal from the prvate bank was n place, the development also was dependent on publc subsdes provded by the local authorty. And fnally, Bouwfonds also dd not have suffcent knowledge of the local market, whch resulted n the laborous cooperaton wth local property owners. Effects As the development s not fnshed yet t s dffcult to determne the effects of the use of the concesson model n Oud-IJmuden. However, both actors have gven some nsght nto the effects. The local authorty qute sharply mentons that the cooperaton so far has been effectve, and they estmate that objectves n the end wll be acheved. However, the prvate actor states that ths remans to be seen; ths s due to the close nvolvement of the local authorty n development of the land whch undermnes the prncples of a clear role dvson of the concesson model, potentally leadng to several dscussons. The process s consdered not to be very effcent, however, t also not beng seen as neffcent by both actors. Due to the complexty of the locaton the plan development stage and land acquston took a lot of effort and tme and t remans to be seen f the realzaton stage wll be effcent. On paper the role dvson between both partes was very clear. However, the adjustment of tasks performed by the local authorty (land preparaton, land use plan, development publc space) has put the clearness of responsbltes and tasks between the actors at stake. In terms of spatal qualty, the local authorty beleves the ntended qualty level wll be acheved, but the prvate actor 207 Cases n the Netherlands

states that the qualty level has been lowered due to the fnancal nfeasblty of the project. Fgure 5.10 shows an mpresson of the development of Oud-IJmuden, whch also ndcates the close proxmty of harbor-related functons. Fgure 5.10 Velsen Oud-IJmuden, mpresson ( Bouwfonds) Experences The local authorty made a delberate choce for the concesson model as the publc-prvate cooperaton model to be used n Oud-IJmuden. All the other motves also apply to ths case. So, the local authorty had a lack of labor capacty (there were other projects), lack of fnancal capacty, wanted to transfer rsks to the market, was faced wth an ntatve from the Intatve Group, and dd not have major land postons n the area, as most land was owned by the housng assocatons and prvate landowners. The general experences from the publc and prvate actors dffer on several ssues. The local authorty Velsen s qute satsfed wth the cooperaton whle Bouwfonds s qute negatve about t. Both partes nevertheless menton that the workng relatonshp s excellent; the local authorty for nstance mentons that Bouwfonds nvolved the local communty n the plan development stage qute well, whch s crucal for the publc support for the plans. One of the man problems for the prvate actor s the amount of detal ncorporated n the publc land use plan whch gves Bouwfonds no freedom and flexblty to change plans when market condtons change; the functonal program and spatal constrants are fxed. Accordng to Bouwfonds ths stuaton s caused by the fact that the local authorty has a major stake n the redevelopment of the old nner-cty and therefore judges prvate desgns very strctly and 208 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

crtcally. Nevertheless, f the prvate actor had performed the task of preparng the land use plan themselves nstead of the local authorty, they would have been able to create more flexblty n terms of spatal plan varants, program varants and buldng desgns. Another problem stated by Bouwfonds s the dependency on the local authorty s ablty to obtan fnancal subsdes for the plan. As they don t feel any drect fnancal pan they, n the opnon of the prvate actor, are less eager to obtan as much funds for the project as they can. The publc actor mentons that they are qute satsfed wth Bouwfonds as the developer for Oud-IJmuden, although one major change has put the essence of the concesson model under pressure. The local authorty n delberaton wth Bouwfonds decded they could best carry out the land preparaton for the ste. They sad they would be able to do ths cheaper and better than the proposed ste preparaton document presented by Bouwfonds. Of course, by dong so, they can also obtan some revenue from the land development. However, Bouwfonds mentons that ths does not make that much dfference, as normally they would have commssoned ths task to another frm anyhow. The fact that the muncpalty performs ts tradtonal tasks leaves the developer wth no ncentve to fnd an optmum between the land and real estate development, as the local authorty carres out the land development and delvers the publc space and nfrastructure. Ths undermnes the prncples of the concesson model resultng n a confusng role dvson. Three man problems and related recommendatons have been mentoned by the ntervewees based on ther experence n Oud-IJmuden: An deal role dvson of the concesson model has been left asde n ths case. The adjustment of tasks performed by the local authorty (land preparaton, land use plan, development publc space) has put the clearness of tasks and responsbltes between the actors at stake. Bouwfonds has lost ts capablty to manage the project and remans accountable for the rsks. Possbly, ths also puts the fnancal feasblty of the development at stake as the developer s not able to control costs. The recommendaton s to mantan a clear publc-prvate role dvson structure. In case the local authorty s wllng to perform a task that s the responsblty of the prvate sector, lke ste preparaton or delverng the publc space, make sure the prvate actor commssons ths work to the publc body as f t was a (prvate) company that performs tasks under responsblty of the concessonare; Transparency and flexblty turn out to be crucal condtons n tmes of dffcult market condtons whch were not present n ths case, as the local authorty produced a land use plan wth detaled legally-bndng plan elements. Therefore, the prvate actor argues that the man condtons for a successful cooperaton based on the concesson model are the flexblty n plans and the openness n prvate company s fnancal stuaton. The recommendaton by the prvate actor s to make plans flexble for adjustment n changed crcumstances, and to provde nsght nto the fnancal budgets of the actors n order to create a common understandng of the problem and creatng trust between partes; In the opnon of both actors the nvolvement and consultaton of local communty s necessary n order to obtan support for the plans. The local authorty mentons that Bouwfonds played a crucal role n communcatng ther development ntentons and plans wth local resdents and busnesses. Thus, both actors recommend nvolvng the local communty through publc hearngs, meetngs and workshops n order to create commtment and trust between the prvate actor and local communty resultng n less confrontatons and problems later on n the realzaton phase. 209 Cases n the Netherlands

5.12 Cross Case Analyss Ths secton contans a cross-case analyss of the ten Dutch prvate sector-led urban development projects that have been descrbed n the prevous sectons. In successve order the cross-case fndngs on the organzaton, management, effects and experences of the use of the Dutch prvate sector-led concesson model are presented. By conductng a structured cross-case analyss we are able to determne to whch actors certan organzatonal or manageral roles can be attrbuted, and what knd of effects, motves, and condtons are applcable to practce accordng to the actors nvolved. Some remarks must be made about the data presentaton n the form of tables. In presentng our data we make use of two dfferent quanttatve ndcatons. The numbers presented n the tables ndcate the ntervewees response to closed questons. By conductng ths structural cross-case analyss we are able to draw some general conclusons about Dutch prvate sector-led urban development n Secton 5.13. 5.12.1 Organzaton The actor s organzatonal roles n prvate sector-led urban development projects to a large extent defne the management of these actors. Based on the emprcal case study fndngs we descrbe the cross-case study fndngs of the role characterstcs of both actors whch are descrbed n three man categores; organzatonal tasks and responsbltes, fnancal rsks and revenues, and legal rules and requrements. Tasks & responsbltes In Secton 5.1, the deal publc and prvate actor tasks based on Heurkens et al. (2008) were descrbed. In order to determne whether both actors n the Dutch cases n practce actually carry out these tasks on ther own, or that a separaton of tasks and responsbltes between publc and prvate actors n practce s unclear (and tasks are performed n cooperaton), we constructed Table 5.12 on the bass of fndngs. Furthermore, often mentoned responsbltes n agreements are ndcated. The table ndcates that emprcal tasks of both actors n general match wth the tasks apponted to them. However, some publc tasks lke the general functonal program, spatal condtons, qualtatve condtons publc space, and condtons vsual qualty plan, are performed n close cooperaton wth or by prvate actors. Furthermore, some prvate tasks lke desgn spatal plan, prepare land use plan, vsual qualty plan, and communcaton plan, are performed n close cooperaton wth or by publc actors. Thus, some tasks apponted to publc or prvate actors n practce are beng shared by both local authortes and project developers or housng assocatons. If we take a closer look at the table we can dstngush the fact that especally plan development related tasks are carred out n close cooperaton. The cooperaton between both partes often s based on an Intenton Agreement n an early stage of the project, n whch often qualty condtons and detaled 210 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

functonal programs and spatal condtons exst. At ths pont prvate actors on paper are held responsble for the desgn of spatal and qualty plan documents. However, n practce publc actors are very much nvolved n the makng of offcal plan documents. Often, these requrements become detaled, leavng prvate actors wth few possbltes for creatvty n the realzaton phase. Local authortes ndcate that close cooperaton wth the prvate actor on plan development documents ncreases ther chance of realzng and securng publc objectves, manly because they become the land owners of the publc space. Furthermore, n general communcaton s carred out as a shared task, or even publc task, as some prvate actors have dffcultes wth nformng and nvolvng the local communty. Theoretcal Tasks Emprcal Tasks Publc Actor Publc Prvate Both N/a Concluson Rough ndcaton functonal program 7 0 1 2 Publc Spatal condtons 7 0 2 1 Publc Condtons vsual qualty plan 4 0 5 1 Both / publc Qualty condtons publc space 6 0 4 0 Publc / both Land use plan adopton 10 0 0 0 Publc Land sale (to prvate actor) 9 0 0 1 Publc Prvate Actor Publc Prvate Both N/a Concluson Detaled functonal program 0 8 2 0 Prvate Desgn spatal plan 0 6 4 0 Prvate / both Vsual qualty plan 0 6 4 0 Prvate / both Communcaton plan 2 5 3 0 Prvate / both Land use preparaton 3 5 2 0 Prvate / publc Land acquston 2 8 0 0 Prvate Land & real estate development 0 10 0 0 Prvate Realzaton publc space 1 9 0 0 Prvate Table 5.12 Emprcal tasks n Dutch cases The responsbltes are mostly mentoned n the Cooperaton Agreements and n general are very clear and related to the tasks of the actors, as Table 5.13 shows. However, the publc responsblty of securng publc subsdes or funds for development projects has just been mentoned three tmes. Ths to some extent s caused by the fact that central government subsdes are only applcable to nner-cty developments from whch we analyzed fve cases. The man concluson on the task and responsblty characterstcs of the Dutch prvate sectorled urban development cases therefore s: Publc and prvate actors often cooperate n practce on the plan development n the early stages of the development process although ths s a responsblty for prvate actors. Publc tasks manly reman ther responsblty f they are related to publc procedures. Prvate tasks manly reman ther responsblty f they are related to rsks nvolved wth land and real estate acquston and development. 211 Cases n the Netherlands

Theoretcal Responsbltes Emprcal Responsbltes Publc Actor Publc Prvate Both N/a Concluson Sale & avalablty land 7 0 0 3 Publc Publc law procedures 10 0 0 0 Publc Securng publc subsdes/funds 3 0 0 7 N/a On tme judgment/control plans 9 0 0 1 Publc Control delvery status 7 0 0 3 Publc Adopton land (publc space) 10 0 0 0 Publc Prvate Actor Publc Prvate Both N/a Concluson Purchase land 0 8 0 2 Prvate Desgn spatal plan 0 10 0 0 Prvate Request constructon permt 0 10 0 0 Prvate Delver real estate/nfrastructure 0 10 0 0 Prvate Pre-delvery mantenance publc space 0 7 0 3 Prvate Transfer land to publc actor 0 9 0 1 Prvate Table 5.13 Emprcal responsbltes n Dutch cases Rsks & revenues Lterature often mentons that all major rsks and revenues n the concesson model are related to the prvate actor. The case fndngs to a large extent confrm ths characterstc; plan development rsks, land acquston rsks, land development rsks, real estate development rsks, and fnancal rsks, often are apponted and taken by the prvate actor, as well as possble profts. The tables below ndcate the emprcal fndngs on the dvson of rsks (Table 5.14) and revenues (Table 5.15) of both actors. These tables show that prvate actors n general take on most of the hard fnancal (development) rsks and the hghest amount of drect revenues. However, most cases also show that publc actors are not totally free of rsks and revenues. Especally n 2008 and 2009 market crcumstances were less favorable for project developers, who often had dffcultes wth delverng real estate and nfrastructure on the agreed tme because they were not able to sell houses. Therefore, local authortes are sometmes faced wth unfnshed nfrastructure that affects the accessblty of the ste and cty, and unsatsfactory real estate development progress causng tensons wth local resdents who look at the local authorty to come up wth a soluton to ther problems. Although t s dffcult to defne these rsks as fnancal, these soft rsks often are adopted by publc actors resultng n more overhead costs than estmated. In some cases the prvate actors, n addton to a fxed prce for the purchase of publc land, compensate publc actors for the overhead costs related to publc procedure actvtes, but not for the accdental nterference of local authortes n case of dffcult and sensble stuatons n whch the nterests of the local communty are at stake. Note that all our conclusons on publc rsks refer to the perod after whch publc land has been sold to the prvate developer for development. Of course, publc actors n general do have consderable fnancal rsks n perods before land sales have taken place, but ths was not applcable to our cases except for Den Haag Ypenburg Deelplan 20. 212 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Rsks Emprcal Rsks Publc Actor Publc Prvate Both N/a Concluson Soft rsks (publc opnon/poltcs) 6 0 1 3 Publc Fnancal rsks (add. overhead costs: nfra/process) 9 0 0 1 Publc Prvate Actor Publc Prvate Both N/a Concluson Plan development rsks (gudance) 0 10 0 0 Prvate Land acquston rsks (land owners) 3 6 0 1 Prvate Land development rsks (decontamnaton costs) 0 10 0 0 Prvate Real estate development rsks (market crcumstances) 0 10 0 0 Prvate Fnancal rsks (nterest rates) 0 9 1 0 Prvate Table 5.14 Emprcal rsks n Dutch cases Revenues Emprcal Revenues Publc Actor Publc Prvate Both N/a Concluson Fxed prce for purchasng land 8 0 0 2 Publc (f owned) Free land transfer after completon 10 0 0 0 Publc (publc space) Fxed prce overhead costs 10 0 0 0 Publc (publc procedures) Increased property tax (OZB) 10 0 0 0 Publc (ndrect: WOZ value housng) Prvate Actor Publc Prvate Both N/a Concluson Real estate development 0 9 1 0 Prvate Table 5.15 Emprcal revenues n Dutch cases Furthermore, publc actors often partcpate n and sometmes perform the underground nfrastructure development as ths actvty seems to be dffcult to undertake solely by prvate actors due to a lack of prvate knowledge on these types of works and the long term stake of publc actors n underground nfrastructure. Ths sometmes leads to addtonal costs as well. Nevertheless, both actors also menton the fact that local authortes often ndrectly beneft from the development as the ncreased WOZ value of the new developed housng eventually leads to an ncrease n the OZB (property tax) for the cty. Even so, there s one case n whch the publc actor obtans a part of the revenues from the sale of real estate by enterng nto a complcated fnancal agreement wth the prvate actor. Ths looks lke a constructon whch resembles jont venture arrangements; t potentally weakens the clear role dvson of publc and prvate actors n the concesson model. Hence, prvate actors solely rely on the fnancal return of sold real estate, but ths also potentally holds hgh proft margns. The man concluson on the rsk and revenue characterstcs of the Dutch prvate sector-led urban development cases therefore s: Prvate actors take on most of the hard fnancal (development) rsks and the largest amount of revenues n the concesson model n practce. However, publc actors do not reman rsk free 213 Cases n the Netherlands

as unfavorable market condtons often resolve n closer (fnancal) nvolvement and addtonal costs for local authortes when long term publc nterests are at stake, resultng n what we call the adopton of soft publc rsks. Nevertheless, publc actors n general are fnancally compensated for overhead costs and often beneft from long term fnancal effects such as free land adopton and ncreased housng taxes. Rules & requrements In the cases we have taken a closer look at what rules publc and prvate actors apply for dealng wth unforeseen crcumstances as ths mght ndcate how flexble legal contracts and agreements are. Unforeseen crcumstances consst of changng market or economc condtons and changes n the poltcal landscape that can affect the progress and process of the urban development. In all cooperaton agreements an artcle on unforeseen crcumstances s ncluded. Although the unforeseen crcumstances often are not clearly defned the general agreement s that both actors are oblged to delberate on the consequences of the crcumstances and make an effort to fnd a soluton to problems as long as these problems cannot be attrbuted to the fault of, or caused by, one of the actors. Despte the economc recesson of 2008 whch caused severe dffcultes for prvate actors to fnance developments wth reluctant bank nvestments and real estate sales to the market, unforeseen crcumstances have not been used delberately by the actors wthn the cases. Nevertheless, a lot of fnancal dffcultes n the selected cases were vsble. Project developers mnmzed rsks and costs whch often resolved n the postponement of nfrastructure delvery and the phased delvery of small housng blocks. Local authortes n ths case have no nstrument to speed up the process of realzaton as ths remans a responsblty of the prvate actor. However, some publc actors take on the development of nfrastructure, sometmes on request of the developer, and sometmes wthout clear agreements surpassng the agreed terms. Changed poltcs n our cases has not played a major role. However, some projects are characterzed by a long duraton, coverng several muncpal electons and poltcal party shfts. Often however, prvate actors menton the need for a clear separaton of publc project leaders from elected aldermen as a development success factor. The man concluson on dealng wth unforeseen crcumstances n the Dutch prvate sector-led urban development cases therefore s: Publc and prvate actors often delberate on the consequences of unforeseen crcumstances based on an artcle enclosed n the cooperaton agreement, tryng to fnd a common soluton for the problem by re-negotatng the program and fnance. But, some cases also show that publc actors n case of changed market condtons take the opportunty to get a frmer grp on the development through the adopton of the nfrastructure development task of the prvate actor. Ths s often welcomed by the prvate actor as t releves some fnancal pan, but on the long term undermnng the clear role dvson characterstc of concessons. In lterature often the mportance of the publc schedule of spatal requrements s mentoned; t gves publc actors an nstrument to clearly select prvate actors for the urban development project, t provdes the necessary spatal constrants for the prvate actors to desgn plans, and t could functon as a controllng devse for the judgment of plans. In the cases dfferent 214 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

varants and termnologes for ths publc schedule of spatal requrements can be found as well. Governments seem to understand the necessty of clearly defned publc objectves for the development. They often nvolve socal, envronmental and economc objectves, n whch spatal requrements most of the tme ntegrate these objectves. For nstance, the amount of affordable housng often s ncluded n the schedule of requrements. However, nner-cty cases also showed that tenderng and selectng prvate actors sometmes s based on the nvolvement of local developers and housng assocatons whch share the same objectves as local authortes. In qute some urban frnge projects developers who own the land also develop the land. In ths case publc schedules of spatal requrements are made n order to eventually control and judge prvate plans. The man concluson on the publc schedule of spatal requrements n the Dutch prvate sector-led urban development cases therefore s: Publc actors often use (varants of) a publc schedule of spatal requrements n order to acheve publc objectves. It seems to be an effectve publc tool to ntegrate and secure physcal, socal, envronmental and economc objectves n the tenderng, plan development and realzaton stages. 5.12.2 Management Management Functons Emprcal Management Functons Project Management Publc Prvate Both N/a Concluson Intatng 7 3 0 0 Publc Desgnng 0 6 4 0 Prvate / both Plannng 0 9 0 1 Prvate Operatng 9 0 0 1 Publc Process Management Publc Prvate Both N/a Concluson Negotatng 0 0 10 0 Both Decson-makng 0 0 10 0 Both Communcatng 2 1 6 0 Both Management Tools Publc Prvate Both N/a Concluson Shapng 6 0 0 4 Publc / n/a Regulatng 10 0 0 0 Publc Stmulatng 3 0 0 7 N/a Capacty buldng 2 1 0 8 N/a Management Resources Publc Prvate Both N/a Concluson Land 0 7 3 0 Prvate Captal 0 9 0 0 Prvate Knowledge 0 8 1 1 Prvate Table 5.16 Emprcal management measures n Dutch cases # 215 Cases n the Netherlands

In Chapter 2 we dscussed that the management of publc and prvate actors n prvate sectorled urban development projects has been underestmated as a way of nfluencng the outcome of projects. Therefore, at the base of ths research les the search to defne effectve and effcent management measures for publc and prvate actors cooperatng n prvate sector-led urban development projects. Based on the our emprcal case studes, we here descrbe the crosscase study fndngs of the emprcal management measures whch are descrbed n four man categores; project management, process management, management tools, and management resources. Table 5.16 shows whch emprcal management measures have been used by publc and prvate actors to nfluence Dutch prvate sector-led urban development projects. Project management actvtes In terms of ntatng development projects, the cases have shown that prvate actors often take the lead when they have land postons or real estate portfolos n the area. Then, publc actors and sometmes other prvate actors are approached to commt to ntended projects. Publc actors n some cases also take the lead to ntate the project when they have specfc spatal polcy objectves wth the area but lack of suffcent means to develop the area on ther own account. Then, publc actors tender developments, nvtng prvate actors to develop plan proposals. Nevertheless, we conclude that ntatng development n practce strongly depends on the local stuaton and that both actors play a role n ths. In terms of desgnng development projects, the cases have shown that prvate actors normally take the lead once ntenton agreements between them and publc actors are sgned. Although, we also notce that publc tenders often already result n prvate plan proposals wthout the development guarantees for the prvate actors, and we notce that some of the prvate actors come wth unsolcted proposals to publc actors. Publc actors rarely make desgns for the areas under development, although they often closely cooperate wth prvate actors n makng spatal desgns, n specfc when ths s related to the publc space. Nevertheless, we conclude that desgnng plans n practce s a prvate management actvty. In terms of plannng development projects, the cases have shown that prvate actors n all cases take the lead once desgns, land and fnance are n place. The plannng of the real estate development s a project management actvty decded by prvate actors. But, publc actors also nfluence the plannng of projects by puttng delvery control moments nto place. Furthermore, n qute some cases we notce that the publc actors nfluence by actvely nterferng n the realzaton stages wthout a legal bass to do so besdes the control moments. Ths often s the case when projects become delayed whch often causes strong publc commtment to the project. However, despte ths publc commtment and urgng prvate actors to proceed wth development no real nfluence s carred out on the project as publc actors smply lack the management tools to do so. Thus, we conclude that plannng development n practce s a management actvty strongly lead by prvate actors. In terms of operatng development projects, the cases have shown that publc actors n all cases after project delvery own publc space. Although, some projects were not completed yet we argue that, by eventually ownng ths space, publc actors are able to nfluence projects n the early stages by ncorporatng spatal and materal wshes for publc space. Hence, prvate actors also nfluence publc space characterstcs n all development stages wth the objectve of creatng hgh qualty envronments whch are fnancally benefcal to real estate values. Nevertheless, we conclude that operatng development n practce s a management actvty strongly led by publc actors. 216 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Process management actvtes In terms of negotatng n the development process, the cases have shown that publc actors are able to nfluence the process at the start of the development by negotatng plan proposals, whch enables them to mplement publc objectves n nfrastructure and publc spaces developed by prvate actors. Furthermore, negotatng take places when unforeseen crcumstances occur and both actors delberate on fnancal and programmatc project adjustments. For prvate actors the opportuntes to negotate wth publc actors to ncorporate prvate objectves nto the plan occur at smlar moments. Negotatng and barganng actvtes n the cases can be benefcal for both the actors. Thus, both actors have opportuntes to negotate the ncorporaton of publc and prvate objectves nto the project n the ntatve, desgn and realzaton stages. In terms of decson-makng n the development process, the cases have shown that prvate and publc actors are jontly makng decsons durng the process. However, once the realzaton stage has started the plannng of the project becomes a decson-makng actvty manly led by prvate actors. They are able to make decsons on the prortes of certan development functons n tme, although ths s sometmes bounded by specfc requrements from publc actors. Therefore, for publc actors, the emphass of decson-makng les n the pre-development stage of the project, by selectng prvate actors, determnng ther organzatonal role, ther management contrbuton, and decdng about process and content-related ssues. Thus, both actors nfluence developments based on nternal or nter-organzatonal decson-makng. In terms of communcatng n development processes, the cases have shown that communcaton between publc and prvate actors sometmes s structured by dfferent meetngs and legal approvals of plans durng the process. Nevertheless, we also notce that communcatng nfluences the development speed negatvely. Ths happens when publc actors are not aware of ther role n prvate sector-led projects, or when publc project managers are not able to algn the varous nterests of dfferent muncpal departments. Furthermore, prvate actors potentally negatvely nfluence processes through a lack of external communcaton wth and nvolvement of the local communty, causng local resdent and busness opposton to plans. Thus, both actors can mprove nternal and external communcaton as a management actvty. Management tools In terms of shapng development projects, the cases have shown that publc actors can use ndcatve general spatal plans and publc brefs as management tools to shape developments. These shapng tools secure that publc objectves eventually can be realzed and they condton the freedom of prvate actors to proceed wth development wthout takng other objectves nto account. Furthermore, these tools functon as rsk-decreasng ncentves for prvate actors as these documents secure the commtment of publc actors to the project. On the bass of these documents, prvate actors shape n most cases take responsblty for the desgns and plans whch often functons as a communcaton tool to publc and cvc actors. Thus, shapng as a tool to manage development projects s used by publc actors to create development certanty. In terms of regulatng development projects, the cases have shown that publc actors use land use plans, qualty and vsual condtons, and other contractual agreements to regulate development. Often, these publc regulatve condtons are very detaled and nflexble whch 217 Cases n the Netherlands

causes dffcultes for prvate actors to be creatve n desgns and to react on changng market demands. It seems that the nature of ths type of publc regulaton s not a characterstc of the concesson model tself, but rooted n the establshed regulatve way of workng from publc actors based on a belef that prvate actor s actons need to be regulated to prevent outcomes that mght be unbenefcal for the publc nterest. Nevertheless, the cases have shown that strct regulaton even enforces dstrust between publc and prvate actors and that when flexble condtons are n place the cooperaton seems less problematc. Thus, regulatng as a tool to manage development s led by publc actors, often resultng n too detaled and nflexble contractual condtons for prvate actors to work wth. In terms of stmulatng development projects, the cases have shown that publc actors n most nner-cty urban development use subsdes obtaned from central government funds to fnancally contrbute to and kck-start projects. But, n greenfeld locatons ths s not the case. The prvate actors welcome these subsdes, whch are often badly needed n otherwse fnancal unvable nner-cty busness cases. However, as publc actors n most cases are not fnancally dependent of the project, some prvate actors state that publc actors do not put n all the effort to get as much development subsdes as fast as possble. Some other publc actors stmulate development by actvely preparng and developng land, relevng prvate actors wth fnancal burdens. However, ths comes at the expense of less management nfluence and undermnng the prvate actor s poston n the concesson model. Hence, other publc ncentves for prvate actors that lower development rsks n the cases have not been found. Thus, by stmulatng development wth subsdes and land preparaton and development, publc actors just partly postvely nfluence projects. In terms of buldng capacty for development projects, the cases have shown that both actors try to get support for the project by consultng local resdents n plans. However, ths s often done after the major decsons have been made by both actors. Just a few cases showed that publc or prvate actors cooperated wth development partners lke local housng assocatons to buld development capacty. Nevertheless, structural partnershp arrangements to be used for the beneft of the project were not n place n most cases. In cases where capacty buldng was used as a management tool to nfluence the development, often less opposton to plans arose and more advantages occurred. In our cases t most often was the prvate actor who tred to buld capacty. Thus, buldng capacty as a management tool to nfluence development manly was led by prvate actors, however, structural partnershps and publc nvolvement wth local actors are absent n most cases. Management resources In terms of usng land as management resource for development projects, the cases have shown that prvate actors sometmes could use landownershp to nfluence developments. Ths most often was the case n greenfeld developments, where the prvate landownershp often resulted n the jont publc-prvate choce to develop the area based on the prvate sector-led concesson model, gvng prvate actors the opportunty to optmze land and real estate development. In nner-cty cases, landownershp was sometmes fragmented and the consequence of costly land acquston by publc or prvate actors often resulted n great fnancal defcts. However, we see that land becomes a powerful management resource for prvate actors once they own t and have the rght to develop t, whch can be agreed upon when sgnng the development contracts. 218 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

In terms of usng captal as management resource for development projects, the cases have shown that manly prvate actors secure fnance for development. However, the cases also show that securng captal n the form of bank loans became problematc once the economc crss occurred. Once fnance s secured, prvate actors allocate nvestment to dfferent development phases, securng sale returns to cover the expensve upfront land acqurng and development costs. Thus, we see a heavy relance on bank loans as a form of captal to manage projects for prvate actors. Other forms of rasng captal for development, let alone usng t as a management resource, were not vsble n the cases. Prvate actors, n some nner-cty cases were dependent on subsdes of publc actors to make busness cases feasble. Publc actors also nfluence development projects by fnancng them wth subsdes obtaned from central government funds for nner-cty development areas. The oblgaton publc actors often have made to prvate actors to contrbute nvestment are the result of a negotatng process whch allowed publc actors to ncorporate publc objectves nto the plan. Thus, captal as a management resource was used by prvate actors to nfluence developments, but t s heavly dependent on the provson of loans by banks n most cases, and some sort of publc subsdes n some cases. In terms of usng knowledge as management resource for development projects, the cases have shown that both publc and prvate actors use t for nfluencng developments. Publc actors use knowledge on publc procedures and the poltcal envronment, and prvate actors use knowledge of (local) market demand and project marketng, to nfluence development. But, knowledge as a management resource manly depends on the prvate actor s ablty to understand the market. In concluson, based on Table 5.16 and the cross-case analyss of the management measures above, we argue that: Dutch prvate sector-led urban development practce s not as much led by prvate actors as we mght have expected. Although prvate actors are very much nvolved n most of the management actvtes and use varous management nstruments, we also notce that publc actors stll use several management measures to nfluence projects. 5.12.3 Effects Publc Actor s Response Prvate Actor s Response Effects Yes No Y/N N/a Yes No Y/N N/a Effectveness cooperaton 5 3 0 1 9 0 0 1 (achevng objectves) Effcency process 3 4 2 1 3 3 4 0 (reducng tme & costs) Spatal qualty product (addng values) 5 0 2 3 6 1 2 1 Table 5.17 Emprcal effects of Dutch cases 219 Cases n the Netherlands

Notce that the attrbuton of all management measures to actors mentoned above comes wth the nuance that t does not tell us a great deal about the effects of these measures. Therefore, ths secton provdes more nsght nto the effects of the actons of publc and prvate actors n Dutch prvate sector-led urban development projects. The effects of the use of the prvate sector-led concesson model are determned qualtatvely by askng the nvolved publc and prvate actors about the effects of the publc-prvate cooperaton. The three effect varables are; the effectveness of the cooperaton, the effcency of the process, and the spatal qualty of the product. These varables refer to the possble postve clams of the concesson model mentoned n lterature (see Secton 4.2.4). Table 5.17 shows the response of the publc and prvate actors to the emprcal effects of the use of the prvate sector-led concesson model. Effectveness Table 5.18 shows that the prvate sector-led model n general s very effectve n achevng the ntended objectves. The publc and prvate actors however slghtly dffer on ths matter. The reason for ths on the one hand s that some developments have not been realzed yet and local authortes are more reluctant to say f all objectves wll be acheved n the end. On the other hand they argue that several mnor adjustments to the plans have been made by prvate actors n order to ft market demand. There are also some examples n whch the development has not entered the realzaton phase due to dffcult market crcumstances and poltcal sensble ssues, contrbutng to the concern of local authortes that the objectves wll not be acheved. The man concluson on the effectveness of the cooperaton n concesson cases s: The concesson model seems to be an effectve nstrument to acheve ntended objectves n the opnon of nvolved publc and prvate actors. But, changed crcumstances potentally lead to not achevng ntended goals. Effcency Table 5.18 shows that both actors n general are not convnced about the effcency of the process facltated by the concesson model. The amount of tme and costs nvolved sometmes n practce turns out to be hgher than estmated. Especally the ntensve collaboratons n the plan development phase are seen as neffcent. As ths s one of the few opportuntes for the local authorty to ncorporate ther wshes nto spatal desgn, ntensve negotatons take place. Furthermore, f publc authortes solely control plans at ths stage stll a lot of tme s spent when publc project leaders are not able to manage dfferent wshes from muncpal departments n a comprehensve manner. The realzaton stage n most cases does lead to more effcent processes as the prvate actors are able to manage the land and real estate development. The man concluson on the effcency of the process n the concesson cases s: The concesson model does not necessarly lead to an ef fcent process. The amount of tme and costs nvolved n the plan development phase n general turns out to be hgher than estmated. However, n the realzaton phase the process s consdered to be ef fcent. 220 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Spatal qualty Table 5.18 shows that a large majorty of publc and prvate actors respond that the concesson model s able to delver spatal qualty. However, t s of mportance to note that most ntervewees also argue that other models could facltate spatal qualty as well, and that n achevng satsfyng qualty levels other factors also play a role. So, there s no reason to assume that there s a causal relatonshp between the use of the concesson model and more spatal qualty, whch sometmes s clamed by supporters of concessons. However, the model tself does not undermne spatal qualty as often s stated by ts crtcs. Some ntervewees menton that user and experence values can be measured but that future value of the development cannot be measured accordng to qualty standards of our tme. Other argue that hgher qualty levels are acheved than expected due to the ablty of prvate actors to fnd an optmum between fnance and qualty consderatons n urban developments. Addtonally, from November untl December 2011 a survey on spatal qualty was conducted (see Appendx II). The reason for ths was that the frst round of ntervews n 2009 wth publc and prvate actors about ther opnon of the project s spatal qualty was consdered to be too general to make actual conclusons. Therefore, we proposed at least to objectvze and operatonalze spatal qualty by usng dfferent crtera categorzed nto user, experence and future values (see Hoojmejer et al. (2001). Moreover, to verfy the retreved data of nvolved publc and prvate actors we proposed to nclude cvc stakeholders as well. As they do not have a drect nvolvement wth the project they mght therefore not be based. In terms of research technque, actors were asked to complete the survey by emal after whch telephone conversaton took place. In ths conservaton certan crtera were clarfed and respondents could elaborate on ther opnons about spatal qualty. In total 17 actors responded; ths ncluded 6 publc, 8 prvate, and 3 cvc actors, out of total of 9 cases. Hence, the Den Haag Ypenburg case was not ncluded as t dd not commence; therefore the local authorty argues ts spatal qualty cannot be measured. Table 5.18 ndcates the publc, prvate and cvc actors cumulatve response to the dfferent crtera. Delberately, we asked respondents to dentfy whether they thought spatal qualty crtera were acheved or not on an ordnal scale. We delberately dd not measure qualty on an nterval scale, whch allows actors to gve a gradng from 1 to 10 to crtera for nstance, for good academc reasons stated by Bnnekamp (2011). Overall, Table 5.18 ndcates that the actors responses to the dfferent spatal qualty crtera n ther development are qute postve. In comparson to the Table 5.17 there are no real overall dfferences. Ths confrms our concluson that the use of the concesson model can facltate the spatal qualty of projects, and moreover, that there s no causal relatonshp between them. Nevertheless, the survey provded some more detaled understandng of acheved spatal qualty apprecatons. The only remarkable response nvolves the crtera vsblty and adaptablty. Wth regard to vsblty the respondents ndcate that ths s manly due to the solated locaton of the ste tself. Wth regard to adaptablty the respondents ndcate that ths s manly due to the ntenton of the actors to buld a housng neghborhood for a longer perod. To put t nto other words; there s no ntenton to adapt functons to dfferent purposes n the future. Thus, based on our data collecton, the concluson remans that spatal qualty can be acheved wth prvate sector-led urban development projects. There s no real negatve relatonshp, f any relatonshp at all, between prvate sector-led urban development and spatal qualty. 221 Cases n the Netherlands

Spatal Qualty Publc, Prvate & Cvc Actors Response Value Crtera Yes No Y/N N/a User Value Reachableness (berekbaarhed) 15 2 0 0 (gebrukswaarde) Accessblty (toegankeljkhed) 15 2 0 0 Nearness (nabjhed) 17 0 0 0 Safety (velghed) 16 1 0 0 Experence Suveyablty (overzchteljkhed) 16 0 0 1 Value Vsblty (zchtbaarhed) 13 4 0 0 (ervarngswaarde) Dstngushablty (herkenbaarhed) 17 0 0 0 Vsual qualty (beeldkwaltet) 15 0 0 2 Dversty (dverstet) 15 1 1 0 Densty (dchthed) 15 1 0 1 Future Value Adaptablty (aanpasbaarhed) 6 9 1 1 (toekomstwaarde) Fttableness (npasbaarhed) 16 0 0 1 Sustanablty (duurzaamhed) 15 1 0 1 Table 5.18 Emprcal spatal qualty n cases based on survey The man concluson on the product s spatal qualty n the concesson cases s: The concesson model n general facltates spatal qualty as most publc and prvate actors state to be satsfed wth the acheved spatal qualty level. However, there s no proof of a causal relatonshp between the use of the model and project s spatal qualty, as ths s nfluenced by many other factors. 5.12.4 Experences Here, the experences of publc and prvate actors wth the use of concesson model are descrbed. In successve order, we present the emprcal motves, problems and recommendatons, and condtons for prvate sector-led urban development projects. Motves The ntervewees were asked about the emprcal motves to choose the concesson model n ther specfc case. Table 5.19 presents the response of publc actors. Ths table ndcates some clear patterns. Almost all local authortes made the delberate choce to use the model as a way of realzng the development, although some respond that they dd not use the concesson model as such to descrbe the publc-prvate cooperaton. The lack of labor capacty has been a major motve. However, sometmes ths s related to the amount of development projects wthn the cty n whch local authortes have staff nvolved. Qute remarkably, just four out of ten ntervews menton the fact that a lack of fnancal capacty s 222 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

the reason for usng the model. Ths s remarkable as t s assumed that prvate actors gan more nfluence partly because local authortes have less fnancal means to actvely develop locatons. However, small muncpaltes n these cases often do have nsuffcent fnancal means. The rsk transfer to the prvate sector s mentoned by all ten publc actors as motve, whch could ndcate that prvate actors beforehand expect that the development wll not cause them any rsks. As we have seen n practce ths s not always the case. The ntatve of prvate actors n the selected cases s lmted to four out of ten. Ths shows that unsolcted proposal of developers n these cases at least are not common. Prvate landownershp has been a reason n four out of ten cases as three out of fve urban frnge projects had prvate landownershp at the start of the project. The local authortes also mentoned other motves such as; expermentng wth a new cooperaton model, speedng up the delvery of housng targets, creatng more effcent and effectve publc organzatons, the presence of housng assocatons that can take care of the soft rsks, and the project s complexty whch asks for a combnaton of land and real estate development carred out by prvate organzatons. Publc Actor s Response Motves Yes No Y/N N/a Delberate Choce 9 1 0 0 Labor capacty of publc actor 6 2 2 0 Fnancal capacty of publc actor 4 6 0 0 Rsk transfer to prvate actor 10 0 0 0 Intatve by prvate actor 4 5 1 0 Land ownershp of prvate actor 4 6 0 0 Table 5.19 Emprcal motves from publc actors to choose concessons The man concluson on motves to choose the concesson model for the cases s: Publc actors made the delberate choce to use the concesson model for the projects. The man motves are the transfer of rsks to the prvate sector and lack of labor capacty of the publc sector. Other motves lke the lack of fnancal capacty, prvate sector ntatves, and prvate landownershp are less common. Problems & Recommendatons Publc Actor Prvate Actor Experences Yes No Y/N N/a Yes No Y/N N/a General satsfacton 8 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 Next tme concesson 5 5 0 0 8 2 0 0 Table 5.20 Emprcal experences from actors wth the use concessons 223 Cases n the Netherlands

It s hard to generalze about the experences from both actors wth the use of the concesson model. Nevertheless, two man topcs dscussed wth the ntervewees could provde a general concluson applcable to most of the cases; the experences wth the cooperaton n general, and the queston f they would use the model for an urban development project next tme based on ther current knowledge and experence. Table 5.20 shows the experences from both publc and prvate actors wth the use of the concesson model. In general the experences of the actors wth the concesson model are good, stated by eght out of ten publc and prvate actors. Nevertheless, half of the local authortes menton that next tme they wll not use the concesson model for urban developments. Publc actors also menton that most prvate actors are performng ther work on a professonal bass, makng t harder to judge and crtcze the cooperaton n an ntervew as unsatsfactory, as both partes need to proceed wth the development project n the near future. Furthermore, t s nterestng that despte the hgh rsks nvolved prvate actors n general state that the concesson model s a good way of publc-prvate cooperaton. However, when asked f both actors would use the concesson model n the future, half of the local authortes responded negatvely. The reason for ths mentoned s the absence of publc management possbltes. Nevertheless, on the bass of the Dutch cases we can conclude that there are no negatve development effects when prvate actors take the lead n development; t however mplcates a new type of role for publc actors whch they mght not be used to. In summary, sx problems or unsolved ssues have been frequently mentoned by the actors nvolved n the collaboraton and management of the Dutch emprcal prvate sector-led urban development projects, ncludng: We aganst them relatonshp nstead of a cooperatve sphere; Lack of publc role consstency durng realzaton stage; Thn lne between judgment and control of plan proposals; Commtment and competences of publc project managers; Communcaton wth and nvolvement of the local communty; Lack of publc management n development process. The we aganst them relatonshp between publc and prvate actors s mentoned by several ntervewees. Both publc and prvate actors menton that the strct separaton of tasks, responsbltes, rsks and revenues undermnes the bass for cooperaton. It results n less support for and commtment to the development project manly from the publc actor as they are only allowed to react on prvate plans and don t share the fnancal ncentve to cooperate effectvely. Here we notce an mportant paradox. The formal agreement between the actors s based on separatng ther roles, but practce shows that close cooperaton on tasks n general s consdered as postve n the pre-development stages. The recommendaton s to fnd an ncentve for and an agreement about the nvolvement of publc actors n the project. Local authortes seem to have dffcultes n remanng role consstent. They often nterfere n the realzaton stages when publc nterests are at stake, whle the realzaton stage of the development on paper s solely a responsblty of the prvate actor. A pattern can be dstngushed n relaton to postve effects where local authortes are able to mantan ther role as facltator durng the realzaton stages. However, due to changed crcumstances publc actors often do not have a choce but to nterfere as they become poltcally accountable 224 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

for the progress of the project. The recommendaton s to contractually agree upon a process agreement whch ndcates the perodcal moments for the local authorty to examne f prvate delvery goes accordng to the agreed terms. The publc judgment versus control of prvate plans also s mentoned qute often. At the moment prvate actors submt plan documents the local authorty s able to control the delvered documents by checkng f the documents comply wth the formulated publc requrements. However, qute often there s a thn lne between actually controllng and fundamentally judgng the delvered products. The judgment often ncludes the addton of several wshes of the publc actor whch have not been agreed upon beforehand. As prvate actors take the rsks for the development they often gve n to these addtonal wshes n order to secure a good relatonshp that s needed for the long term fnancal result of the project. The recommendaton s to defne clear process agreements on the condtons for addng or changng (publc) objectves to submtted plans n certan stuatons. In some cases the mportance of the role of the publc project leader s dscussed by the prvate actors. A project leader from the local authorty has an mportant poston for the effcency of the development process. Not only s he/she responsble for the judgment of prvate plans, he/she also needs to manage the dfferent muncpal departments. Some prvate actors argue that a lot of frustraton and process neffcency occurred when publc project leaders only functoned as a servce-hatch and were not able to manage the departments. The recommendaton s to appont a publc project leader wth enough knowledge to equally cooperate wth the prvate counterpart as well as one that s able to manage the sometmes conflctng nterests of muncpal departments. Another ssue sometmes mentoned by the publc actors s the communcaton and nvolvement of the local communty. The prvate actors n prncple take on the responsblty to nvolve local resdents and busness communtes n the plan development and realzaton of the project. In practce however some publc ssues tend to be dffcult to manage solely by prvate actors. When the local communty s dssatsfed wth the way the development s carred out they mostly turn to the local authorty to express ther dssatsfacton and ask for solutons. In those stuatons t s poltcally mpossble for local authortes to redrect local resdents to solve ther problems wth the responsble developer. Not all developers seem to be aware of the mportance of communcatng wth the communty and do not undertake suffcent effort to solve ths ssue. The recommendaton s to make a clear communcaton agreement for the organzaton that s best equpped for nvolvng the local communty. Publc actors often nterpret the decreased manageablty of the project as problematc. Local authortes experences that, because plan and land development tasks and responsbltes at least on paper are attrbuted to the prvate sector, the local authorty s faced wth fewer nstruments to manage the plan development and land and real estate development. They argue that they can only nfluence the outcome of the development n the pre-development stage through the publc schedule of spatal requrements and the adopton of the land use plan. Wthout the man means for development, captal and land, t comes down to these two moments to secure publc nterests. However, the conclusons on publc and prvate management measures n ths secton show that the publc actors do have other possbltes to manage the project; nevertheless publc actors seem not to be aware of ths. The recommendaton s to ncrease the awareness for publc actors to use dfferent types of management measures to nfluence development projects. 225 Cases n the Netherlands

In summary, the sx recommendatons and mprovements mentoned by the actors to deal wth current problems n the Dutch concesson model are: Cooperate n pre-development stage for publc support & commtment; Strve for publc role consstency n realzaton stage; Defne clear process agreements about moments of control & dscusson; Appont publc managers to connect the plannng & development process; Make a clear communcaton plan to nvolve communtes & busnesses; Search for other publc management measures to nfluence development. The man concluson on the experences wth concesson cases therefore s: Both actors n general are satsfed wth the cooperaton tself, although publc actors reman reluctant to use the concesson model next tme. The man experences of the nvolved publc and prvate actors nvolve ssues lke; the we aganst them relatonshp, the lack of publc role consstency, the thn lne between judgment and control of plan proposals, the commtment and competences of project leaders, the decreased publc management possbltes, and the communcaton wth and nvolvement of the local communty. Condtons The theoretcal condtons for the use of the concesson model formulated by Heurkens et al. (2008) before actual emprcal research fndngs were avalable, are: Manageable scale of the project Mnmal socal and poltcal complexty of the project Manageable duraton of the project Maxmum freedom to act as a prvate actor The data analyss of the concesson cases ndcates that all condtons to a large extent stll are applcable. However, when we take a closer look at these condtons a manageable project scale and duraton, and the maxmum freedom to act as a prvate actor seems to be more applcable as a condton than the mnmal complexty of a project. A manageable scale and duraton of a project seems to be determned by the possblty to manage unfavorable market condtons. The prvate actor n dffcult tmes s unable to fnance the development and sell an approprate amount of houses to cover the rsks solely taken by them. Prvate rsk management seems to better sut condtons of small scale projects, short project duratons, and the maxmum freedom to act. The condton of mnmal socal and poltcal complexty s not always necessary for applyng the concesson model, although Delotte et al. (2011: 11) argue that ths s a recommendaton for the successful applcaton of the concesson model. It s dffcult to gve a balanced statement about ths soco-poltcal condton as t mplcates a whole set of dfferent crcumstances. Some of the cases ndcate that the actors were able to handle qute complex nner-cty development projects (Neuw Crooswjk, De Laares) and n another nner-cty case (Tlburg Wagnerplen) poltcal and socal complexty led to problems. So, the statement that only easy urban frnge projects are sutable for usng the concesson model does not always hold ground. 226 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

The man concluson for the emprcal condtons to use the concesson model on the bass of our fndngs therefore s: The manageable scale and duraton of the project, and the maxmum freedom to act as a prvate actor, are confrmed as crtcal condtons for a successful cooperaton based upon the concesson model. However, the cases also ndcate that concesson model projects do not necessarly have to be condtoned by mnmal poltcal and socal complexty, as some cases show that complex nner-cty development projects also could be successfully realzed on the bass of ths prvate sector-led approach. 5.13 Conclusons In ths chapter we explored the Dutch prvate sector-led urban development practce by descrbng and analyzng ten concesson cases n terms of organzaton, management, effects, and experences. The reason for studyng these cases les n the fact that we wanted an answer to the followng queston: How do publc and prvate actors organze and manage Dutch prvate sector-led urban development projects, and what are the project effects and actor experences? In terms of organzaton, n practce, we can dstngush dfferent varatons n the organzatonal characterstcs of the concesson model. Hence, a pure concesson model n accordance wth the theory n practce does hardly exst. We have seen that the cooperatve roles of publc and prvate actors n Dutch prvate sector-led urban development projects dffer substantally. For example, the concesson model mples that publc actors do not take on rsks and revenues from development projects. However, the cases show that local authortes do have soft rsks closely related to poltcal ssues, and can have a fnancal stake n the revenue sharng wth prvate actors. In relaton to ths, prvate actors often regard the role nconsstency of publc actors n practce as unwanted n terms of process effcency. In terms of management, we conclude that not all cases can be consdered as prvate sectorled urban development projects; n some cases publc actors take on substantal actvtes to manage these projects or management s carred out n close cooperaton. Ths s most evdent the project management actvty of desgnng plans, whch often s the result of ntensve publc-prvate cooperaton through negotatons and decson-makng about the spatal plan and qualty level. Interestng to notce as well s the fact the Dutch local authortes manly use ther regulatng plannng tools as a management nstrument to nfluence development. Shapng, stmulatng and capacty buldng tools are less commonly used by publc actors. Ths ndcates that they mght not be aware of these nstrumental possbltes to manage project. Furthermore, the tendency towards regulatng prvate actors actons by usng detaled spatal and qualtatve condtons shows that some publc actors are not aware that a concesson model prncple s for prvate actors to obtan a certan degree of freedom to act. Nonetheless, prvate actors also tend to focus prmarly on rather hard management resources lke land and captal to nfluence development projects. 227 Cases n the Netherlands

In terms of effects, we conclude that publc-prvate cooperaton on the bass of the concesson model results n relatvely postve project effects. It s consdered as effectve and satsfyng spatal qualty levels can be acheved as well. However, only half of the publc and prvate actors fnd ths an effcent way of workng whch s a result of the fact that pre-development consensus takes more tme than expected. Hence, based on the case studes, we can conclude that even the concesson model s a sutable way for developng nner-cty development projects and that t s not just applcable to greenfeld stes. Here t seems that a reasonable project scale s a more mportant condton for applyng the prvate sector-led approach as t proved to be dffcult for prvate actors to manage the rsks nvolved. In terms of experences, both actors n general are satsfed wth the cooperaton tself. Nevertheless, some problems whch often occur n practce were stated by the publc and prvate actors nvolved. Also, several recommendatons and mprovements for current practce have been mentoned to deal wth these problems of the frst generaton of Dutch concessons (see Secton 5.12.4). These recommendatons may stll be applcable to future prvate sectorled urban development context n the Netherlands. However, as the Dutch urban development practce context changes overtme we wll crtcally revew the need for mplementng these mprovements n future prvate sector-led urban development projects (see Chapter 8). In summary, t seems that both actors stll encounter df fcultes to cooperate n accordance wth prvate sector-led urban development prncples. Local authortes n some cases are not completely aware that ths type of cooperatng mples that they have to gve away some management possbltes to prvate actors and that they should stay role consstent. Also prvate actors n some cases are not completely aware that ther ncreased management possbltes also mply that they take on more rsks and other responsbltes than they are used to. An example of whch s takng care of communty nvolvement and capacty buldng as a possble way to manage projects. These ssues stll need to be resolved n order to make ths type of prvate sector-led development n the Netherlands more future proof. Therefore, one of the man conclusons s that prvate sector-led urban developments n the Netherlands s not (yet) characterzed as a mature way of publc-prvate cooperaton, as several problems and msconceptons stll exst n practce. We already recommended some drectons for the mprovement of the Dutch form of prvate sector-led urban development based on the emprcal materal presented n ths chapter. However, we dd not obtan suffcent knowledge n the Dutch cases to desgn preferable future roles for publc and prvate actors n ths type of cooperaton. Therefore, we need to create a better understandng of the phenomenon of prvate sector-led urban development by broadenng our vew towards foregn practces. To start wth, n the followng chapters, we take a closer look at how urban development n the UK can be characterzed and how publc and prvate actors cooperate n prvate sector-led urban development projects. 228 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

6 Urban Development n the UK 6.1 Introducton Gven the fact that we ndcated that Dutch development practce s ncreasngly nfluenced by more prvate sector ntatves and less publc nvestment t s nterestng to learn from the Unted Kngdom (UK). Frst, we note that t s hard to make a clear dstncton between what s consdered as UK and England n a lot of plannng related ssues. To mnmze confuson, we focus on the broader context of the UK as general subject of study, and hghlght England when specfc crcumstances dctate. Second, ths chapter does not have the ambton to cover all UK s urban development ssues. Rather, relevant nformaton n relaton to our research subject s explored. Fnally, ths chapter manly refers to knowledge obtaned untl 2010 as both lterature revew and case study research were carred durng ths perod. As such t does not cover most recent changes to UK plannng polces and practce under the current Conservatve-Lberal coalton government. The overall purpose of studyng UK s urban development practce n general, and t s prvate sector-led urban development projects n specfc (see Chapter 7), s to draw lessons and seek nspraton for the Netherlands that can assst to solve several problems and ssues mentoned n the Dutch cases n the prevous chapter. The reason to look at the UK les n that t s consdered to be an establshed plannng system and practce that n general can be regarded as prvate sector-led. Nadn et al. (2008) argues that the system of plannng and development n England s strongly shaped by the understandng that most development s undertaken by prvate nterests or by publc bodes actng very much lke prvate nterests. The plannng system generally seeks to shape prvate sector development proposals. Furthermore, UK s urban development s consdered to contan clearer dvded roles between the publc and prvate sector n terms of tasks, responsbltes and the rsk and revenue attrbuton, based on Anglo-Saxon prncple of dvdng publc-prvate domans. Ths s n lne wth the need to clarfy the more hybrd roles of both actors n Dutch urban development practce. As the context of urban development n the UK s dfferent from the Netherlands, we here try to understand ts general characterstcs. These characterstcs can be regarded as condtonal for the way actors cooperate on and manage development projects. Therefore, ths chapter provdes nsght nto urban development n the UK n a smlar order as Chapter 4. In successve order, relevant topcs to our research are dscussed ncludng the context for urban development (Secton 6.1), the organzatonal roles of publc and prvate actors (Secton 6.2), followed by some man conclusons (Secton 6.3). 229 Urban Development n the UK

6.2 Context of UK s Urban Development Ths contextual secton takes nto account urban plannng system characterstcs (Secton 6.1.1), an overvew of urban regeneraton n the UK (Secton 6.1.2), followed by a closer look at two perods of urban regeneraton, the Entrepreneural Regeneraton of the 1980s (Secton 6.1.3) and New Labour regeneraton of the late 1990s (Secton 6.1.4). helps us to understand the characterstcs and ssues n UK s urban development that form the background of our case study research n Chapter 7. 6.2.1 Urban Plannng System Here, we hghlght some characterstcs of the UK plannng system that are of partcular nterest to our research on Dutch prvate sector-led urban development projects, and urban plannng n the Netherlands n general. In essence, the urban plannng system n the UK can be postoned as a land use management model (see Chapter 2). Accordng to Dühr et al. (2010: 182) the nature of ths model s that t s prmarly concerned wth the regulaton of (changes n) the use of land and property; the operaton of plannng s geared to managng physcal development, mostly at a local level, though some regulaton may be done at hgher levels. Ths s a narrow scope n terms of the role of plannng, but development s managed n order to meet general plannng prncples and wder socetal goals such as housng provson and protectng envronmental hertage [e.g. urban contanment]. It makes use of polcy statements and decson rules and there are extensve mechansms for ctzen nvolvement. Ths style model of plannng s partcularly assocated wth prvate sector-led development and land value capture. Notce that, although ths UK system s based on hstorcal tradtons whch are embedded n publc law, several nternatonal plannng system characterstcs overlap each other and can nfluence one another. For example, recent lterature mentons the emergence of a spatal plannng approach n England (see Nadn, 2007, Shaw & Lord, 2009), whch s more smlar to some European plannng systems. In relaton to the above, t seems qute obvous why our research nterest les n the characterstcs of UK plannng and development. Other Dutch authors preceded us n partcular nterest and have mentoned crucal characterstcs of the UK system. For nstance, Janssen- Jansen & Woltjer (2010) argue that n ther search for nternatonal cross-references for Dutch plannng, three basc characterstcs of the UK plannng system have attracted the most attenton of Dutch planners (e.g. Spaans, 2005): the establshment of comprehensve prncples for project coordnaton, ncludng prvate sector nvolvement and negotaton; optons for the settlement of plannng gan, packagng nterests and regonal redstrbuton; nsttuton of development-orented plannng; and dscreton for plannng decsons. Nonetheless, by no means do they represent the complex UK plannng system as a whole. Therefore, we descrbe some crucal nter-related characterstcs n more detal herenafter. 230 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

In summary, the UK plannng system characterstcs are as follows: Dscreton n plannng decsons; Development-led plannng tradton; Project-orented plannng approach; Negotaton-orented flexble plannng processes. Frst, the most notable characterstc of the UK plannng system s the unusual extent to whch t embraces dscreton. Dscreton, accordng to Cullngworth & Nadn (2006), allows for flexblty n nterpretng the publc nterest, whch s n sharp contrast to other systems, lke the European and US systems whch explctly am at reducng such uncertanty, layng emphass on protectng property rghts. Hence, t s mportant to notce that property rghts n the UK are defned dfferently than n the Netherlands. In general ndvdual ownershp n the UK s less socally-bounded than n Contnental Europe. In the Netherlands for nstance, local authortes n practce often purchase land or buldngs from local owners f t s n the common nterest for socety. Hence, accordng to Needham (2006: 34), n the Anglo-Saxon tradton, t s not the resource [e.g. buldngs, land] whch s owned, but the rghts n that resource; those rghts are property. Ths allows property owners to trade property rghts wth others who than are allowed to use these rghts. Ths has resulted n an actve land use (market) system (see also Shaw & Lord, 2009). Furthermore, dscreton n the plannng system exst alongsde the publc law nstrument development control. In ths regard, Shaw & Lord (2009) argue that the UK plannng system s hghly effectve n stoppng development and less effectve n stmulatng t. Development control n the UK means that no development s allowed wthout pror [publc plannng] permsson (Needham, 2006: 113). He argues that these two concepts work together; If a local plannng authorty has [an] ambton, t tres to realze ths durng the development control process [wth publc-prvate negotatons] by usng the dscreton whch the publc law rules gve (Needham, 2006: 113-114). Hence, especally n the recent years there has been a debate about the detachment of development rghts and land ownershp n the Netherlands (e.g. VROM-raad, 2009). The expectaton s that detachment of rghts and ownershp would make nner-cty transformaton projects wth often scattered land ownershp easer to realze. However, as our research has a project-orented approach we manly vew ths UK plannng system characterstc as a contextual factor. Second, the urban plannng system n the UK can be classfed as a development-led system. Ths characterstc s best explaned by explanng ts counterpart of the plan-led system. Munoz- Gelen (2010: 37) explans the dfference between the two systems as follows. In the plan-led tradton, legally bndng land use plans are made before there s contact between publc bodes, developers and landowners, and the development-led tradton negotatons wth developers and landowners precede the makng of legally bndng land use rules. In development-led systems, ndcatve plans are used as the bass for negotatons resultng n bndng rules and buldng permts. Whereas, n plan-led systems bndng land use plans are used for negotatons resultng n possble modfcatons of bndng plans and buldng permts. Note that prncples of the plan-led system has been ntroduced n the UK, to secure a greater degree of certanty about publc development ntentons. Shaw & Lord (2009) argue that ths system has the ntenton to reach beyond narrow land use regulaton to develop a more coordnated and consensus-based approach to plannng practce. As such the Plannng and Compulsory Purchase Act (PCPA, 231 Urban Development n the UK

2004) has been ntroduced. Ths s a spatal law currently functonng alongsde the exstng Town and Country Plannng Act (TCPA, 1990) (see Hobma, 2009), whch puts more emphass on producng a varety of ndcatve plannng frameworks on the regonal and local levels. Nonetheless, the Dutch nterest n a development-led system s understandable as a more development-orented approach already emerged n the Netherlands labelled as development plannng (Dutch: ontwkkelngsplanologe) (see Secton 4.2). Janssen-Jansen & Woltjer (2010) argue that Dutch plannng hghlghts the mportance of protecton and a farly standardzed way of consderng projects. Generally, Dutch developers have to adhere to standardzed government norms n the land use plan and therefore must make the project conform to local plans. These plans are prepared ntensvely by publc servants and then followed carefully by poltcans, leavng lttle room for unconstraned ndvdual poltcal judgment on projects. Plannng then remans a legalstc, admnstratve functon amed strongly at protecton and legal securty (Janssen-Jansen & Woltjer, 2010). Moreover, we notce a desre from developers to look for more flexble development constrants. Therefore, we could also learn from ths partcular UK plannng system characterstc. Thrd, related to the development-led system, another characterstc of the UK plannng system s the establshment of prncples of project plannng, n partcular the assocaton of publc and prvate actors n negotatng plannng projects (Bregman, 1999). Janssen-Jansen & Woltjer (2010) ndcate that also current Dutch plannng s related to a less comprehensve, more project-orented approach. Clearly, Dutch planners have had a strong nterest n projectorentated decson-makng (see Hobma et al., 2008). However, a fundamental problem of Dutch project coordnaton s the legal dffculty to allow for flexblty for projects as bndng regonal and local spatal plans are debated to play too restrctve role due to the land use plan s nflexble nature (e.g. Djken et al., 2011; Van der Krabben, 2011b). For nstance, the local land use plan has been descrbed as a mechansm of rejecton, and a jammng staton to successful ntatves (see Voogd, 2004). But, a project-orented approach also has a dsadvantage. In the UK, local authortes have dffcultes to mtgate the effects of project-orented development. The man crtcsm s ts dffculty to jon-up developments and to produce a whole that s greater than the sums of the parts. Nonetheless, the flexble nature of project plannng holds promsng aspects for prvate sector-led urban development projects n the Netherlands. Fourth, another related characterstc, both the dscreton and the project-orented plannng approach, s that the UK system allows for negotaton and flexblty n development. Local dstrcts n the UK wll always have the opton to take nto consderaton some case-specfc crcumstances and make decsons on the poltcal acceptablty of a specfc project (Bregman, 1999). Hobma et al. (2008) argue that the allowance for dscreton n the Englsh plannng system s caused by the absence of legally bndng plannng documents. Plans are made under law, but are not part of the consttuton. Ths stuaton affects the outcome of plans n such a way that the decson-makng on plans s characterzed as a process of negotaton and medaton (Janssen-Jansen & Woltjer, 2010). The dscreton creates both flexblty n makng plans n lne wth specfc local needs, but also t creates market uncertanty about plannng support of local authortes for (re)development areas. Often, ths results n a pro-actve atttude of both prvate and cvc nsttutons n buyng or protectng land for development thereby securng ther nterests. Hence, dscreton thus allows more room for other actors to make decsons on development projects whch mght be a crucal condton for prvate sector-led projects to take effect. 232 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Moreover, negotaton s of partcular Dutch nterest, as t ncludes the potental to ncrease plannng successes, to package nterests, and to redstrbute values. The use of profts from housng or commercal development for the beneft of local nfrastructure ncludng parks s ncluded n ths (Premus, 2002). The dea s for prvate partes to take on extra development oblgatons wthn ther plan of project (Janssen-Jansen & Woltjer, 2010). In a settng of dmnshng governmental budgets ths type of negotated package deals can be a means to realze publc objectves wth prvate contrbutons. The benefcal result of development for the publc nterest than s defned as a plannng gan. However, accordng to Janssen-Jansen & Woltjer (2010), the potental to negotate the scope and substance of projects s lmted n the Netherlands, as separate plannng agreements for a project does not exst. Plannng project mplementon does not formally take the form of a negotable agreement package. There s a strong nterest to make changes n that drecton, however (see Wolsnk, 2003; Janssen- Jansen, 2008; Hobma et al., 2008; Bouwfonds, 2008). Also notce that the flexblty of the Englsh plannng system brngs about constant shfts of plannng polces (Cullngworth & Nadn, 2006). The nature of polcy statements to a degree depend on the central government party n charge. Notce that Conservatve and New Labour polces have strongly nfluenced the drecton of local urban regeneraton (see Gough, 2002; Peck & Tckell, 2002, 2006; Fuller & Geddes, 2008). Thus, also local decson-makng on development drectons s sgnfcantly nfluenced by regularly changng poltcs, a feature less apparent n the Netherlands. In summary, De Zeeuw & Hobma (2008) argue that t s especally the combnaton of the needs for dscreton, actve development, project coordnaton and negotaton, whch makes the UK experence a useful source of nspraton for Dutch planners. In addton, we wll focus on how such features actually take effect n the way both actors organze and manage prvate sector-led urban development projects. The followng sectons focus on UK s urban regeneraton practce by descrbng ts man characterstcs. 6.2.2 Urban Regeneraton 233 Urban Development n the UK Urban regeneraton can be seen as the equvalent of Dutch urban area development as t s a plannng mplementaton actvty rooted n practce focused on areas. Urban regeneraton comes wth nterrelatng and nterchangeable terms such as urban revtalzaton, renewal and redevelopment. These terms are commonly used by academcs, government and meda, essentally relatng to the same plannng and development process. Roberts (2000) defnes urban regeneraton as the development of urban areas on the bass of a comprehensve and ntegrated vson and acton whch leads to the resoluton of urban problems and whch seeks to brng about a lastng mprovement n the economc, physcal, socal and envronmental condtons of an area that has been subject to change (Roberts, 2000: 17). Furthermore, accordng to Tallon (2009: 5-6), there s a great deal of pragmatsm and expermentaton n mplementng regeneraton. Others lke Hausner (1993: 526) emphasze the nherent weaknesses of urban regeneraton approaches as they are short-term, fragmented, ad-hoc and project-based wthout an overall strategc framework for cty

wde development, due to ts nterventonst changeable nature (Roberts & Sykes, 2000: 22). Nonetheless, urban regeneraton s of sgnfcant mportance to UK ctes, as Tallon (2009: 6) argues that there s the wdespread problematc downturn of cty centers, whch eventually affects everybody. Therefore, Roberts (2000) argues that effectve regeneraton s of fundamental mportance to a wde range of actors. As such, the man goal of urban regeneraton s to alter the varous problems related to UK ctes. Table 6.1 summarzes the approaches to urban regeneraton n the UK n terms of ts dmensons and related concerns. Dmenson Economc Socal/cultural Physcal/envronmental Governance Table 6.1 Approaches to urban regeneraton (source: Tallon, 2009: 6) Concern Job creaton, ncome, employment, sklls, employablty development Qualty of lfe, health, educaton, crme, housng, qualty of publc servces Infrastructure, bult & natural envronment, transportaton & communcaton Nature of local decson-makng, engagement of local communty, nvolvement of other groups, style of leadershp Snce the late 2000s, some crucal urban regeneraton concepts are apparent, summarzed as urban regeneraton agendas by Turok (2005). In our opnon, these concepts are very nterestng to take notce of for Dutch plannng practtoners as they embrace mportant emergng trends n contemporary urban plannng n both Western countres. The three man UK urban regeneraton agenda concepts nclude: Urban Renassance: The urban renassance agenda has been concerned wth physcal and envronmental condtons, lnked wth the trend towards brownfeld redevelopment and ssues surroundng greenfeld development (Tallon, 2009: 7). Ths urban renassance agenda promotes hgh qualty urban desgn (Urban Task Force (UTF), 1999), mxed-use envronments (Coupland, 1997) and sustanable ctes (Hall, 2006); Socal Incluson: The socal ncluson agenda focuses on socal condtons wthn deprved neghbourhoods. It encourages the development of socal captal and communty partcpaton to brng about the regeneraton of neghbourhoods and communtes (Tallon, 2009: 7); Economc Compettveness: The economc compettveness agenda s concerned wth mprovng economc performance and employment by ncreasng output, productvty and nnovaton (Tallon, 2009: 7). In essence, economc compettveness means that local authortes actvely shape and stmulate favorable market crcumstances for prvate sector nvestment and development possbltes wthn ctes (see also Adams et al., 2005; Adams & Tesdell, 2010). These plannng polces on UK cty centers are manly mplemented on brownfeld stes. A brownfeld ste can be defned as prevously developed land, or any land that has prevously been used for any purpose and s no longer n use for that purpose (see Dxon et al., 2007; CLG, 2007b). Brownfeld development s consdered to revve cty centers on the one hand and to preserve rural areas and greenfeld development on the other. By promotng cty center lvng wth attractve housng (see Tallon & Bromley, 2004), potentally hgh ncome households 234 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

move to ctes cuttng commutng as well (Bromley et al., 2005). These advantages have contrbuted to a rapd ncrease n brownfeld development snce the md-1990s, wthn a favorable central government polcy context (CLG, 2007b; Lees 2003a; Bromley et al., 2007). However, despte the focus of urban regeneraton polces on cty center development and the advantages t potentally has, greenfeld development n the UK s stll attractve. Tallon (2009: 218) argues that prvate sector developers have hstorcally been more lkely to avod brownfeld stes for a varety of reasons. These nclude the costs of assemblng a ste for development; dffcultes of achevng economes of scale on relatvely small stes (see Dxon et al., 2007). Furthermore, greenfeld development corresponds wth aspratons of the majorty of the populaton whch desres a house plus outdoor space and a better qualty of lfe envronment (DETR, 2000; Senor et al., 2004). Therefore, the Barker Report (Barker, 2004) argues that plannng restrctons on green-belt land should be eased (see Evans, 2004). Also, hgh demand for housng n the UK cannot be met by developng on brownfeld stes alone (SMF, 2007). Thus, ths results n developng greenfeld stes, despte UK s urban contanment and protectonst vews. Wth the man urban regeneraton characterstcs n place, we take a closer look at two dfferent perods of urban regeneraton n the UK n the followng sectons. We do ths n order to clarfy the tme-dependent vews and constructs aganst whch urban regeneraton projects took place. These are the Entrepreneural regeneraton n the 1980s and the New Labour regeneraton snce the late 1990s. The frst perod s of relevance as ths perod marks the shft towards more prvate sector nvolvement n urban regeneraton. It fundamentally changed vews on role of publc bodes n urban plannng for the successve decades. The second perod s of relevance as t gves nsght nto the perod n whch the urban regeneraton cases conducted for ths research took place (see Secton 6.2 and 6.3). 6.2.3 Entrepreneural Regeneraton n the 1980s Ths perod of urban regeneraton s of crtcal mportance to prvate sector-led urban development projects. It must be vewed n the poltcal context of Thatcher s Conservatve governments (1979-1997). It was characterzed by an entrepreneural ethos consstng of neolberal phlosophes such as Publc-Prvate Partnershps, prvatzaton, deregulaton, lberalzaton, and centralzaton (see Tallon, 2009: 43). Ths neolberal phlosophy of the Thatcher government or New Rght Conservatve government broke wth the man pllars on whch post- World War II socal-democratc polces were constructed; Fordsm, Welfarsm and Keynesasm (Gaffckn & Warf, 1993). The reorentaton of urban polcy was part of a wder agenda to restructure the UK economcally, socally, spatally and deologcally around a new consensus of the free market, ndvdualsm and a clear rejecton of the post-war welfare state (Pacone, 2005). Tallon (2009: 44-45) states that The New Rght phlosophy argued that the market was the most effcent means of ensurng the producton and dstrbuton of goods (see Thornley, 1991). Hence, state polcy shfted from welfare to enterprse; socal collectve attanments such organzed labour were challenged. Moreover, state nterventon n the economy was banned to a mnmum. Ths resulted n a more natural, self-generatve 235 Urban Development n the UK

power of compettve market forces n order to revve prvate captalsm, economc growth and accumulaton (Martn, 1988: 221). Thatchersm became a doctrne for modernzng the UK s economy (Pacone, 2005: 178). Logcally, ths new poltcal phlosophy also nfluenced urban polces. Macro-economc strateges lke prvatzaton, deregulaton, lberalzaton, and centralzaton took effect n dfferent urban concepts presented later. The perod of urban entrepreneuralsm placed greater emphass on the role of the prvate sector n urban polcy, also termed prvatsm (see Baley et al., 1995). From the begnnng of the 1980s, government s urban polces were based on the belef that compettve and market economes could delver equtable and effcent solutons to urban problems (Nevn et al., 1997). Harvey (1989) argued that urban entrepreneuralsm succeeded urban manageralsm durng ths perod as the man form of governance of ctes globally (see also Chapter 2). Such an entrepreneural stance contrasts wth the manageral practces of earler decades whch prmarly focussed on the local provson of servces, facltes and benefts to urban populatons Harvey (1989). Busness needs to a large extent surpassed socal needs. DGaetano & Klemansk (1999) argue that the successve Conservatve Thatcher and Major governments revamped the natonal urban polcy agenda emphaszng on economc revtalzaton over communty development. Ths era was characterzed by the creaton of an entrepreneural culture, busness eltes and growth coaltons (see Tallon, 2009). Growth coaltons were partnershps of mutually nterested publc and prvate actors amed at promoton and mplementaton of economc development strateges n ctes (see Pacone, 2005). In ths regard, DGaetano & Klemansk (1999) dentfy dfferent urban governng agendas; pro-growth, growth management, socal reform, and caretaker. The pro-growth typology can be seen as the domnant strategy for entrepreneural regeneraton n the UK durng ths perod. It paved the path for more nfluences and nvestment from the prvate sector n plannng. Ths was done by deregulaton and centralzaton, whch led to the power eroson of local government, whch evolved towards more local governance wth prvate actors takng a greater role n urban regeneraton. Consstent wth the rollng back of the carpet of the state and the rse of market-led entrepreneural approaches to urban regeneraton, a top-down rather than bottom-up approach was pursued by central government. In ths stuaton, the man role of the publc sector was to attract and accommodate the requrements of prvate sector nvestors wthout unduly nfluencng ther development decsons (Tallon, 2009: 45). Partcular n ths perod, a number of UK ctes underwent an ndustral declne whch had to be altered by some sort of economc restructurng. Healey (1991: 102) argues that the land and property markets of ndustral UK ctes n the early 1980s were characterzed by a sluggsh growth n local economy, large amounts of obsolescent property, small reforms of economc actvty, a substantal publc housng stock, substantal publc land and property ownershp, and a negatve development ndustry mage of local development opportuntes. Ths stuaton provded the urgency for a new urban development strategy n the UK to reverse the declne of ctes. In terms of urban regeneraton, the 1980s became characterzed by an ncreased emphass on property-led ntatves (see Hall & Hubbard, 1998). Property-led urban regeneraton manly focuses on economc objectves, such as the assembly of fnance, land, buldng materals and labor to produce or mprove property for nvestment purposes (see Ambrose, 1994). Healey (1991: 98) summarzes property-led urban regeneraton strateges n the UK as economc 236 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

development, targeted to local/urban economes, va property development, through prvate enterprse, targeted to stes, expressed va projects/entrepreneurs. Some authors ncludng Brownhll (1990) and Turok (1992) have crtczed property-led developments as long-term socal and envronmental objectves (e.g. educaton and nfrastructure) are manly neglected. Moreover, accordng to Brownhll (1990), uncontrolled property-led regeneraton carres the potental to drve local property prces up, encourage land speculaton and dsplace exstng economc actvtes and communtes. Property-led strateges are speculatve n the sense that t encourages property development n the hope that demand wll come forward (see Healey, 1991; Loftman & Nevn, 1995). Accordng to Healey et al. (1992), the value of property development manly focused on a partcular local stuaton, ntroducng bg bang projects. From a plannng pont of vew, property-led regeneraton thus faled to enhance sustanable growth n dfferent parts of ctes. Important, wth regard to our research on prvate sector-led urban development projects, s that ths urban regeneraton strategy, accordng to Healey (1991), demanded a substantal nvolvement of the development ndustry. A range of dfferent urban polcy ntatves were set up by central government to effectuate urban regeneraton. Organzatonal reforms evolved along the constructon of dfferent formal partnershps n whch local government had lttle nfluence. Publc-Prvate Partnershps manly were constructed under the umbrella of central government. Moreover, t changed the rules of the relatonshp between the publc and prvate sector. It mplctly assumed that the development ndustry could be a lead sector n urban regeneraton once nsttutonal factors such as the domnance of government and labourst/ unonzed poltcs and workforces, actors wthout the entrepreneural atttude, would be wthheld from much nfluence (see Healey, 1991). Hence, Pacone (2005: 178) dentfed fve processes of changng polces and nsttutons whch characterzes the change towards more prvate sector nfluence and central government power n urban plannng: Dsplacement: nvolvng the transfer of powers to non-elected agences (such as Urban Development Corporatons), thereby bypassng the perceved bureaucracy and obstructveness of local authortes; Deregulaton: nvolvng a reducton n local authortes plannng controls and encourage property-led regeneraton (such as Enterprse Zones); Partnershps: nvolvng the encouragement of partnershps between central government and the prvate sector; Prvatzaton: ncorporatng the contractng out of selected local government servces, housng tenure dversfcaton, and provson for schools to opt out of local educaton authorty control; Centralzaton of powers: through a range of quangos (quas-autonomous nongovernmental organzatons) now termed NDPBs (non-departmental publc bodes). (Tallon, 2009: 45) argues that each of these fve changes had sgnfcant mpacts on the formaton and mplementaton of urban regeneraton polces, and some are stll n place n current UK regeneraton. Hence, the comng nto beng of Publc-Prvate Partnershps n the UK was based on the experence wth such partnershps n the USA whch were ntroduced n the 1960s to effectvely overcome the growng blght and dendustralzaton of downtown areas, and to attract prvate development nvestment. Jonng forces wth developers resultng n quaspublc redevelopment corporatons, cty governments avoded muncpal polcy-makng, and 237 Urban Development n the UK

became entrepreneural, provdng extensve subsdes and ncentves to attract developers (Tallon, 2009: 46). Also, the Thatcher government embraced the prncple of Publc-Prvate Partnershps as an effectve economy-orented strategy to mplement urban polcy. The most mportant ntatve for the dsplacement of power from local government to central government was the creaton of non-elected government agences called Urban Development Corporatons (UDCs). UDCs also termed quangos were government agences run by apponted boards consstng largely of local busness eltes. The prmary objectve of the UDC was to secure the regeneraton of ts desgnated area by brngng land and buldngs nto effectve use, encouragng the development of exstng and new ndustry and commerce, creatng an attractve envronment, and ensurng that housng and socal facltes were avalable to encourage people to lve and work n the area (Imre & Thomas, 1999). In order to acheve ths objectve, UDCs were gven the power to acqure, hold, manage, reclam and dspose of land and other property, carry out buldng and other operatons; enhance the envronment; seek to ensure the provson of water, electrcty, gas, sewerage and other servces; provde a transport nfrastructure; carry out any busness or undertakng for the purposes of the objectves of urban regeneraton; and provde fnancal ncentves for the prvate sector (Imre & Thomas, 1999). UDCs have the power to purchase land came by agreement, by vestng t from publc sector bodes, and/or to compulsory purchase t from prvate landowners. Thereby, UDC s effectvely took over local authorty powers over specfc areas. The UK wtnessed the comng nto beng of thrteen UDCs n 1981, the most promnent example beng the London Docklands UDC. In general, postve results of the 1980s/1990s UDC experence are the effectveness of ths sngle-purpose body concentratng on a defned area, and achevng quck development results. But, the crtcsm manly focussed on the UDCs concentratng purely on physcal regeneraton wth lttle regard to human socal provson and the development of human captal, ncludng low-ncome housng, communty facltes, and educaton and retanng programmes (Tallon, 2009: 57). Furthermore, the fact that the UDCs were not apponted democratcally elected bodes was qute controversal. Nonetheless, a new UDC generaton took effect n 2003. Apects Government Poltcal phlosophy Economc strategy Urban polcy agenda Urban regeneraton agenda Organzaton ntatves Man crtcsm Characterstcs New Rght Conservatves: Thatcher/Major Neolberalsm: prvatzaton, deregulaton, lberalzaton, centralzaton, Publc-Prvate Partnershps, ndvdualsm Free market mechansm: economc growth & accumulaton, self-generatve power of compettve market, cut back state nterventon Economc revtalzaton over communty development Property-led regeneraton Publc-Prvate Partnershps. quangos, Urban Development Corporatons, Enterprze Zones Focus on economc/physcal nstead of socal/envronmental dmensons Table 6.2 Characterstcs of entrepreneural regeneraton n the 1980s (source: author) If we relate the characterstcs of entrepreneural regeneraton to overall urban regeneraton approaches (see Secton 6.1.2), the concluson can be drawn that t manly focused on the economc and physcal/envronmental dmensons, and less on the socal/cultural dmensons and governance dmensons. The next secton provdes nsght nto the latest era of urban 238 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

regeneraton. In concluson, the most mportant characterstcs of the 1980s entrepreneural regeneraton are presented n Table 6.2. 6.2.4 New Labour Regeneraton snce the Late 1990s In May 1997, the Conservatves were removed from power after 18 years by New Labour. Ths resulted n a change of emphass n urban polcy by New Labour whch was the recognton of the nterrelatonshp between the economc and socal dmensons of urban polcy wthn the context of the urban renassance (Tallon, 2009: 78). In 1998, the Urban Task Force, was apponted to dentfy the causes of declne n urban areas and to recommend practcal solutons (Tallon, 2009: 79) for sustanable urban regeneraton. Its nfluental report Towards an Urban Renassance was publshed (Urban Task Force, 1999), and contaned over 100 recommendatons and popularzed the urban renassance concept encouragng desgn excellence, brownfeld development and hgher denstes. Ths plannng ethos can be consdered as a reacton to some lmtatons of the entrepreneural regeneraton perod. Furthermore, drawng upon these recommendatons, the Urban Whte Paper was publshed (DETR, 2000), settng out the strategy to acheve urban renassance, accompaned by 1 bllon of tax measures to ncrease nvestment n urban areas (Colomb, 2007). Along wth these studes, the government commssoned a number of reports that sought to access the state of ctes, among them the most nfluental beng the State of Englsh Ctes (ODPM, 2006). The key fndngs of the Urban Task Force, DETR, and ODPM were that polcy ntegraton, partnershp and local authorty leadershp were becomng more essental to effectve regeneraton (see Tallon, 2009: 80-81). Tallon (2009: 82) argues that at the heart of many of New Labour s early publc polces was the attempt to brng together the State and the Market, representng what has been termed as a Thrd Way (Gddens, 1998; 2000; Tesdell & Allmendnger, 2001; Imre & Raco, 2003b; Johnstone & Whtehead 2004). Accordng to Johnstone & Whtehead (2004: 9), ths perhaps can be represented as an uneasy and problematc marrage of the large-scale ant-poverty programmes of the post-war socal-democratc state, wth the economc mperatves of Thatcherte neolberal urban polcy. Hence, Clarence & Panter (1998) called New Labour s approach a collaboratve dscourse (see also Healey, 2006). Tallon (2009: 83) hghlghts that the emphass of urban polcy shfted towards jont-up thnkng, cross-cuttng ssues, and ctzen-centred servces. One of the man urban polcy objectves of New Labour was to alter socal deprvaton by ntroducng Area-Based Intatves (ABIs). Here, the term socal excluson s often used to emphasze the nature of the problem. Earler ABIs also addressed deprvaton but these had several shortcomngs, such as the lack of communty nvolvement, an excessve emphass on economc and property development, and nsenstvty to local needs (Healey et al., 1992; Robson et al., 1994). Despte ths, n the early years of New Labour s admnstraton, areabased and neghborhood explanatons of deprvaton ganed a new momentum (Chatterton & Bradley, 2000). Another example of New Labour s urban polcy are the New Deal for Communtes (NDC) partnershps, characterzed by communty nvolvement and ownershp; 239 Urban Development n the UK

jont-up thnkng and solutons; acton-based evdence about what works ; long-term commtment to delver real change; and communtes at the heart n partnershps (Tallon, 2009: 84). Furthermore, Local Strategc Partnershps (LSPs) were establshed to ensure strategc and jont-up workng at the local level to contrbute to neghbourhood regeneraton (Tallon, 2009: 84). LSPs became the man polcy vehcle for delverng regeneraton n England (Tallon, 2009: 84) functonng as cross-sectoral coordnatng umbrella partnershps, often ncludng members of local government, health, and educaton (Smth et al., 2007), that brng together varous sectors. The central government s am to encourage effectve local plannng resulted n promnent roles for Englsh Partnershps (EP), Urban Regeneraton Companes (URC), Urban Development Corporatons (UDC) and Busness Improvement Dstrcts (BIDs) (see Secton 6.3.1). Other regeneraton delvery programmes were put n place lke the Sngle Regeneraton Budget (SRB) targetng government fundng more drectly to places most n need (Tallon, 2009: 82), and Housng Market Renewal (HMR) focusng on tacklng the problem of low housng demand n more deprved areas. However, despte the New Labour s polcy focus on a wde varety of area-based programmes and vehcles, the urban renassance programme suffers some mplementaton dffcultes. Ths has to do wth the dffculty of algnng socal and economc objectves. The changng representaton of ctes from spaces of despar to spaces of hope (Harvey, 2000) has had mplcatons for how urban polcy has been conceved. Accordng to Tallon (2009) ths s most clearly expressed n the apparent relegaton of urban poverty debates and the elevaton of urban place marketng and boostersm of cty centers. Even n the Urban Whte Paper (DETR, 2000a) ssues of socal njustce are bured beneath dscussons of desgn excellence (see Lees, 2003a; Hoskns & Tallon, 2004). Ths physcal focus, accordng to Johnstone & Whtehead (2004) appears to be deflectng attenton away from evolvng patterns of poverty wthn ctes. Furthermore, cty center retal-led urban regeneraton projects, manly amed at achevng economc and cultural objectves have endured some crtcsm from plannng scholars (see Clement, 2007; Mnton, 2009). In general, such flagshp projects are used by local authortes to ncrease prvate nterest and nvestment. Foremost, they are meant to strengthen the economc compettveness of the cty relatve to ts neghbours on a regonal, natonal or global level, and less focused on socal targets. In concluson, we use a comprehensve evaluaton of New Labour s urban polces nto sx man challenges and persstng problems provded by Tallon (2009: 103): The sheer scale and ntensty of urban problems such as socal excluson and nequalty contnue to present massve and mult-faceted challenge; Evdence contnues to show growng regonal nequalty, especally between the north and south of the UK; Despte rhetorc, confrontng urban problems n a jont-up fashon wthn and between levels of governance poses a consderable and contnung challenge; Encouragng communty partcpaton and ntegraton contnues to be a dffculty; Despte successve attempts by government to address the monumental complexty of urban regeneraton polcy, t remans as complcated, f not more so, than ever; The manageral and performance ndcator culture of New Labour wth strct controls, centralzed targets, unresponsveness to local geographcal varatons, league tables, evaluaton and so on, all act aganst some of the recent polcy ams. 240 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

If we relate the characterstcs of New Labour s regeneraton to the overall approaches of urban regeneraton ntroduced n Secton 6.1.2, the concluson can be drawn that urban polcy formaton and mplementaton focused on all plannng dmensons, by applyng dfferent programmes and organzatonal vehcles nto place for delverng regeneraton. In concluson, the most mportant characterstcs of the New Labour s regeneraton snce the late 1990s are presented n Table 6.3, based on our descrpton. Apects Government Poltcal phlosophy Economc strategy Urban polcy agenda Urban regeneraton agenda Organzaton ntatves Man crtcsm Characterstcs New Labour : Blar/Brown Thrd Way : belef In value of communtes, commtment to equalty of opportunty, emphass on responsblty, belef n accountablty Pragmatc balance between free market mechansm & state nterventon Interrelatonshp between economc & socal dmensons, collaboratve dscourse, sustanable communtes Urban Renassance, area-based regeneraton, communty nvolvement, socal ncluson, economc compettveness Englsh Partnershps, Local Strategc Partnershps, Urban Development Corporatons, Urban Regeneraton Companes, Regonal Development Agences, Busness Improvement Dstrcts Focus on all plannng dmensons, ncreased urban complexty, mplementaton results dsappontng Table 6.3 Characterstcs of New Labour s regeneraton snce the late 1990s (source: author) In concluson, Tallon (2009: 265-266) ndcates sx polcy falures that can be syntheszed from evaluatng dfferent perods of UK s urban regeneraton, whch ndcate that polcy formaton and mplementaton n UK s urban development practce remans a dffcult task: Lack of clarty and purpose of urban polcy; Excessve central government control of urban polcy; Poor co-ordnaton and coherence of urban polcy; Implementng one-dmensonal urban polces; Dealng wth neghborhood as an solated unt; Falure n realzng communty potental. Wth regard to our research, these two successve urban regeneraton perods n the UK clearly mark the entrepreneural culture underneath UK s plannng practce. It ndcates that government and plannng s manly n place to mtgate market forces, to protect the urban and rural envronment, and to safeguard cvc nterests as well. The development ndustry on ts turn, through such entrepreneural polcy orentatons, also could develop tself nto a professonally mature sector at frst sght. Therefore, n the followng secton we wll delberate on the roles of publc and prvate actors n UK s development practce. 241 Urban Development n the UK

6.3 Organzaton of UK s Urban Development In ths secton we explore how urban development n the UK s nsttutonally arranged and organzed. We do ths by descrbng the roles of dfferent publc sector bodes (Secton 6.2.1), the role of the prvate sector (Secton 6.2.2) and the publc-prvate relatonshp, and n partcular, the role of dfferent types of partnershps (6.2.3) n urban development n the UK. 6.3.1 Role of the Publc Sector In ths secton we focus manly on England, as many publc sector characterstcs can substantally dffer across the UK. In order to get an overvew of the roles of the publc sector, t s necessary to provde some nsght n both the establshed vew on government, and the characterstcs of government structure. They both nfluence the way n whch publc bodes can manage urban plannng and development. We already ndcated that the UK s rooted n the Anglo-Saxon model, wth a socetal vew and legal system emphaszng a somewhat passve and powerless role of the publc sector. Hence, these values are deeply rooted n the plannng system and contemporary urban regeneraton practce. Especally, snce the neolberal Thatcher perod, t has been the delberate ntent to reduce the role of local authortes n plannng to a purely admnstratve one. In ths perod local government s budgets were reduced systematcally, and responsbltes were manly reduced to development regulaton. Specal purpose vehcles wth a market-orented board were set up under herarchcal coordnaton of central government to surpass local plannng authortes n decson-makng over urban development. Ths s a fundamental dfferent vew to the more actve powerful role of local authortes n Rhneland countres such as the Netherlands. The magntude of ths poltcal operaton has nfluenced the role of local authortes n urban plannng untl today. In Anglo-Saxon countres lke the UK, mplctly, t s the ntenton of the (plannng) system for the prvate sector to take development ntatves. Webster & La (2003) argue that changes n the urban plannng system often resemble changng vews on the roles of publc, prvate and cvc organzatons; t s very much tme-dependent. They argue that the fundamental dependence of government for rebuldng UK ctes after World War II was perfectly legtmate n that perod. The prvate sector was smply not able to take the lead n ths respect, as economy was very weak. From the 1960s and 1970s ths gradually changed as the results of government acton, for nstance n urban plannng, were beng questoned. Here, socetal and poltcal vews began to change n favor of the market as the drvng force for change n the UK. Nevertheless, land and property markets need nsttutons; rules and sanctons (see Webster & La, 2003) to steer development. Therefore, numerous publc bodes are actng on dfferent spatal scales wth dfferent regulatve powers, responsbltes and tasks. Ths government structure n the UK s complex (see Nadn et al., 2008). The government system for centures has developed n an ad-hoc manner, as there s no consttuton whch defnes the roles of each and every publc authorty. The result of ths s that the roles of each level of government cannot 242 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

be defned wth any precson and are hghly changeable over tme to sut partcular needs for urban development. Specfc responsbltes are often the result of new emphass n central government (plannng) polcy agendas. Hence, there s a strong herarchy of government actors, n whch the natonal ter s the most powerful. In essence, the Natonal Government s responsble for the wder plannng polces n the UK. In England, the polcy gudance set by the Brtsh Government frames the development of regonal spatal strateges n nne Englsh regons. At the local level, there s a complex government structure wth hgh varaton n responsbltes. In relaton to urban plannng, the roles of the dfferent levels of government are explaned below. Here, we emphasze that the government structure and roles of the followng descrpton are based on the characterstcs of the New Labour perod untl 2010. Changes n the government structure and roles as a result of the current UK s coalton government are not taken nto account here. The reason for ths s that New Labour s characterstcs form the background of the two urban development cases studes conducted n ths research (Chapter 7). Moreover, we consder t crucal for our Dutch audence to gan nsght nto the roles of these actors n England n order to understand ther ablty to steer and manage development. Natonal government On the natonal level several publc bodes are nvolved wth plannng whch can be subdvded n three man organzatonal levels; Departments of State, Department Executve Agences, and Non Departmental Publc Bodes. The complexty of the (central) government structure les n the varety of publc bodes responsble for plannng. The Department for Communtes and Local Government (CLG) n prncple responsble for urban plannng n England under New Labour. Some other Departments of State workng alongsde CLG and nfluencng urban plannng polces are Department for Envronment, Food and Rural Affars (DEFRA), Department for Culture, Meda and Sport (DCMS), and Department for Busness, Enterprse and Regulatory Reform (BERR), and the Department for Transport (DfT), responsble for a wde varety of plannng-related polces (see Nadn et al., 2008). They formulate plannng polces or nfluence practce by nterventons n urban development projects. CLG sets out England s polcy on local government, housng, urban regeneraton, plannng, renewal and communty coheson (CLG, 2007a). CLG has the followng powers, responsbltes and tasks: Producng polces through plannng polcy statements; Creatng secondary legslaton through orders and statutory nstruments; Promotng best-practces; Recoverng certan plannng appeals; Coordnatng the work of ndvdual local authortes; Ensurng local authortes work accordng wth natonal gudance; Determnng certan plannng applcatons through the power to call-n. 243 Urban Development n the UK

The power to call-n s of mportance for larger urban developments. It can be used by the Mnster to effectvely ntervene n local decson-makng on developments, whch may conflct wth regonal or natonal nterests n terms of: potental conflcts wth natonal polces; potental rse to substantal controversy; sgnfcant effects beyond the mmedate localty; sgnfcant archtectural or urban desgn ssues; and potental nvolvement of natonal securty or foregn affars. Also, Department Executve Agences (DEAs) support Departments of State n ther work. The most sgnfcant agency supportng the work for the CLG s the Plannng Inspectorate (PI). The PI s nvolved n local urban development ssues, responsble for handlng plannng appeals aganst refusal of plannng permssons, and testng the soundness of local development documents. Non Departmental Publc Bodes (NDPBs) are publc organzatons; they support Departments of State n makng polcy decsons. These bodes are not formally part of government and are able to work ndependently (Nadn et al., 2008: 8). The most mportant NDPBs for CLG are Englsh Partnershps (EP), Housng Corporatons (HC) and Urban Development Corporatons (UDC). Several DEAs and NDPBs from dfferent Departments of State strongly nfluence the decson-makng on urban developments at a local level. For nstance, Englsh Partnershps (EP) s the government s natonal regeneraton agency. It acts as government s advsor on the re-use of brownfeld land and seeks to ensure that surplus publc land s used to best-effect (Nadn et al., 2008: 9). One can state that land used for best-effect s hghly debatable and arbtrary as t depends on the local context and the objectves of nvolved stakeholders. Nonetheless, t s commtted to ncreasng quantty and qualty of prvate sector nvestment. EP s focus s on physcal development and regeneraton, and t welds land assembly and compulsory purchase powers, whch t uses to purchase derelct land and brng t back nto actve use (Englsh Partnershps, 2010). EP ether develops stes tself, or awards gap fundng to developers to do so (Tallon, 2009: 90). Therefore, t often acts as a partner, for nstance through ts partcpaton n a varety of delvery agences (URCs), ncludng jont ventures wth the publc and prvate sector n development projects. Englsh Partnershps can become nvolved n projects through (Nadn et al., 2008): Jont ventures wth prvate partners; Brokerng arrangements between varous partners; Master plannng and enablng development; Ste purchase usng ts powers to compulsory acqure land for publc purpose; Gap fundng; Advce on land use, the land market, best practce models. Some other central government NDPBs play a role n UK s development practce. The Housng Corporaton s the government s natonal affordable homes agency. It funds new affordable housng, regulates prvate housng assocatons, and helps to develop and mplement regonal and natonal housng strateges (Nadn et al., 2008: 10). Englsh Hertage s responsble for the stewardshp of a large number of hstorcal and archaeologcal stes. It works n partnershp wth a range of bodes to help conserve and enhance the hstorc envronment, broaden publc access to hertage, and ncrease the publc s understandng of the past (Nadn et al., 2008: 11). Moreover, the Commsson for Archtecture and the Bult Envronment (CABE) s the government s advsor on archtecture, urban desgn. The body seeks to rase the aspratons, 244 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

capacty and performance of everyone nvolved n creatng and mantanng buldngs and publc space across England, by promotng best-practce, commssonng research, and provdng expertse n the country s largest projects (Nadn et al., 2008: 10). Regonal government In England, there s no elected regonal government, although a number of regonal nsttutons have been developed to help delver greater synergy between central and local government (Nadn et al., 2008: 12), n contrast to the elected Provnces n the Netherlands. However, snce 2004, regonal plannng has ganed more attenton n urban plannng n the UK. There have been three types of regonal publc organzatons; Government Of fces, Regonal Assembles and Regonal Development Agences, each of whch have dfferent powers and responsbltes (see Nadn et al., 2008). Despte New Labour s emphass on Regonal Plannng by makng use of Regonal Spatal Strateges for approval of plannng permssons, under the current Con-Lb coalton government the RDAs have been dscharged n an attempt to cut government costs, puttng focus on local project and local government nstead. Therefore, here we only focus on descrbng the role of regonal bodes that have been of sgnfcance for our case studes. Regonal Development Agences (RDAs) operate across the nne Englsh regons. They seek to; further economc development, regeneraton and employment; promote busness effcency, nvestment and competveness; and contrbute to sustanable development. RDAs can be actvely nvolved n local urban projects. They can work n partnershp wth local authortes and the prvate sector to undertake area-based regeneraton through ther nvolvement n large scale mxed-use developments. They can also partcpate n gap fundng the prelmnary project stages lke master plannng and land assembly. Furthermore, the RDAs are requred to produce a Regonal Economc Strategy whch s supposed to be nformed by the relevant Regonal Spatal Strategy (see Nadn et al., 2008: 13) produced by the Regonal Assembles. Local government Accordng to Hobma et al. (2008) lower governments n the UK do not have powers and responsbltes based on a consttuton, as these are determned by central government. Furthermore, central government can appont powers to lower governments for certan projects for whch varous specfc responsbltes can be attrbuted to the publc bodes n charge of the areas, such as UDCs. Nadn et al. (2008), however, argue that all types of authorty are able to own or acqure land, and delver publc development themselves, but that there are some lmtatons on workng wth the prvate sector. In prncple, local authortes cannot act as market partes, as they are lmted to carry out a pro-actve land polcy to acqure land for prvate development (Hobma et al., 2008). Governments may only acqure land for developng publc works and servces. Here, we notce an essental dfference wth the Dutch publc land development agences, whch are able to actvely operate as market actors n prvate development projects. However n the UK, n some cases specal purpose vehcles have obtaned the powers from central government to acqure land for other purposes than publc works and servces. The most mportant Local Government bodes are descrbed herenafter. 245 Urban Development n the UK

Local Plannng Authortes (LPAs) are structured n two contrastng ways; n some areas there are sngle-ter authortes, n other parts of the UK two-ter structures exst (Nadn et al., 2008: 14). A LPA s the authorty or councl that s empowered by law to exercse plannng functons for a partcular area. In essence, Local Plannng Authortes are the most common local government body to be nvolved n urban development projects as they grant plannng permssons for development. In summary, LPAs have followng powers, responsbltes and tasks: Prepare Local Development Frameworks Produce Development Plans Judge Plannng Applcatons Grant/refuse Plannng Permsson & Buldng Approval (Councl) Produce Plannng Gudance documents LPAs are responsble to set out plannng polces through the Local Development Framework (LDF). Ths LDF s a collecton of local development documents and other relevant polcy documents. LDFs functon as the most mportant document to be used n provdng plannng permssons for urban development projects, as LPAs are responsble for judgng plannng applcatons for development submtted by prvate developers. Often, before the offcal applcaton LPAs and developers meet to dscuss the applcaton, on the bass of whch a LPA brngs out an advce to the Councl who can grant or refuse plannng permsson for the area. Hobma et al. (2008) argue that extensve negotatons between the applcant and the LPA nvolve the condtons for grantng plannng permsson. The agreed upon condtons for development are wrtten down n Secton 106 agreements (n England). These agreements contan provsons for the delvery of publc facltes such as nfrastructure, publc space and affordable housng targets to be provded by developers. Currently, the Communty Infrastructure Levy (CIL) s put n place as a smlar plannng gan tool for local authortes. For larger developments, the LPA and developers are also lkely to enter nto a legal agreement coverng other aspects of the development. Furthermore, LPAs can make use of development brefs and desgn codes as supplementary plannng gudance for developers contanng llustrated publc development or desgn objectves. Moreover, Local Delvery Vehcles have been establshed n certan parts of the country, most notably wthn the government s growth areas (Nadn et al., 2008: 14). These are specal purpose vehcles whch sgnfcantly alter the tradtonal relatonshp that local government has had to development (Nadn et al., 2008: 14). They seek to encourage fnancal nvestment, encourage greater stakeholder nvolvement, and coordnate delvery. These bodes come n a varety of forms and are apponted by central government for partcular areas and subsequent development ssues. Common known examples of local delvery vehcles nclude Urban Development Corporatons and Urban Regeneraton Companes, explaned here n more detal. Accordng to Nadn et al. (2008: 15), Urban Development Corporatons (UDCs) are lmted lfe bodes that have a broad remt to secure the regeneraton of ther area. UDCs seek to brng land and buldngs nto effectve use, encourage economc development, create attractve envronments, and ensure an adequate supply of housng and communty facltes. They are able to carry out buldng and other operatons, acqure, hold and reclam land, and determne plannng applcatons of strategc mportance. That s wth the mnster s agreement they can 246 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

take on plannng competences from the plannng authorty and effectvely become the local plannng authorty for certan functons wthn ther area. UDCs operate by assemblng land, nstallng nfrastructure, and then marketng t to the prvate sector. Early UDCs were crtczed for beng too orentated on physcal and economc development at the expanse of socal regeneraton. Despte crtcsms they were, to a large extent, successful. The frst two groups of UDCs had closed by 1998. However, the Government has re-ntroduced them as a specal delvery vehcle. Accordng to Tallon (2009: 96), the powers and roles of UDCs are to secure the regeneraton of ts area through: Acqurng, reclamng and dsposng land Improvng buldngs and the envronments Ensurng the provson of housng and socal facltes Ensurng the provson of essental servces (water, gas, electrcty) Fundng nfrastructure projects Urban Regeneraton Companes (URCs) were recommended by the Urban Task Force as a mechansm to brng key stakeholders together to drve forward the regeneraton of a partcular area. URCs are prvate sector-led organzatons co-ordnatng development and nvestment n specfc run-down areas. They are funded by Englsh Partnershps (and formerly the Regonal Development Agences). Accordng to Tallon (2009: 94), URCs have fnte lfe spans of around 10 to 15 years. Other smlartes nclude ther emphass on vson, leadershp, dynamc style, and the engagement of the prvate sector to carry out regeneraton. However, they do not have plannng or land acquston powers. ( ) The government sees the prmary role of URCs as addressng sgnfcant latent development opportuntes and brngng about regeneraton through developng and mplementng a clear and agreed vson for ther area. Ther man focus should be on physcal regeneraton and re-use of brownfeld land (ODPM, 2004). Plannng nstruments Government Body Natonal Level Department for Communtes and Local Government (CLG) Englsh Partnershps (EP) Regonal Level Regonal Development Agences (RDA) Local Level Local Plannng Authortes (LPA) Urban Development Corporatons (UDC) Urban Regeneraton Companes (URC) Plannng Instruments Plannng Polcy Statements, Statutory Instruments, Call-n power (used at local level) Compulsory purchase order, Master plannng, (Gap) Fundng Regonal Spatal Strateges, Regonal Housng Strateges Local Development Framework/Plan: Core Strategy, Allocatons, Proposals Map, Acton Area Plans, other documents Land acquston, Fundng, LPA plannng powers for the area Development & nvestment coordnaton Table 6.4 Publc plannng nstruments n UK urban regeneraton untl 2010 247 Urban Development n the UK

Here, we conclude ths secton wth the most mportant plannng nstruments of key publc bodes that drectly nfluence urban development projects, presented n Table 6.4. Not all publc actors descrbed n ths secton have been ncluded n the overvew as they do not all have plannng powers to manage urban development. Moreover, recent changes n these plannng nstruments have not been ncluded, as our Englsh case studes were analyzed n the perod pror to the Con-Lb coalton government takng seat. The smplfed overvew presented n Table 6.4 s partly based on the dfferent lterature fndngs provded n ths secton. In concluson, when takng a closer look at the plannng nstruments of the publc actors on dfferent levels, we notce that, compared to the Netherlands, several governmental bodes n the UK potentally are able to nfluence urban development projects on the bass of plannng tools. They possess the ablty to manage urban development projects wth varous plannng nstruments whch regulate, shape, stmulate and actvate markets, n lne wth the plannng tools presented by Adams et al. (2005). Furthermore, local authortes n the Netherlands seem to have a slghtly more ndependent role n operatng n areas wthn ther admnstratve terrtory. In the UK, the role of local authortes can be determned by natonal government nterventons n the form of a range of publc actors wth specal plannng powers or tasks, lmtng the ndependence of muncpaltes. 6.3.2 Role of the Prvate Sector In ths secton we explore the role of the prvate sector, and n partcular the role prvate developers play n urban development practce and projects. Agan, these notons are based on the stuaton pror to the UK Con-Lb government takng seat n 2010. Development ndustry Nadn et al. (2008) argue that the Englsh plannng system generally seeks to shape prvate sector development proposals. Ths ndcates that developers often take the ntatve for urban development. Therefore, Nadn et al. (2008) argue that the UK has a very mature and strong development ndustry: In property development, there are developers of dfferent knds, nsttutonal and other nvestors and constructon companes that undertake development drectly. Hence, the ndustry s domnated by a small number of very large players. The top ten house bulders produce 44 per cent of the total (Nadn et al., 2008: 22). Moreover, developers n general operate or are prepared to operate across the UK as a whole. Tradtonally, UK developers concentrated on ether commercal or resdental development. Hence, genune large-scale mxed-use developers are relatvely rare n the UK. Furthermore, accordng to Nadn et al. (2008: 22) the trend to larger companes s ncreasng and there have been extensve mergers and takeovers of small companes. The reason s that gven plannng regulaton, the search for land requres substantal fnancal capacty and expertse. Ths s beng strengthened by the government s growth targets and a stressed housng market (especally n the south) whch requres very rapd development, whch s 248 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

tendng to be provded by very large urban extensons or new settlements. Tallon (2009: 218) argues that prvate sector developers have hstorcally been more lkely to avod brownfeld stes, usually n the central cty, for a varety of reasons. These nclude the costs of assemblng a ste for development; dffcultes of achevng economes of scale on relatvely small stes; dffcult access; expensve surveys; hgh ste remedaton costs; easements; and consumer suspcon of brownfeld stes (see also Dxon et al., 2007). Thus, despte central government emphass on stmulatng development n cty centers, greenfeld development remans an area of nterest for UK developers. Henderson (2010: 167) argues that UK developer s approaches to urban development tend to focus on ndvdual stes n a dscrete or ste-focused manner; From a proft-maxmzng perspectve, the tendency s for developers to select preferred property markets and to dentfy the optmum pont of market entry. To extract substantal returns from development stes, proposals tend to be characterzed by hgh ste-coverage ratos (Carmona, 2009; Imre & Hall, 2001), strong or securtzed boundares (CABE & DETR, 2001; Gooblar, 2002), sngle land use types (Cowan, 1997; Tesdell, 2004), and desgns that are ether standardzed or conform to mnmum regulatory standards (Cowan, 1997; Imre & Hall, 2001). Reasons for such actons nclude the preference to avod land uses whch are not drectly revenue rasng and a desre to market more exclusve developments. Ths noted, developers are also conservatve n ther choce of stes, leanng towards stable profts, unless there s a boom perod or the prospect of government nvestment (Guy et al., 2002; Swyngedouw et al., 2002). For nstance, Baley et al. (1995) argue that publc sector nterventon s necessary to stmulate prvate nvestment. However, MacLaran & McGurk (2003) note that great power often les wth the property sector through ts ablty to select where and what to develop. Therefore, Nadn et al. (2008: 22) argue that the structure and operaton of the development ndustry s very dynamc and dependent on geographcal locatons. Despte the focus on stespecfc developments and proftable sngle-use developments such as retal centers or housng developments, developers are ncreasngly nvolved n mxed-use schemes, promoted n the central government urban renassance program. However, Nadn et al. (2008: 22) argue that the qualty of desgn and constructon of homes has come n for consderable crtcsm from the 1990s, especally the standard house and estate layout product reproduced across the country and lack of attenton to energy use and other envronmentally sustanable aspects. Furthermore, recent trends are towards the creaton of new types of development companes that concentrate on rasng land value rather than undertakng development drectly, and more partnershp workng between actors wthn and between the publc and prvate sectors as well. Therefore, partnershps are typcal for any sgnfcant development scheme n the UK. Nevertheless, accordng to Henderson (2010: 165), the prevalng mage of developers wthn socety s of proft-drven frms who are less nterested n fnal occupers or the socal and envronmental mpact of ther developments (Basset et al., 2002, Dxon, 2007; MacLaran & McGurk, 2003). However, we must clarfy that developer s atttudes and performance vary from sector to sector and place to place; therefore t s dffcult to generalze. Despte that we presented some characterstcs of the UK development ndustry, the role of property developers n development processes s stll poorly understood by publc actors and academcs (see Adams et al., 2012). Herenafter, we try to gve some nsght nto ths matter. 249 Urban Development n the UK

Role n development process As sad, t s often developers who take the ntatve for urban development projects. Because publc actors n essence do not carry out an actve land development polcy by acqurng land the excepton beng EP, UDCs (and RDAs) project developers pro-actvely are nvolved n urban development. Accordng to Hobma et al. (2008), two approaches for developers to become nvolved n development projects are common n the UK: seekng collaboraton wth local landowners wthout ownng the land themselves, but performng plan development actvtes and applyng for plannng permsson; and acqurng land early and act as land developers. When plannng permsson s granted by local authortes, developers can choose to develop themselves or subcontractng the development to constructon companes. Some developers are only nterested n ncreasng land values of areas by obtanng plannng permsson, whch s a result of the actve land market n Brtan where land s often scarce and therefore the sale of land to other prvate owners becomes a lucratve busness. And, Hobma et al. (2008) argue that n some cases, lease contracts are used for land n whch orgnal landowners let other prvate developers develop land wth long leases. But also, accordng to Nadn et al. (2008: 23) local authortes may often take a leadng role n brngng developers together wth other stakeholders. For nstance, EP may take the lead n acqurng and assemblng land by compulsory purchasng land whch s then developed by the prvate sector. Local development frameworks from local plannng authortes may functon as an ndcaton for developers, as they contan areas wth development prortes wthn ctes. However, project developers do not wat for publc actors to come up wth plans or to provde framework. For UK developers t s common to come wth unsolcted proposals for development projects, amed at securng a compettve advantage over other prvate developers and publc actors n strategc thnkng about stes. Often pre-applcaton plan development happens n partnershp wth other actors, ncludng local busness communtes and local resdents, n order to secure communty support for projects, before local authortes are consulted. Accordng to Hobma et al. (2008) developers do not only ntate plans, but they even organze publc partcpaton and search for cvc support of plans. Hence, t s not uncommon that UK developers take on tasks tradtonally carred out by publc actors. Subsequently, the results of ths partcpaton and support are presented by project developers for the acceleraton of the publc decson-makng process. In other words, the developer proves the necessty and demand for urban development, whch s needed for plannng approvals by local authortes. Furthermore, another advantage of ths approach for developers s that a reasonably worked out and supported plan s beng presented to publc actors who are forced to come up wth sold and grounded argumentaton for refusng plans. However, here we also touch the ethcal ssue of prvate nterference n the publc doman whch mght nfluence the objectve publc judgment of prvate plan proposals. Developers sometmes even provde money to local authortes to appont plannng offcers who carry out the necessary plannng applcaton process actvtes. Ths would be almost unthnkable n the Netherlands. Nonetheless, most developer actvtes come wth hgh upfront nvestment and accompaned fnancal rsks. Therefore, Hobma et al. (2008) argue that UK project developers take larger rsks than Dutch developers, whch s also partly caused by the fact that local plannng authortes hardly take on any rsks. For nstance, UK developers have to nvest n related nfrastructure and amentes, whch n the Netherlands partly s beng negotated n the land prce. Before beng granted plannng permsson, extensve negotatons wth local authortes take place 250 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

on spatal, programmatc and fnancal condtons for developng areas, put down n Secton 106 agreements. Developers are not keen on these condtons as they threaten the vablty of schemes and ncreased rsks and may cause tme delays before the project realzaton starts. For nstance, Henderson (2010) argues that consderable developer resstance s reported to nclude affordable housng nto otherwse homogenous developments as a form of plannng contrbuton (see Adams & Watkns, 2002; Tesdell, 2004). Nevertheless, because of the UK housng market (n large parts of the country), developers are also able to take hgh fnancal rsks as housng demand often s and remans hgh (see Nadn et al., 2008). Accordng to Henderson (2010: 167), rsk-mnmzaton practces nclude lmtng the tme between project applcaton and the desred completon pont, n order to reduce costs and to lmt the possblty that competng developers may be qucker to reach the marketplace (see Mllngton, 2007). Hence, UK developers carry out extensve market feasblty studes for projects, before enterng nto unsolcted proposals. Related to ths matter, Henderson (2010: 167) argues that because key decsons about what represents a vable project are determned at an early stage, publc partcpaton and plannng approval tend to be vewed dsapprovngly by developers for beng overly negatve, for causng tme delays, and for gnorng the complextes nvolved n land development (MacLaran & McGurk, 2003; Mllngton, 2007). Wllams & Dar (2003), for example, note that developers tend to engage wth relevant stakeholders only late n the development cycle. Nevertheless, because of central government s communty nvolvement agenda, developers tend to be less reluctant to communty engagement as t may result n less publc resstance aganst projects; t can buld socetal and poltcal support. Involvement n development lfe cycle Hence, n the fnal operaton of urban development projects, after project delvery, we notce a hgher degree of prvate ownershp of publc spaces and the prvatzaton of (publc) servces than n the Netherlands. Ths s partcularly evdent n retal-led regeneraton projects such as the Bull Rng n Brmngham, and Cabot Crcus n Brstol, amongst many but also n housng estates and commercal developments. In general, these prvate enclaves by planners are vewed as havng a negatve mpact on ctes as a whole, ncreasng socetal excluson and a hgh contrast between neghborng areas (see for nstance, Mnton, 2009). Ths crtque s summarzed by Henderson (2010: 167) who argues that the mpacts of the ste-orentated approach (by developers) on urban areas can nclude poor permeablty (e.g. narrow pathways and corrdors, or gated developments), overly compact developments (e.g. prvacy and shadng concerns), nadequate attenton to occuper needs (e.g. publc realm, servces, and open spaces), and a falure to consder cumulatve off-ste mpacts and/or potentals (Carmona, 2009; Imre & Hall, 2001; Pnch & Munt, 2002). However, t s consdered that the plannng system and government s urban polces partly support the ste-orented approach by developers resultng n enclaves and negatve ctywde mpacts. For example, Henderson (2010: 168) argues that despte populst comments about the creaton of sustanable communtes, government polces have advocated hgher resdental denstes. As a result the government has played ts role n supportng more compact forms of prvate sector development and the oversupply of one- or two-bedroom apartments (Dxon, 2007). Furthermore, hgher denstes are also accompaned by 251 Urban Development n the UK

archtectural support and the housng assocaton movement who support and encourage hgh-densty development. Accordng to Mure & Rowlands (2008: 651), the Brtsh housng market has been buoyant over the perod snce the md-1990s, the demand for housng has been sustaned at hgh levels, and the market has been further boosted by nvestor sales. Mure & Rowlands (2008: 651) argue that hgh prces and strong demand mean that land s stll put forward for development. To make the recpe work, however, developers need to buld at hgher denstes. The result of the hgh-densty nner-cty regeneraton schemes that are developed throughout the country s that, accordng to Sorrell & Hoth (2007: 40) the returns that regeneraton schemes produce have become n lne wth the returns generated by other more tradtonal real estate products (see Adar et al., 2002; 2003). However, the fnancal effects as a result of the latest economc recesson also have put proft margns of developers n the UK under pressure, due to the dependency on the speed and heght of market sales. Nevertheless, Sorrell & Hoth (2007) argue that nsttutonal nvestors ncreasngly are prepared to take a more medum- to long-term approach by nvestng n regeneraton as opposed to cherry-pckng short-term opportuntes. Ths has, n turn, led to the emergence of prvate sector operators who are sklled n creatng value and are lookng to acheve medum and long-term gans n pvotal regeneraton schemes. In the Netherlands, such long-term commtment of developers towards urban development projects s not common practce yet. Another form of prvate sector management of urban areas has been the establshment of Busness Improvement Dstrcts (BIDs). Here, the prvate sector n essence provdes publc goods n the cty center, and takes over some of the functons formerly provded by the state. Tallon (2009: 99) explans that street cleanng, furnture and securty are provded through a supplemental tax pad by the prvate sector busness n the BID whch they mpose on, admnster and spend themselves. The overall am s to boost a BID s local economy. BIDs are predomnantly found n retal spaces where busnesses have an nterest n mprovng the appearance and safety of an area, and some are located n perpheral ndustral estates and busness parks (Tallon, 2009: 99). In summary, we can state that project developers are performng a key role n urban development practce n the UK, n terms of takng the lead n projects. Prvatzaton of publc servces as well s more establshed n plannng practce. Nonetheless, other actors also partcpate n and contrbute to development projects. Therefore n the next secton, we explore the characterstcs of partnershp workng between publc and prvate actors. 6.3.3 Publc-Prvate Relatonshp & Partnershps Partnershp culture Accordng to Cullngworth & Nadn (2006) there s a greater wllngness on the part of both the publc and prvate sectors to pool ther efforts and resources. Baley et al. (1995) argue there has been a growng recognton of the need for the publc and prvate sectors to work n partnershps. The current ethos of urban development s much more based on partnershp 252 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

workng on a voluntary bass and steerng of numerous separated powers and fundng streams around common objectves (Nadn et al., 2008: 5). (Nadn et al., 2008: 16) argue that extensve partnershp workng has resulted n a complex overlappng structure of many partnershps wth varyng roles and formal status, but often comprsng smlar membershps. Hence, an mportant characterstc of UK partnershps s that they are rather focused on enablng nstead of provdng development, thus focusng on buldng development capacty, ncludng dfferent relevant actors n the development process. Accordng to Tallon (2009: 7), partnershp arrangements have emerged as a central feature of urban regeneraton strateges n the UK, startng wth a number of local authortes and prvate sector-led ntatves n the 1980s, and gradually leadng to the ncorporaton of partnershp nto central government polcy from the 1990s, and area-based ntatves from the late 1990s. These tend to be voluntary agreements that operate by consensus and persuason rather than beng strongly controlled herarchcal nsttutons (see Turok, 2005). Furthermore, such partnershps usually comprse of dfferent stakeholders, combnng members of the local communty, non-proft voluntary sector, publc sector agences, and prvate sector busness (Tallon, 2009: 7). In the 1990s, the emphass of polces on partnershps shfted from two-way Publc-Prvate Partnershps to three-way mult-sectoral partnershps between the publc, prvate and communty organzatons (Baley, 1993; Baley et al., 1995; Oakley, 1998). Hence, these type of mult-sectoral partnershps are stll an excepton n Dutch urban development. Of course, formal partnershps also exst n the UK. Tallon (2009: 7) argues that at the other end of the partnershp spectrum, urban regeneraton could be coordnated by tght contractual arrangements nvolvng a smlar number of partners, more common n economc and physcal regeneraton schemes where the prvate sector s nvolved and substantal amounts of money are njected (see Turok, 2005). Note that local plannng authortes do not take part n these Publc-Prvate Partnershp bodes, as they are not allowed to take on development rsks lke the muncpaltes do n the Netherlands. Rather, they sgn development agreements wth developers that are labelled as formal (contractual) partnershps. Organzatonal aspects Types of partnershps Accordng to Nadn et al. (2008) and Hobma et al. (2008), the UK s characterzed by many partnershps whch exst on all scale levels. Three man types of partnershps exst n the UK: local strategc partnershps, delvery partnershps, and enablng partnershps. All local authortes partcpate n local strategc partnershps (LSPs), whch are non-statutory, mult-agency partnershps. Accordng to Nadn et al. (2008: 17), LSPs brng together a varety of publc, prvate, communty and voluntary nterests. It operates at a level whch enables strategc goals and polcy to be set across all sectors and actvtes. Ther role s to develop and promote common polcy across the dverse sectors of government and across the publc, prvate and not-for-proft sectors for ther areas, and to nfluence the actons of other local bodes (often ther partners). Delvery partnershps are also called jont ventures or development partnershps. They can be best compared wth the Dutch forms of Publc-Prvate Partnershp models (see Hobma et al., 2008). Delvery partnershps n urban development between the publc and prvate actors are formed for several reasons (see Nadn et al., 2008: 18). Nadn et al. (2008: 18) argue that 253 Urban Development n the UK

the contrbutons of the publc and prvate sectors to a development partnershp are dfferent but complementary. The publc sector bodes have statutory powers such as the compulsory purchase of land and buldngs, and the grantng of plannng permsson but these powers cannot be transferred to partnershps, whatever form t takes. These powers must be exercsed mpartally by the publc body ndependently from the management of the development partnershp. Often government bodes such EP, RDAs, URCs or UDCs (see Secton 6.3.1) are nvolved wth compulsory purchasng or acqurng land for development, effectvely brngng publc owned land nto use. Thus, these agences manly operate wthn the development process on the bass of statutory powers. Local Plannng Authortes have the mandate to run the separate plannng process of grantng plannng permsson. Nonetheless, Nadn et al. (2008: 18) argues that the fact that the publc body s part of the development partnershp wll normally mply that ts objectves as part of the partnershp wll be supported by the publc body actng on ts own. Hence, wthn development or delvery partnershps t s often a representatve from the development or economc department of local plannng authortes or commssoned prvate consultants that are responsble for securng the best development and plannng nterest for the local authorty. On ther turn, prvate sector developers brng fundng, access to the property markets and development expertse to the partnershp (Nadn et al., 2008: 18). Furthermore, there are strct gudelnes that publc bodes must follow n selectng prvate sector partners. There must be an element of competton. Ths s to ensure that the partner selected can offer the requred qualty of servce, the publc sector has acheved value for money, and to ensure probty n the use of publc sector assets (land or cash) (Nadn et al., 2008: 19). Enablng partnershps are also called nformal or co-operatve partnershps and can be descrbed as nformal partnershp arrangements focusng on brngng together dvergng nterests of actors, wth the am of achevng a shared vson for the development area. Wth nformal Hobma et al. (2008) mean that cooperaton does not take place on agreements or n nsttutonal forms. Ths type of partnershp s often used n the UK to promote urban development, to create a shared vson for an area, to ensure government nvestment, to enhance trust between partners as a platform, to perform development studes under shared commssonershp, and to lobby wth poltcans. Accordng to Hobma et al. (2008: 19), enablng partnershps are well suted for cooperaton between publc, prvate and cvc actors n Dutch urban development practce, for exactly those reasons mentoned above. Moreover, there are two prncple types of legal partnershp vehcles that are used by development bodes to brng about development: lmted companes and legal partnershps. Lmted companes are often prvate lmted companes, accordng to Hobma et al. (2008), the cooperaton model that s most smlar to the Dutch equvalent of jont ventures. There are, however, strct constrants on publc bodes becomng part of a lmted company, as the consent of central government s requred. Therefore, the most common examples are the regeneraton agences rather than local authortes. Formalzed legal partnershps wth the am of makng a proft from development nvolve three types: unlmted partnershps, lmted partnershps or lmted lablty partnershps (see Nadn et al., 2008: 21), mostly consstng of a combnaton of prvate actors (developers and nvestors for nstance). 254 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Legal aspects Types of agreements There are two man types of cooperaton agreements often used n development partnershps: cooperaton agreements and development agreements. The cooperaton agreement s the ntal agreement to work together, followed by the development agreement whch s sgned as the project moves towards mplementaton. Accordng to Nadn et al. (2008: 19) ths agreement sets out n detal the arrangements for conduct of the partners management of the project. Smlar to the Dutch concesson model s realzaton agreement ths agreement sets out the responsbltes of each actor; t establshes the workng arrangements of the jont venture, fundng, provson of nfrastructure, phasng and tmescale for the project, and the sharng of profts. The development agreement wll establsh the mechansms for the conveyance of land and there wll be arrangements for dealng wth dsputes (Nadn et al., 2008: 20). Furthermore, t requres agreement on the type of legal relatonshp that s formed between the actors. In addton to these agreements, sometmes fundng agreements are used to ndcate where and under whch condtons the publc and/or prvate fundng comes nto the urban development project. Another legal relatonshp between publc and prvate actors n the UK s the plannng performance agreement. The frst varant of ths agreement s one n whch a local plannng authorty and a developer agree about what type of nformaton from both actors s requred at what moment to judge and progress wth the development. In a second, more far gong varant, the level of servce by local authortes towards the developer are arranged. Furthermore, t s not uncommon n the UK that developers pay a compensaton for these servces to local government. Also sanctons for not followng the agreements are used n cases negotatons between publc and prvate actors fal, or n stuatons where local authortes do not comply wth the agreed terms. Hobma et al. (2008) argue that both varants of plannng performance agreements can substantally accelerate development processes and certanty for developers, and therefore, could be of nterest to Dutch urban development. Another commonly used agreement between publc and prvate actors s the Secton 106 Agreement. Accordng to the Local Government Improvement and Development (LGID, 2010) the Secton 106 of the Town and Country Plannng Act 1990 allows a local plannng authorty (LPA) to enter nto a legally-bndng agreement or plannng oblgaton wth a landowner n assocaton wth the grantng of plannng permsson. The oblgaton s termed a Secton 106 Agreement. These agreements are a way of delverng or addressng matters that are necessary to make a development acceptable n plannng terms. They are ncreasngly used to support the provson of servces and nfrastructure, such as hghways, recreatonal facltes, educaton, health and affordable housng. Hence, t s an addtonal agreement to the development agreement. They manly consst of developer contrbutons to the provson and realzaton of publc functons. Ths outcome of often extensve negotaton processes between developers and local authortes s often descrbed as plannng gan. Hence, recently the ntroducton of an addtonal plannng gan nstrument, the Communty Infrastructure Levy (CIL), has been on the reform agenda of the Con-Lb coalton government. We wll not explore ths plannng nstrument as t has not played a role n our UK case study research. 255 Urban Development n the UK

Fnancal aspects Rsks & fnancng Nadn et al. (2008: 21) argue that there are strct controls on publc bodes n the UK, but especally local authortes, that lmt ther ablty to take rsks wth publc money. A local authorty may contrbute to the fees of consultants advsng the partnershp, for example or for the preparaton of the master plan. Commonly, a local authorty wll contrbute land to a development project, but t wll ether be sold to the developer or made avalable on lcense to the development partnershp. The beneft of the latter opton s that f the venture fals, the land remans n publc ownershp. It also enables the local authorty to partcpate n rental ncome and to beneft from the enhanced value of land when sold at a later date. Local authortes are prevented from nvestng funds n a commercal venture, but they may brng captal fundng for basc nfrastructure such as roads, and for publc buldngs such as lbrares and schools. Thus, compared to the fnancal role of local governments n Dutch urban development projects, the role of local authortes n the UK n ths regard s more transparent. Publc bodes fnancally operate n the publc doman, by fundng or nvestng n publc buldngs and structures, and leavng land development to the market. Thereby, publc rsks are mnmzed. Nadn et al. (2008) argue that nvolvng several partes n a project partnershp may help to spread rsk, but each partner wll want to mnmze the level of rsk to whch they are exposed. The prvate sector expects hgher returns for ncreased rsk. The transfer of rsk s one of the key benefts to the publc sector of havng prvate sector nvolvement n the project, but the prvate sector wll not accept unlmted or unreasonable levels of rsk. Furthermore, roof tax s seen as a new nstrument to generate money for publc actors n the UK. Hobma et al. (2008) explan that a roof tax (or tarff) s a fxed amount of money per dwellng pad by the developer to the local authorty n exchange for amentes or servces n the area under development. Grants, subsdes, and gap-fundng are development fnancng optons from central government or non-governmental agences drected at specfc targeted areas or programs. Local plannng authortes must apply for these fnancng optons and meet specfc crtera. Hence, publc land sales are manly put on the balance sheet of local government, and are not drectly used wthn urban regeneraton schemes they came from. Also recently, there has been an ncreased nterest n Tax Increment Fnancng (TIF) as a fnance nstrument for urban regeneraton (see Squres & Lord, 2012). Evaluatng partnershps Some authors have evaluated the role of partnershps n urban regeneraton n the UK. They argue that there has been lttle nterest n the manageral effectveness of partnershps and the broader mplcatons of ths for regeneraton polcy. Ball & Magnn (2005) conclude that the partnershp deal s a useful polcy devce but that t has to be thought through more clearly and appled n specfc contexts, rather than seen as the best and unversally applcable model for urban regeneraton. Reasons for the success or falure of UK s urban regeneraton partnershps have been mentoned by Carley et al. (2000). They studed the factors nfluencng the effectveness of cty-wde and local partnershps by conductng research on urban regeneraton projects n the UK. Crucal success factors for partnershps ncludes; leadershp, vsonng and consensus buldng, translaton of vson nto workable objectves, buldng communty nto 256 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

partnershp, drawng busness nto partnershp, Inclusveness versus effcency, nurturng partnershp, human resources, and culture of partnershp (see Carley et al., 2000: v-v). Reasons for the possble falure of partnershps may also lay n the nsuffcent relatonshp between the (publc) plannng process and the (manly prvate) development process as used by Cullngworth & Nadn (2006). These qute separate processes wth ther own logc and ams stll contnue to exst despte the effort to solve conflcts of publc and prvate nterests n medatng devces such as partnershps. Despte partnershp formatons whch brngs publc, prvate and even cvc actors together n a jont-up fashon as promoted by UK s central government to create more sustanable developments, partnershps are smlar to the Dutch experence not always successful n achevng socal, economc and envronmental objectves through urban regeneraton. Nevertheless, despte these crtcal comments, t seems that partnershps used n the UK are possble alternatves for the somewhat more nsttutonalzed forms of Publc-Prvate Partnershp models n the Netherlands. We conclude that types of partnershps n the UK take nto account several other actors n addton to publc and prvate actors. In essence, ths seems to be more n lne wth the growng role of cvlans and other organzatons n socety as a whole, and therefore are worthwhle explorng n urban development practce as well. 6.4 Conclusons In ths chapter we provded an overvew of the characterstcs of the context and organzaton of urban development n the UK untl 2010, n specfc n relaton to our research subject prvate sector-led urban development projects. We constructed the man characterstcs of the plannng system and subsequent plannng polces and provded an overvew of the general characterstcs and ams of urban regeneraton as the concept for mplementng plannng polces. Furthermore, we looked more closely at two perods of urban regeneraton: entrepreneural regeneraton perod and New Labour regeneraton. By analyzng lterature related to the frst perod we came to understand the orgns that caused the shft towards a promnent role for the prvate sector n urban development n the UK and the focus on economc development objectves. The second perod helped us to understand the background for the more comprehensve approach towards multple actor nvolvement and sustanablty objectves n urban development that forms the background of our cases. Moreover, we explored the characterstcs of the roles of publc and prvate actors and ther cooperatve relatonshp n the form of partnershps n the UK. By studyng the roles of the dfferent governmental bodes on natonal, regonal and local levels, we made clear that n the UK a complcated structure of publc sector plannng and development bodes s present, all wth ther own statutory responsbltes and plannng nstruments. The role of the prvate sector n the UK showed us that the development ndustry s a mature sector wth a wde varety n market focus, and that project developers often take the lead n development projects n varous manners. And fnally, we descrbed the role of partnershps n UK urban regeneraton. Ths showed that partnershp workng between publc, prvate and cvc actors has been deeply 257 Urban Development n the UK

embedded n the plannng and development culture, and that varous nformal coordnatng and formal contractual types of partnershps exst. However, despte the fact that we have ganed substantal knowledge about the nsttutonal background of urban development n the UK, whch nfluences the nter-organzatonal and manageral roles that publc and prvate actors play n practce, we stll are n search for emprcal knowledge on UK s prvate sector-led urban development practce. In Chapter 7 we am to draw valuable collaboratve and manageral lessons from two prvate sector-led urban development projects for the Dutch prvate sector-led urban development practce. By understandng the cooperatve relatonshp between local plannng authortes and project developers we am to add an nternatonal perspectve to the future roles of both actors n a Dutch prvate sector-led context. 258 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

7 Cases n the UK Ths chapter provdes nsght nto two urban development cases n the UK, n addton to the general descrpton of several characterstcs of urban development n the UK n the prevous chapter. Before descrbng the results of the case study research on Brstol Harboursde (Secton 7.2) and Lverpool One (Secton 7.3), the case study framework (Secton 7.1) s ntroduced n order to clarfy the objectves and choces for the case studes. In Secton 7.4 a cross-case analyss s presented, followed by prelmnary conclusons from these cases for Dutch urban development (Secton 7.5). 7.1 Case Study Framework As urban development practce n the Netherlands has shown sgns of movng towards a more prvate sector-led approach, t s useful to study UK urban plannng and development practce, as the lterature revew n Chapter 6 has ndcated that t can be consdered as beng prvate sector-led. The objectve of ths data collecton stage s to learn lessons from UK s prvate sector-led urban development project. In ths secton we brefly dscuss the man ssues nvolved wth the UK case study research. Queston, objectve & methodology The man case study queston, objectve and methodology (see Secton 3.2) are: Queston: How do publc and prvate actors organze and manage UK prvate sector-led urban development projects, what are the project effects and actor experences?; Objectve: The objectve of ths stage s to create a better understandng of the publc and prvate roles, project effects and actor experences n emprcal UK prvate sector-led urban development projects; Methodology: Ths stage conssts of multple emprcal case studes, n whch ntervews are held wth practtoners and case documents are analyzed. Furthermore, we use a cross-case analyss and lterature revews to valdate our case study fndngs wthn each context. In lne wth the presented analytcal model n Chapter 3 we wll focus our case descrpton on the organzaton, management and effects of the prvate sector-led urban development projects. We start by descrbng the project s context, elaborate on the development process, contnue wth the man organzatonal publc and prvate role characterstcs, and categorze the used management measures from both actors. We conclude wth determnng the project effects and take nto account actor experences. The fnal objectve s to structure the UK case study fndngs at the end of ths chapter by cross-analyzng the cases wth the assstance of tables used n Chapter 2. 259 Cases n the UK

Formulatng research questons allows us to acheve ths objectve. Qute smlar to the Dutch cases, the UK case study research tres to answer the followng questons: What are the nter-organzatonal roles of publc and prvate actors? What organzatonal tasks and responsbltes are apponted to the actors? What fnancal rsks and revenues are apponted to the actors? What legal requrements and rules are appled by the actors? How are the management measures used by publc and prvate actors? How are project management actvtes carred out by the actors? How are process management actvtes carred out by the actors? How are management nstruments used by the actors? How are management resources used by the actors? What are the effects of the publc-prvate cooperaton and management? Is the cooperaton beng consdered effectve n reachng actors objectves? Is the process beng consdered effcent by lmtng tme and costs? Is the product beng consdered to have a satsfyng spatal qualty level? What are the experences of publc and prvate partes wth the cooperaton? What are the motves to choose ths type of cooperaton? What are the problems encountered n the cooperaton? What are the condtons to apply ths type of cooperaton? Case selecton The selecton of the cases must be seen n the lght of the overall objectve of case study research. The objectve s to learn as much as possble from urban development practce n the UK wthn a lmted tme-frame. Retrevng data from the UK practce should not be a matter of general ssues that are explored; t s the depth wthn cases that matters. Therefore, we conducted two urban development cases as ths also gves us the opportunty to cross-analyze UK cases on several aspects. Hence, we are not nterested n comparng cases between countres, as ths proves to be very dffcult n methodologcal sense (see Chapter 3). Therefore, t s not necessary to use the same selecton crtera as n the Netherlands. Rather we use lesson-drawng crtera that enable us to learn as much as possble for the publc and prvate roles n prvate sector-led urban development projects n the Netherlands. Moreover, the selecton crtera enable us to reflect on some theoretcal (Chapter 4 and 6) and emprcal fndngs (Chapter 5) regardng theoretcal assumptons from academc scholars and emprcal problematc ssues and recommendatons stated by practtoners. The followng case selecton crtera apply to the UK cases: Largely completed projects n a smlar perod: Completed projects n a smlar tme frame are easer to analyze and compare; Mxed-use developments: The ntegraton of functons (not mono-functonal) s one of the objectves and characterstcs of urban development n the Netherlands; Inner-cty regeneraton projects: Intensfyng the use of space n exstng urban fabrc s a major future Dutch urban assgnment. Such projects are consdered to be dffcult to realze through prvate sector-led urban development approaches; 260 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Complexty & consderable scale: The ncrease n complexty and scale of the project characterzed by an ncrease n dfferent nterest groups, often result n a decreased manageablty. These projects area consdered to be dffcult to realze through prvate sector-led development projects; Representaton of urban development practce: The case must be a far representaton of urban development practce n the UK, at least n ts own rght. Ths means we are not lookng for a case n whch a local authorty takes on fnancal rsks n the development; Classc publc-prvate relatonshp: We are lookng for a classcal publc-prvate relatonshp wth the nvolvement of a local plannng authorty and project developer. We are not nterested n cases where specal purpose vehcles play a central role; Pragmatcs: Accessblty to case study documentaton, lterature descrpton, and access to key persons are preferred as ths eases and enrches the data collecton. A vst to the UK was made n the perod from October to November 2009, where the researcher worked on the bass of a guest hosptalty notfcaton at the Department of Plannng and Archtecture, School of the Bult and Natural Envronment at the Unversty of the West of England (UWE) n Brstol. Moreover, n May 2010 another UK vst was made to collect addtonal nformaton to update some case fndngs. Case study research nvolved ntervewng several (nvolved) academc, publc, prvate actors, collectng and analyzng relevant case study documents and other lterature, and ste vsts, provdng trangulaton of the case study fndngs. See Appendx I for a complete lst of UK case study sources. In close collaboraton wth UWE colleagues two cases were found that matched the formulated selecton crtera, whch are Brstol Harboursde and Lverpool One. Both cases represent rather strategc nner-cty developments wth a mxed-use functonal program, and therefore, a possbly expected hgh complexty. Of course they are selected as they are consdered to be prvate sector-led urban development projects at frst sght. Furthermore, t has been tested whether these mxed-use nner-cty cases represent UK urban development practce wth the assstance of UWE colleagues. They confrmed that the cases are not exceptonal examples of urban development projects regardng UK s regeneraton perods descrbed n Chapter 6. However, t must be acknowledged that both cases are of exceptonal nature when compared to the vast majorty of developments n the UK. Due to the case locaton near cty centers, the projects are of a scale and mportance that potentally requres sgnfcant publc sector nvolvement. Hence, exactly these dstnctve characterstcs justfy choosng these UK cases, as they are much closer to the Dutch urban development experence (n terms of scale, mxeduse, complexty, publc nvolvement). Thus, they show less resemblance wth the typcal prvate sector-led development elsewhere n the UK. Therefore, conclusons from both cases are manly vald for these types of projects rather than UK s urban development n general. Herenafter, we descrbe and analyze the two cases (Sectons 7.2 and 7.3), followed by a crosscase analyss (Secton 7.4), fnalzed by some man conclusons (Secton 7.5). 261 Cases n the UK

7.2 Brstol Harboursde Our frst prvate sector-led urban development UK case study s Brstol Harboursde. Ths secton provdes nsght nto the project s context, plannng and development process, organzaton, management, effects, and experences from key stakeholders, followed by some conclusons. Fgure 7.1 shows an aeral vew of Brstol Harboursde. Fgure 7.1 Brstol Harboursde, aeral vew ( Edward Cullnan Archtects / Crest Ncholson) Ths urban regeneraton project s located n the heart of Brstol s cty center, a cty n the Southwest of England. It s a 19.3 acres (7.8 ha) 200 mllon mxed-use development project partally completed n 2009 (the tme of data collecton). It has been developed by a sngle developer Crest Ncholson n close collaboraton wth the Brstol Cty Councl, after a frst stage of development of publc buldngs and squares adjacent to the ste. Table 7.1 shows the man project characterstcs. Project Characterstcs Surface area 7.8 ha (19.3 acres) Lesure/hotel 30,000 m2 (323,000 ft2) Open area ca. 3.0 ha (7.4 acres) Offce 45,000 m2 (484,000 ft2) Total space 119,000 m2 (1.28 mln ft2) Resdental 44,000 m2 (474,000 ft2) ca. 700 unts Table 7.1 Brstol Harboursde, project characterstcs (based on Muñoz Gelen, 2010: 182) (data from 2010) 262 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

7.2.1 Context Brstol Harboursde as an urban development project took place aganst a partcular context whch s hghly mportant to understand t. Here, relevant project s contextual features are descrbed n terms of the economc-poltcal stuaton and spatal polces. Economy & poltcs For some decades now, Brstol has been characterzed as a prosperous cty wth a populaton of around 500,000. In economc terms the cty has a dverse range of hgh-technology and fnancal servce ndustres. In hstorcal respect accordng to Tallon (2006), Brstol developed ts reputaton as a tradng center durng the Mddle Ages. The ndustral heyday of the central Brstol docks was durng the 17th and 18th centures, as the cty was well placed to explot trade wth Afrca and the Amercas. The docks were second n mportance only to London s docklands, and ths contrbuted to Brstol s place as Brtan s second cty n the md-18th century (see also Punter, 1992). Durng World War II, part of central Brstol was bombed, whch resulted n reconstructng the cty center durng the followng decades. After a long perod of gradual declne over the next century, the cty docks eventually closed as a commercal dock n the late 1960s, owng to ncreased competton from larger, deep-water ports, and concomtant wth wder economc changes (Tallon, 2006). The result was that such docklands became redundant and underused. Accordng to Bassett et al. (2002: 1758), poltcally, the cty has been under moderate Labour control for much of the post-war perod, wth bref Conservatves nterludes. However, several studes (Bassett, 1996; 1999; Stewart, 1996; and DGaetano & Klemansk, 1993; 1999) on economc and poltcal change n Brstol n the post-war perod conclude that a sgnfcant governance transformaton took place n the early 1990s. For example, Bassett (1999) puts ths transformaton n the context of three broad phases of post-war change. The perod from 1945 to the late 1960s was a perod of post-war boom and tradtonal Labourst poltcs, wth a focus on modernzng the cty through cty-center redevelopment and ambtous plans for urban motorways. Ths gave way n the late 1970s to a perod of dendustralzaton and factonal poltcs. The 1980s were marked by often btter n-fghtng between old and New Left factons over local polces and opposton to Thatchersm. The Labour group also mantaned much of ts tradtonal suspcon of the local busness communty, a suspcon deepened by loss of powers to a busness-domnated Urban Development Corporaton. Thus, the early 1990s marked the growth of partnershps and busness actvsm trggered by new economc pressures. A wdenng array of partnershps n the cty was establshed, ncludng the Brstol Chamber of Commerce and Intatve (prvate sector-led) and the Brstol Regeneraton Partnershp (publc sector-led), coverng polcy areas such as economc development, cty-center redevelopment and cultural development (see Basset, 1996). Basset et al. (2002) conclude that the dfferent studes mentoned above have revealed that local poltcs n Brstol remans fractured around dfferent agendas and coaltons. Ths reflects the dffculty to characterze the poltcal stuaton n Brstol n the late 1990s. However, ths perod s of hgh relevance for ths study as ths fractured poltcal stuaton also sgnfcantly nfluenced decson-makng on the Harboursde project as we wll see later. 263 Cases n the UK

Spatal polces The Brstol docks have been subject of plannng debate and plans durng all the above descrbed successve economc-poltcal perods from the 1960s onwards. Accordng to Greed (1996: 128) there has been great nterest among local people n the future of the Canons March ste [the northern part of Brstol s Harboursde most adjacent to the cty center] wth a wde varety of vewponts beng expressed. Furthermore, accordng to Muñoz Gelen (2010: 183) the Canons Marsh ste now s one of the Councl s man prortes for regeneraton, and plan preparaton has a long hstory (Askew, 1996; Butelaar, 2007: 89-92). In summary, the debates about the ste reflect the wder Brstol agenda, whch resolves around conflctng prortes n respect to urban conservaton, housng provson, car parkng and transportaton, offce development and lesure uses (Greed, 1996: 128-129). Several successve decades of plannng hstory for Harboursde, and especally the Canons March, are descrbed herenafter. Tallon (2006: 279) argues that the cty authortes and populaton were unsure what should be done wth the redundant land back n the 1960s. However, n 1969, Brstol Cty Councl came up wth plans to fll n large sectons of the docks and buld a rng-road across the land. As the cty councl owned 56 per cent of the land n these docklands at ths tme, they exerted strong control over subsequent development. The councl apponted consultants to develop a more detaled redevelopment plan wth mult-level junctons, large scale offce and housng development. These proposals were nevtably controversal and mmedately galvanzed conservaton groups nto acton (Tallon, 2006: 279). From ths perod on the docklands acqured a new role as a lesure, culture and entertanment space. Thus, the 1970s regeneraton became characterzed as a more senstve, small-scale, hgh-densty, low-rse approach. In the 1980s, followng the abandonment of the early 1970s proposals, Brstol s Harboursde has wtnessed successve stages of regeneraton, largely characterzed by property-led approaches (Tallon, 2006: 279). Several housng developments took place at Harboursde, despte the fact that housng development n docklands carred much rsk at that tme as demand was not certan. However, t quckly became apparent that cty center waterfront lvng was popular. As the docklands penetrate rght nto Brstol s cty center t also became an nterestng opportunty for nvestment and redevelopment. Therefore, the vast majorty of the housng developed at that tme was prvate sector for owner-occupaton or nvestment buyng nstead of socal or affordable housng (see Tallon, 2006). Ths prvate sector housng approach was fuelled by the neolberal central government polces that overtook some of the powers of local authorty, and the extremely hgh land values whch developed there n the 1980s. Accordng to Greed (1996: 128) ths caused pressure on publc bodes to dspose valuable land assets to make up for cut-backs n fundng. However, accordng to Tallon (2006: 280), the development of ths area of the docks had become bogged down by competng vews of how t should be developed, and a number of early-1980s schemes came to nothng. Durng ths perod the ste, accordng to Askew (1996) was used as a commuter car park wth fourteen hundred spaces, whch resolved n a debate on the ste beng underused or not, as t clearly served an mportant functon for the cty. The land owned by a combnaton of partes was an ndustral bult envronment composed of tobacco bonded warehouses, dsused ralway yards and derelct gasworks, whch requred substantal amounts of nvestment for remedaton and redevelopment Askew (1996: 183). Therefore, 264 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

by the late 1980s the ste remaned undeveloped and the only realstc way forward would comprse of a more commercally-orented development. Tallon (2006: 280) argues that the defnng moment for ths area [Canons Marsh] came n the late 1980s when Lloyds Bank approached the Cty Councl wshng to construct a headquarters for one of ts fnancal dvsons on the prestge, central waterfront ste of a former bonded warehouse. Despte the fact that a 1984 Plannng Bref by Councl ndcated that offce development was completely unacceptable, Lloyds Bank s plannng proposal for some 210,000 sq.ft. (19,500 sq.m.) of offce development was granted plannng permsson (see Askew, 1996). Punter (1992) descrbes that the man reason for the Councl s decson was that the local authorty wanted to prevent the occurrng possblty that ths prme ste would become under control of a new to be formed Urban Development Corporaton. It was part of a local strategy to show central government that Brstol was able to attract and facltate nvestment for development, effectvely engagng the prvate sector. Askew (1996: 186) argues that the advantages descrbed by the councl to justfy the decson were job creaton, demolton of the bonded warehouses and the opportunty to pump-prme the ste, openng the way for further development. Accordng to Punter (1992) the justfcaton for the poltcal reversal to grant Lloyds Bank plannng permsson commenced nto yet another Plannng Bref n 1989. Ths bref contaned refned requrements for the Canons Marsh ste whch ncluded lesure and cultural facltes of natonal sgnfcance. However, the ssue of payng for these lesure functons became the man mplementaton problem; wthout sgnfcant publc funds n place they would have to be cross subsdzed by commercal land uses (Punter, 1992: 68). Pror to the bref, n November 1988, LDR Internatonal Ltd. was employed to create a Concept Plan for Canons Marsh whch contaned a soluton for the subsdzng ssue. The plan ncluded a parcelsaton concept, whch meant that the ste was dvded nto a number of parcels and nsde each of them a mxture of uses was allowed for cross-subsdzng wthn the parcel. LDR s proposal was for offces (36%), resdental uses (38%) and lesure uses (38%). Despte the rejecton of LDR s proposal, the Councl accepted three new general prncples whch became part of the 1989 Plannng Bref: 1) development plans should nclude land at Wappng Wharf (opposte the floatng harbour); 2) offces may be necessary for vable development; and 3) there should be cross-subsdzaton of land values over the whole ste. Accordng to Askew (1996: 187), the LDR scheme had succeeded n nterestng all the landowners at Canons Marsh. Furthermore, t had resulted n the Councl acceptng that commercal offce development was needed to realze the wshed publc functons. Thus, n the begnnng of the 1990s development nterest for the ste was back on the map. Nevertheless, although comprehensve schemes were submtted, the Councl seemed to reject them all, and none of these came to fruton (see Askew (1996: 187). Thus, despte pump-prmng Canons Marsh ste and the exstence of several plannng brefs, development proposals and schemes, not much happened untl the md-1990s. In summary, accordng to Bassett et al. (2002: 1761), large areas of the cty docks had been redeveloped, but n an evolutonary and pecemeal way. Some bg bang property-led redevelopment had been avoded, but at the prce of a farly low-key development wthout strkng buldngs or publc spaces. Also, a number of key stes close to the cty center [Canons Marsh] remaned largely undeveloped, offerng great potental for a dfferent style of development n the new context of the 1990s. Therefore, n the followng secton we descrbe the man events of Brstol 265 Cases n the UK

Harboursde s plannng and development process. These events are mportant to understand how development at Canons Marsh ste fnally commenced and evolved. Fgure 7.2 shows the locaton of the Harboursde Plannng Area wthn Brstol s docklands. Notce that our case study nvolves the Harboursde s northern rver bank (Crest Ste) only. Fgure 7.2 Brstol Harboursde, locaton (source: Bassett et al., 2002: 1761) 7.2.2 Plannng & Development Process The prevous secton showed that the context for developng Brstol Harboursde s characterzed by a complex hstory. Ths secton descrbes the dfferent perods of the plannng and development process of the Harboursde s Canons Marsh ste as partcular case and prme development locaton for Brstol. Partnershps, fundng & plannng: 1992-1996 The prevous secton showed that the development of Harboursde has been dffcult for many reasons. However, from 1992 t seems that development for the Canons Marsh ste started to accelerate due to several reasons. Accordng to Bassett (1996: 544), the dffcult stuaton as descrbed n the prevous secton changed sgnfcantly snce the early 1990s, wth a sudden prolferaton of Publc-Prvate Partnershps, a new co-operaton between busnesses and poltcal communtes, and the emergence of a new and more actve busness élte. Varous partnershp ntatves came to fruton, lke The Brstol Intatve, Brstol Cultural Partnershp, Western Development Partnershp, Brstol Chamber of Commerce and Intatve, and Brstol Regeneraton Partnershp. These partnershps represented dfferent bodes, were 266 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

fnanced dfferently and were strvng for specfc objectves to be realzed, some of them wth overlappng membershps. The creaton of the partnershps resulted n a more result-drven approach to plannng and development. Furthermore, t created fundng opportuntes to generate nvestment whch the Brstol Cty Councl (BCC) tself lacked, and whch was so necessary to start major development projects such as Canons Marsh. Accordng to Basset et al. (2002: 1758-9), from the md-1990s, BCC overcame ts tradtonal suspcon of the local busness communty wth the appontment of new councl offcers thought to have more sympathetc atttudes towards partnershp workng and relaunchng the Chamber of Commerce (see also Clement, 2010). But, especally the establshment of the Harboursde Sponsors Group (HSG) n 1993 a partnershp consstng of Canons Marsh, landowners Brtsh Gas, Brtsh Ral, and BCC has had a major nfluence on the project. Ths partnershp was ntated by the Brstol Chamber of Commerce and Intatve (BCCI) and can be consdered as crucal for the development. Accordng to Askew (1996: 187), the rejected LDR scheme by the BCC had succeeded n nterestng all the landowners at Canons Marsh, demands were made for a new plannng bref, prepared wth proper publc consultaton, whch would nclude a development framework for the whole area. As f to close the door on past mstakes and to create a new mage for the [Canons Marsh] area was renamed Harboursde. The HSG was put n charge of developng a vson for the area and to fnd a developer and means to fnance the development. Therefore, they held a competton for development facltators, companes that could assst the HSG n delverng ts objectves, actng as ndependent brokers between the landowners. Thus, as momentum for the development pcked up, HSG apponted property consultants Drvers Jonas to facltate the process and to advse on the preparaton of a development framework. The Concept Plannng Group helped to set the urban desgn context for the framework. Accordng to Askew (1996: 189), the bref was better defned than prevous brefs. Specfc objectves of the Drvers Jonas bref ncluded: Mxed-use comprehensve approach; Vablty phased over a number of years; Major recreatonal and cultural facltes; General objectves relatng to employment, urban desgn, and access; Each soluton s capable of beng mplemented by each landowner actng alone ; All solutons must undergo fnancal apprasal. Furthermore, Askew (1996: 189) argues that accordng to a 1993 press release from the cty councl, a Centre for the Performng Arts (CPA) would be a key element of the proposed development. Ths was n lne wth the objectves of the local authorty to realze publc facltes funded wth publc and prvate money. Therefore, the councl acknowledged the need to create a specal Harboursde fund of ntally 1 mllon. Despte the bref s clear objectves, the plan produced by Drvers Jonas for Canons Marsh conssted almost entrely of an offce park. Askew (1996: 189) contnues that there would appear to be no theory behnd the Drvers Jonas plan. It nether ncludes the prncples of parcelsaton nor takes account of land cross-subsdy. Nevertheless, Askew (1996) argues that ths plan ndcated other development sources for fundng the CPA. It suggested that waterfront land to the west of Lloyds Bank should be used for housng, and that offces could be bult along the Canons Way. 267 Cases n the UK

Furthermore, t recognzed that all knds of publc money could be used to start developng the cultural facltes. It ncluded dfferent sources of publc fundng and grants whch mght be avalable, dvded nto sx development fnancng sources: Arts Councl Mllennum Fund; Natonal Lottery Fund; Urban Regeneraton Agency; European Unon; Value of Brstol Cty Councl s land n Harboursde; Value of the land occuped by the Colston Hall. Fundng Agreement Fundng Pattern Development Englsh Partnershps Englsh Partnershps front fundng Mllennum Commsson Jont Dsposal Agreement Dsposal Proceeds General nfrastructure Brstol Cty Councl Brtsh Gas Secton 106 Agreement General nfrastructure contrbuton Lesure nfrastructure contrbuton Lesure contrbuton Brstol Trust Explore (the new exploratory) Wldscreen World Mllennum square and spaces Decommssonng remedaton Surpluses Brtsh Gas BCC C.P.A. Trust Underground car park Centre for the Performng Arts Englsh Partnershps repayment Arts Councl Fgure 7.3 Brstol Harboursde, partnershp & fundng mechansm (source: Bassett et al., 2002: 1763) 268 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Based on both proposals and publc consultaton, the landowners and Councl agreed on a Commercal Development Framework n 1995. Furthermore, n December 1995, a new Plannng Bref was approved by the Councl as Supplementary Gudance to the Local Plan. But, effectvely, accordng to Bassett et al. (2002: 1761) t was the launchng of the Natonal Lottery n 1994 that provded a way of unlockng the potental for large-scale development. Part of the ncome from the Lottery was to be reserved for a varety of good causes through the ntermedary of organzatons lke the Arts Councl and the Mllennum Commsson. The Brstol Cultural Partnershp (nvolvng the Councl, the BCCI and South West Arts) responded rapdly to ths new opportunty and played a key role n puttng together a seres of lnked bds for Lottery fundng for three major cultural projects on part of the ste. One project ncluded a handson scence museum called Exploratory (later called @t-brstol). A second project ncluded a Wldscreen World. A thrd project ncluded the development of a publc Mllennum Square. And a fnal project ncluded the Centre for the Performng Arts. Accordng to Bassett et al. (2002: 1763), these projects would provde the core of a new cultural quarter and also act as catalysts for the redevelopment of the remanng waterfront areas wth new publc squares, walkways, housng and offces, lnked n turn to the redesgn of the adjacent central area of the cty. Fundng had to be put together to realze these cultural functons n Harboursde. Rasng funds and grants was promoted by the Harboursde Sponsors Group, whch put together a complex partners and fundng mechansm for the ste (see Fgure 7.3). Bassett et al. (2002: 1764-5) argue that varous partes were bound together through a complex fnancal arrangement n whch some of the profts from the commercal part of the ste would go towards the essental matchng fundng for the cultural nfrastructures and publc spaces. The Brstol Cultural Partnershp (nvolvng BCC, BCCI, and South West Arts) had to secure the frst phase grant of Natonal Lottery Fundng for the CPA development ( 4.3 mllon). The HSG secured that Englsh Partnershps would front-fund Harboursde s nfrastructure ( 21 mllon). The Brstol 2000 Trust partnershp was formed to bd for Mllennum Fundng to develop the @t-brstol complex and Mllennum Square ( 41.3 mllon of n total 97 mllon). The requrements set by the Natonal Lottery to beng granted fundng for cultural developments was to match-fund the lottery fundng wth partnershp resources. Ths eventually was resolved by lettng the proftable prvate sector offce and housng development contrbute to fnance the cultural developments. By 1996, the fundng for the cultural development was secured wth a total regeneraton. Thus, fnancng for the cultural development partly depended on the contrbuton of the commercal development. Therefore, the development of the commercal part of Harboursde was crucal for the local authorty. Frst t had to meet ts plannng terms, and second t had to meet ts fnancal terms. In plannng terms, Brstol Cty Councl (BCC) after several decades of relatve under-development and under-nvestment now had the opportunty to regenerate ts prme ste of the docklands. In fnancal terms, part of the land of the ste owned by BCC had to be sold to the developer. Thus, land sale had to satsfy the BCC as a landowner. In 1993, an agreement was made by the Harboursde Sponsor Group to brng n all land from the three landowners for development under the terms that a porton of the ncrease n land value at the moment of land sale would be transferred to the local authorty tself. Hence, also for the developer ths part of the Harboursde development became crucal. It would have to satsfy the profts for the future developer and nvestors, under the pressure 269 Cases n the UK

of the match fundng condton to contrbute to the cultural projects and nfrastructures n a complcated fnancal package deal. However, at the end of 1998, accordng to Bassett et al. (2002: 1764), the cty suffered a btter blow when fundng for the Centre of the Performng Arts (CPA) was suddenly wthdrawn followng a change n government, a change n lottery rules, and a tougher atttude towards captal projects mplemented by the new charman of the Arts Councl. The Arts Councl justfed ts cancellaton on the bass of what t saw as nadequate busness plannng, audence research, publc consultaton and leadershp. Despte publc lobbyng actvtes ths decson was not reversed, and the result was a demoralzng blow to the prncples of partnershp n the cty. Addtonal fundng had to be found from the prvate part of the development to contrbute match fundng to the cultural development n Harboursde. Thus, condtons for selectng a project developer for the commercal part of the development were n place. However, these dffcult fnancal requrements were only part of the conflcts that arose n the desgn stage of the development, dscussed hereafter. Table 7.2 gves an overvew of the man events n the ntatve stage of the project whch provdes support for our case descrpton. Date Actvty Actor 1992 Establshment of Harboursde Sponsors Group Landowners et al. 1995 Commercal Development Framework HSG/landowners 1995, December Brstol Harboursde Regeneraton Plannng Bref I BCC 1996 Fundng secured for cultural development Several actors 1997 Brstol Local Plan BCC 1997 Developer selecton: Crest Ncholson (commercal part) BCC Table 7.2 Brstol Harboursde project tmelne, ntatve stage Developer selecton & refused plannng applcatons (1997-2000) The prevous descrpton showed us the plannng process of the cultural part of Harboursde whch has been largely undertaken by dfferent publc bodes. Here, we move on to the commercal part of Harboursde wth ts own area boundares, for whch a prvate developer had to be selected. However, as both parts of the development are fnancally nterrelated t was necessary to descrbe the cultural part at the frst place. Muñoz Gelen (2010: 183) argues that the 1997 Brstol Local Plan and the 1998 Plannng Bref Implementaton Phase for the Harboursde regeneraton (a supplementary document to the Local Plan) foresaw the redevelopment of the ste nto a mxed-uses area wth offce space, housng and retal. The ten general objectves stated by the Brstol Cty Councl n the 1998 Plannng Bref (BCC, 1998: 3-4) were: To acheve regeneraton of the area wth development desgned for a dverse and balanced range of uses whch wll ensure a level of vtalty and actvty approprate to ths prestgous cty center ste; To secure major cultural and lesure facltes for the people of Brstol; To further develop the prncpal lesure functons of the waterfront; 270 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

To promote sgnfcant nward nvestment n the center of the cty and the creaton of new employment opportuntes; To provde new opportuntes for housng n the center of the cty to contrbute towards demand across a range of types and tenures; To provde for safe, comfortable and convenent access to all parts of the ste for all, but partcularly elderly and dsabled people and parents wth young chldren; To ensure that there s approprate provson for access to the area by publc transport and other alternatves to the prvate car; To retan and restore wherever possble buldngs and townscape features of partcular archtectural or hstorc nterest; To secure a development wth a dstnct sense of place through the promoton of archtectural and desgn nnovaton; To provde a network of well landscaped and desgned publc spaces lnked by strong pedestran routes. Furthermore, the 1998 Plannng Bref ncluded more specfc paragraph explanatons such as: Vson; Land use Framework (based on the development framework advse of the consultants); Accessblty, Movement and Parkng; Urban Desgn & Conservaton; and Envronmental Requrements. The Implementaton Chapter ncluded a clarfcaton of the process towards plannng permsson. Furthermore, ths Chapter contaned four Outlne Plannng Applcaton Requrements for developers, ncludng (BCC, 1998: 52): A full descrpton of the purposed land use(s), n mxed-use cases, an ndcaton of the dstrbuton of users; The quantum of proposed use(s), expressed n gross metres of floor space n the case of offces and lesure uses and n unt szes and types of housng; The means of vehcle access to the ste and the way n whch the requred pedestran and cycle routes and spaces wll be accommodated; The proposed amount of dedcated parkng provson. Thus, the developer s applcaton had to be based on the requrements stated n the Plannng Bref. In 1997, accordng to Tallon (2006: 281) seven developers put forward proposals to transform ths segment of Harboursde nto a mxed-use development of offces, shops, homes and lesure facltes. In a development competton, the consortum of Crest Ncholson / Brtsh Land was selected as the preferred development partner, because of ther masterplan proposal and land bd. Wth Crest selected as development partner n 1997 desgn of the scheme fnally could commence. Although Brtsh land soon dropped out, Crest was allowed to carry on and subsequently appled for Outlne Plannng Permsson n 1998. In response to these requrements, the frst Crest development scheme ncorporated the elements lke waterfront housng, offces, a central boulevard and publc square, and a large commercal lesure complex (ncludng mult-screen cnema). However, Harboursde s commercal part became entwned wth a set of conflcts and controverses posng serous challenges. There have been no less than three cycles of plan development and presentaton, each marked by crtcsm and conflct, nvolvng dfferent vsons of how the ste mght be developed (Bassett et al., 2002: 1764). 271 Cases n the UK

Bassett et al. (2002: 1764) argue that up untl ths pont, there had only been muted publc crtcsms of the general prncples behnd the Harboursde project, but Crest s plans quckly aroused opposton, focusng partcular on the proposed lesure complex. Opposton centred on the sze and locaton of ths lesure complex whch would block sght lnes across the harbour to the nearby cathedral. The BCC Plannng Commttee receved numerous wrtten objectons from resdents, councllors from adjacent wards ncludng local amenty groups, local archtects and cathedral authortes. Moreover, a promnent role n opposton was undertaken by the Brstol Cvc Socety as a cvc organzaton and the Lberal Democrats as the poltcal opposton party. Ths was fuelled by the local press who descrbed the Crest plan as an appealng scheme. As a result of ths the BCC Plannng Commttee refused plannng permsson to Crest. They also addressed 10 key ponts of concern whch were takng nto account by Crest n the new phase of desgnng a scheme. Fgure 7.4 Brstol Harboursde, 2nd scheme, Crest Ncholson (source: Bassett et al., 2002: 1765) Fgure 7.5 Brstol Harboursde, alternatve scheme, George Ferguson (source: Bassett et al., 2002: 1765) 272 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

In August 1999, Crest made ther second development scheme publc (Fgure 7.4), splttng the orgnal lesure complex nto more dstnct buldngs (ncludng a swmmng pool, a casno and a multplex cnema), re-orentatng apartment blocks and changng buldng heghts, thus clamng to have met all the ponts of concern rased by the protestors and the Plannng Commttee (Bassett et al., 2002: 1766). However, at the same perod, a counter-plan for mn-vence was presented by a consortum fronted by Brstol archtect George Ferguson (Fgure 7.5), an nfluental fgure. Immedately, Crest and local property agents dsmssed the plan as unworkable. Nevertheless, Ferguson bult popular support for the plan wth a keen meda offensve. Ths part of the development process came known as the battle of the plans. Crest reluctance to provde more detal before outlne plannng consent was granted left both Ferguson and the Cvc Socety wth the opportunty of fllng n some of the detal for them wth computer smulatons emphaszng the bulkness of the buldngs and the loss of sght lnes (Bassett et al., 2002: 1766). Despte an attempt by Crest to alter the publc vew of ther scheme through a one-day publc presentaton, t was too late. Accordng to Bassett et al. (2002: 1766), the Plannng Commttee fnally consdered the Crest proposal n February 2000. At ths pont, Crest could clam publc backng from the landowners, local property agents, the BCCI, the @Brstol partnershp and the South West Regonal Development Agency. Arrayed aganst them were the Cvc Socety, many conservaton and resdents groups, leadng local archtects and (for the most part) the local press. In the publc meetng several appeals to the plan were made, the crtcsm focusng on desgn qualty, the economc vablty of the mult-screen complex, the blockng of sght lnes to the Cathedral, traffc and sustanablty ssues, and the lack of any dstnctve Brstolan flavour to the desgns (Bassett et al. (2002: 1767). Also, the Lberal Democratc and Conservatve poltcal opposton partes jont n the chorus of condemnaton. At the end of the meetng, the Plannng Applcaton was turned down by 7 to 4 votes. In the months that followed, the BCC began to realze that the refusal of the second Crest scheme had caused a major problem. Frst of all, Crest at that stage had terms n ther contracts wth the landowners whch allowed them some tme to come up wth a new plan. Second, ths new epsode to centures of nablty to development the Harboursde area could harm future prvate sector nvestments n the cty and relatonshps wth central government, a vew supported by the Presdent of the Brstol Chamber of Commerce Intatve. In a Specal Councl Meetng on March 2000 the BCC tred to convnce the poltcal opposton partes to stop opposng to the plans, as they also had handed n a resoluton. Furthermore, support to gve Crest a far chance as a developer came from Crest s Chef Executve who asked for some more tme and to take the ssue out of the poltcal agenda. In the end the opposton resoluton was defeated and Crest was allowed to start agan on a new scheme. Table 7.3 gves an overvew of the major events n relaton to the frst two schemes and applcatons. Here, also the wthdrawal of the fundng for the CPA has been ncluded. 273 Cases n the UK

Date Actvty Actor 1998, July 8 Brstol Harboursde Regeneraton Plannng Bref II BCC 1998 Outlne Plannng Applcaton (1st round) Crest Ncholson 1998 Outlne Plannng Permsson (1st round) refused BCC 1998 Fundng cultural development CPA wthdrawn Arts Councl 1999, August Outlne Plannng Applcaton (2nd round) Crest Ncholson 2000, February Outlne Plannng Permsson (2nd round) refused BCC Table 7.3 Brstol Harboursde project tmelne, desgn & feasblty stage Basset et al. (2002: 1767-1771) made an analyss on how the plannng and development process was allowed to proceed so far before clmaxng nto open conflct. A complex set of nterrelated factors n ther vew has contrbuted to the process falure to reach consent. The falure factors that played a key role n the plannng and development process untl the frst desgn stages of the Brstol Harboursde, nclude: Desgn weaknesses: Too lttle attenton was pad to local archtectural preferences and spatal demands; Tensons between plannng and development prortes: It was unclear to whch publc offcers had whch responsbltes n the dual nterest n land development and plannng objectves; Weaknesses n poltcal leadershp: There was a lack of drecton wthn the Plannng Commttee, whch mssed a hgh-profle fgure who could lead the process through emergng problems nto a successful concluson; Weaknesses n busness leadershp: Despte ts central role n the partnershp structures the BCCI dd not play a leadershp role n practce, whch could have favored the nterests of both Crest Ncholson and the BCC; The strength of opposton groups: The Cvc Socety was well organzed and had a long hstory of campagnng over development ssues whose role n debate was supported by Ferguson s counter plan; Dscourses and counter-dscourses: The publc debates led by the Cvc Socety envsaged a broader development towards publc feelngs and concerns about the ste and the cty; The role of the meda: The use of the meda was a powerful tool of the organzed nterests n the cty, over whch nether BCC nor Crest had no suffcent control; Inter-party conflct and the poltcsaton of development ssues: The rse of the Lberal Democrats as the man opposton party caused an unpleasant battleground and t seemed that the developers seemed unprepared for ths poltcal conflct. Fnal scheme & agreements (2000-2004) Thus, the prevous perod had been characterzed by a lot of problems. Therefore, n Aprl 2000 the BCC Plannng Commttee agreed a New Strategc Approach to Consensus, whch was necessary to avod future process dffcultes for the Harboursde project. Accordng to Bassett et al. (2002), ths ncluded the producton of a spatal masterplan whch had to be desgned under the responsblty of the developer under the condtons that t was drafted by an entrely new desgn team. Furthermore, the Plannng Commttee gave the requrement that the desgn 274 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

was to be produced through an extended process of communty dalogue to buld consensus before approval of outlne plannng consent and the submsson of more detaled plans (Bassett et al., 2002: 1771). Crest Ncholson apponted consultancy frm Opnon Leader Research (OLR) to come up wth a publc consultaton model. They set up a steerng group, the Canons Marsh Consultatve Group (CMCG) to oversee the communty dalogue process. The CMCG ncluded representatves from dfferent publc, prvate and cvc groups wth a close stake n the development. These were the landowners, councllors from three poltcal partes, councl departments and key-nterest groups such as the Cvc Socety, BCCI, Brstol Socety of Archtects and Cathedral authortes. Ther frst task was to appont a masterplanner to desgn the scheme, whch became Edward Cullnan. The frst round of consultaton nvolved a parallel seres of workshops wth several stakeholders and members of the publc. At the end of ths phase, the masterplan was gven ten crtera to gude the constructon of the masterplan, callng for more publc access to the ste, greater dversty of uses, better sght lnes, traffc separaton and mproved lnkages to surroundng areas (Bassett et al., 2002: 1771). The result was a frst masterplan draft whch was made publc n November 2000 (see Fgure 7.6). Fgure 7.6 Brstol Harboursde, masterplan, Edward Cullnan Archtects (source: Bassett et al., 2002: 1765) The second phase of consultaton, from November 2000-August 2001, nvolved another seres of workshops. Here the plan was evaluated aganst the formulated crtera after crossexamnng both the master planner and varous expert wtnesses (Bassett et al., 2002: 1771). The OLR judged both consultatons as very postve at frst sght. The masterplan was also presented to other nfluental actors such as the Commsson for Archtecture and the Bult Envronment (CABE) and the local Harboursde Desgn Forum. Accordng to Bassett et al. (2002: 1771), ths elaborate consultaton process proved successful n overcomng much 275 Cases n the UK

of the opposton to earler plans. For nstance, the openness of the process was prased by the Cvc Socety. Despte an almost unanmously vote aganst the Cullnan proposal by opponents expressed n a publc meetng organzed by ths group n August 2001, plannng applcaton was consdered and fnally approved by the Plannng Commttee n October 2001, as the opposton had become more muted n the meantme. Date Actvty Actor 2000, Aprl New Strategc Approach to Consensus BCC Plannng Com. 2000, Apr-Nov Desgn & 1st phase Consultaton Process Crest Ncholson 2000, November Draft Masterplan Crest Ncholson 2001, Jan-Aug Desgn & 2nd phase Consultaton Process Crest Ncholson 2001, September Outlne Plannng Applcaton (3rd round) Crest Ncholson 2001, October Outlne Plannng Permsson (3rd round) granted BCC 2002 Detaled desgn works start Crest Ncholson 2003 Development & Secton 106 Agreement BCC & Crest Ncholson 2004, February Fnal Plannng Permsson granted BCC Table 7.4 Brstol Harboursde project tmelne, fnal desgn & feasblty stage Bassett et al. (2002: 1772-1773) argue that several factors have led to the success of the thrd attempt to come up wth a vable scheme for all actors, these nclude: The general percepton that the thrd plan was an mprovement to prevous ones; The supporters of the scheme were much better organzed; The opposton had become dvded and were mpressed by the process openness; The meda gave more sympathetc coverage of the plan; The poltcal context had shfted as the LbDems were pushed back n electons. Basset et al. (2002: 1773) conclude that 4 years after Crest Ncholson were apponted as developers and 30 years after the frst comprehensve proposals for the ste, detaled desgn work on the development of ths key ste s fnally underway. The development negotatons between the local authorty and the developer took place n 2002 and 2003. Fnally, n 2003 a Development Agreement and Secton 106 Agreement were sgned by BCC and Crest, followed by a Fnal Plannng Permsson n February 2004 (see Table 7.4). Constructon & operaton (2004-now) Constructon works on the Crest part of the ste started n March 2004. The development of the dfferent stes and buldngs has been phased by Crest nto four mplementaton phases. They set up a project team and contracted dfferent companes to assst n specalst works, such as engneerng (Arup, Hoare Lea), Landscape (Grant Assocates), Traffc (Peter Evans Partnershp), Qualty Surveyor (Gardner & Theobald, Glees & Cyrl Sweet) and Plannng Consultants (Nathanel Lchfeld & Partners). Furthermore, Crest had commssoned several archtects (Edward Cullnan Archtects, FaulknerBrowns, Strde Treglown, Chlds + Sulzmann, and Frtzroy 276 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Robnson) to work out detaled desgns for the dfferent stes. Also, they sgned dfferent contractors (Taylor Woodrow, Carllon, and Ker) to carry out ste-specfc constructon works. In the meantme, Crest acqured all the land from the landowners and started to prepare the land for development. The total land acqurng costs for Crest are not made publc, but land value certanly rose durng the 2004-2006 perod affectng the ntal proposed program by Crest as ntally calculated development profts were not achevable. Ths has for nstance resulted n a hgher densty than planned, but not at the expense of publc space, whch amounts for 25% of the total land surface. Accordng to Muñoz Gelen (2010) the total land development costs for Crest were approxmately 28 mllon. Furthermore, the BCC and Crest negotated developer s contrbutons n Secton 106 Agreements. These mpled that the developer should delver the publc nfrastructure and spaces spatally related to the buld stes, the ntal provson of 9% affordable housng, and the amount of match-fundng the cultural development (off-ste publc nfrastructure contrbutons were 32.5 mllon, accordng to Muñoz Gelen, 2010), amongst others. Each phase nvolved a reserved plannng applcaton to get full plannng permsson, resultng n new condtons added n Secton 106 agreements. Nether the Plannng Bref nor Development Agreement provded very detaled publc prescrptons for the amount and types of housng unts for nstance. Ths approach creates flexblty to fll n the exact functonal program for each ste before commencng on a new ste. The dea behnd t s that n ths way the developer should be able to respond to market demand, and the BCC could mplement new plannng polcy targets through negaton processes. These for nstance ncluded new affordable housng and sustanablty targets. Accordng to the developer, plannng offcer, the amounts of affordable housng targets ncreased over tme from 10% to 25% (Phase 3) and even 30% (Phase 4). The Homes and Communtes Agency sets these targets for nner-cty developments and subsdzed them n offerng Affordable Housng Grants to Harboursde. Therefore, durng the development process numerous negotatons have taken place about the amount of affordable housng n the scheme. At the end of 2009, 17% of the completed housng (accordng to the developer 116 out of 670 unts) conssted of affordable housng. Negotatons about the amount of affordable housng have partally contrbuted to hgher buldng heghts, as addton to obtanng a decent proft as result the rsng land values. Furthermore, sustanablty targets stated n the Code for Sustanable Homes were set hgher. Ths s a very complex set of crtera reducng the amount of CO2 emssons, water conservaton, and materal effcences. The developer recalls that these changng publc legslaton changes created hgh fnancal rsks for the developer. Nevertheless, Crest for nstance ntroduced sustanable solutons such as a dran strategy, harbor coolng, and green roofs. In 2009, Harboursde acheved the Buldng for Lfe Award n whch t reached the hghest Gold Standard status. Ths s a natonal standard for well-desgned homes and neghborhoods from CABE (Commsson for Archtecture and the Bult Envronment). Judged aganst 20 strngent crtera, Harboursde was tested on ssues such as ts contrbuton to the envronment and communty, ts character, streets, parkng and pedestransaton, and desgn and constructon. To gan a gold standard the development had to score 16 ponts or more out of 20. Out of 117 housng developments enterng the scheme ths year across the UK, 12 acheved a gold standard. Only one other development n the South West acheved gold (a development n Crencester), makng Harboursde s achevement even more notable (Crest Ncholson, 2009). 277 Cases n the UK

The Cty Councl and Crest together negotated and agreed upon the phasng of the project n the Development Agreement. For each of the four phases the development agreement ncludes deadlnes for completon. These deadlnes have proved to be unworkable as a result of the economc crss. As market crcumstances were favorable n the md-2000s Crest dd not have dffcultes of delverng the buldngs and related nfrastructure as demand was hgh and loans were gven by banks. Therefore, Phase 1 and Phase 2 were completed n tme. The housng development along the waterfront for nstance has seen steady sales. Phase 3 sees near completon n 2011, as the Crest secured a fnancal stock broker as a tenant for the offce development and the fundng for t just before the crss. However, as a result of the economc crss Phase 4 (housng & publc space development) s affected by serous delays. Ths development has not yet commenced n March 2011, as a ste vst at that moment showed. Other dffcultes from 2009 on Harboursde nclude the retal vacances n some of the completed buldngs. Accordng to the developer several reasons contrbute to these retal vacances whch relate to the competton of other retal locatons n Brstol. In summary, Table 7.5 shows the man events of the realzaton and operaton stage. In terms of long-term management and operatng of the ste, Crest and the Brstol Cty Councl agreed that once the development s completed BCC owns all publc land. In the meantme, temporary management of publc nfrastructure and space s n the prvate hands of Crest. Once the ste and buldngs are occuped for 51% BCC adopts the land and takes over the operaton of Harboursde. As a matter of fact, Crest used the qualty standards for mantenance set by the local authorty. Hence, Crest has got dfferent management estates that are operated by management estate companes. Thus, prvate publc space and buldng operaton s pad for by ts occupers n the form of a servce charge. An example of ths s the housng development on the waterfront ste. Ths s a sem-open prvate publc space adjacent to the publc waterfront pedestran and cyclng space. The publc space adjacent to the cultural developments s operated by the @t-brstol complex owners. Date Actvty Actor 2004, March Constructon works start BCC 2006 Crest Ncholson owns all land Crest Ncholson 2006 Development Phase 1 completed Crest Ncholson 2008 Development Phase 2 completed Crest Ncholson 2008-2012 Development Phase 3 & 4 completon Crest Ncholson Table 7.5 Brstol Harboursde project tmelne, realzaton & operaton stage The descrpton of the plannng and development process above has shown us the complexty of the Harboursde case over tme. In the followng sectons we wll analyze the case wth the help of our analytcal framework. In successve order we elaborate on the organzaton, management, effects, and experences of the case. 278 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

7.2.3 Organzaton Here, we now analyze the organzaton of Brstol Harboursde on the bass of our analytcal framework, whch enables us to compare both UK cases and foregn cases wth one another. We provde an answer to our frst case study research queston: what are the nterorganzatonal roles of publc and prvate actors? In successve order, tasks and responsbltes, rsks and revenues, and rules and requrements are dscussed, supported by dfferent table overvews. Tasks & responsbltes Here, we summarze the man tasks and responsbltes based on our descrpton for dfferent development process stages (Secton 7.2.2) and studed plannng documents. Hence, the development of Harboursde has been dvded nto two major stes whch nvolved dfferent organzatonal arrangements. Here, an analyss of both projects s presented. Table 7.6 gves an overvew of the tasks & responsbltes of the publc and prvate actors n Brstol Harboursde. Ths table shows that publc and prvate roles were very much formally separated from ntatve to operaton stage, as expected from the lterature revew (Chapter 6). However, as we encounter later, nformal nter-organzatonal relatons occur n the day to day publc-prvate collaboraton. Publc Actor Intatve Stage Formng landowner partnershp (HSG) Establshng an area vson Producng development framework Issung plannng bref Mandatng local plan Produce development tender Selectng preferred development partner Desgn & Feasblty Stage Issung fnal development bref Demandng communty dalogue Gvng outlne plannng permsson to developer Handlng publc nqury Sgnng development & secton 106 agreement Grantng plannng permsson Realzaton & Operaton Stage Provdng plannng permsson for buldngs Adoptng publc space from developer Prvate Actor Intatve Stage Statng development nterest Provdng wrtten & conceptual desgn proposal Desgn & Feasblty Stage Commssonng consultants (desgn/consultaton) Desgnng masterplan Appontng steerng group Organzng publc consultaton meetngs Submttng plannng applcaton Sgnng development & secton 106 agreements Securng nvestment for development Realzaton Stage Submttng revsed plannng applcatons Appontng development consultants & contractors Constructng, delverng & openng the project Operaton Stage Carryng out temporary ste management Transferrng publc space to local authorty Table 7.6 Emprcal tasks & responsbltes n Brstol Harboursde 279 Cases n the UK

In the ntatve stage, the landowners Brstol Cty Councl (BCC), Brtsh Gas and Brtsh Ral wth the help of the Brstol Chamber of Commerce Intatve decded to establsh the partnershp Harboursde Sponsors Group (HSG). Ths partnershp became responsble for the promoton, vson formulaton, development framework, and fund rasng of the Harboursde project. Hence, here we must notce that BCC n the HSG partnershp functoned as a landowner n the development process; t sold ts land to the Charty, who gave them a market conform land value n return. Parallel to ths, n the plannng process, the BCC Plannng Commttee had the task to establsh a Plannng Bref for the area, to revew and establsh the Brstol Local Plan, and to tender and select a developer for the commercal development. Thus, the role of the BCC n both processes was kept separated. The developer Crest at ths pont only stated ther development nterest by reactng on the tender. In the desgn and feasblty stage, the Plannng Commttee of local authorty had the responsblty to handle the dfferent Outlne Plannng Applcatons and to grant or refuse Plannng Permsson. The developer Crest Ncholson performed the task to desgn a masterplan for the area and to hand n Outlne Plannng Applcatons for the area. As the frst two applcatons were turned down, new arrangements were made for the fnal desgn stage. For the fnal desgn, the local authorty demanded an extended process of communty dalogue. Therefore, Crest apponted consultancy frm Opnon Leader Research to produce a consultaton model and set up a steerng group to oversee the consultaton process. Furthermore, Crest apponted a masterplan archtect Edward Cullnan to desgn the scheme. Ths consultaton and desgnng task by the prvate actor resulted n a Draft Masterplan. After a second round of consultaton and desgnng, Crest task was to request an Outlne Plannng Applcaton. Then, the local authorty granted an Outlne Plannng Permsson. After ths, Crest was requested to perform detaled desgn works and take nto consderaton the addtonal ponts of nterest that went along wth the plannng permsson. Smultaneously, on the bass of the certanty of the permsson, the developer performed the task to secure the nvestment for development. Furthermore, together wth the local authorty both actors negotated the terms of the Development Agreement and Secton 106 Agreement, whch also contaned developer contrbutons to publc works on and off ste. Ths stage was fnalzed by grantng Fnal Plannng Permsson by the local authorty. In the realzaton stage, Crest set up a project team, contracted dfferent specalst companes to assst n specalst works, performed the necessary land acquston for development and carred out land preparaton works, before startng constructon works on nfrastructure, publc space and buldngs n dfferent phases. The local authorty dd not have any notable tasks and responsbltes at ths stage. In the operaton stage, on the bass of the development agreement, Crest s responsblty was to mantan the publc spaces and nfrastructure once 51% occupancy of real estate had not been realzed. After ths, the local authorty performs ths mantenance task. Furthermore, t was the task of Crest to establsh management estate companes whch operate the prvate real estate and prvate publc space. 280 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Rsks & revenues In terms of rsks and revenues there has been a clear dstncton between the two actors n Brstol Harboursde. The local authorty does not have any substantal fnancal rsks; however, t does have some poltcal, economc and socetal rsks and overhead costs. The Harboursde plannng and development process dd take qute some years to commence n a fnal scheme. Especally, the poltcal opposton played a hard tme on the seated councl thereby frustratng the development process. Ths poltcal tenson even accumulated nto a moton whch was fnally rejected. Also, the mage of the BCC beng not totally welcomng to prvate nvestment caused some economc rsks as well. Furthermore, the well-organzed cvc organzatons opposed to the plans, statng that they dd not take nto account the local nterests. Ths was propelled by the local meda whch supported the vews of cvc groups. Nevertheless, n the end, once the desgn and consultaton process took on a more professonal approach these rsks lowered and were handled by the local authorty. In terms of revenues, BCC obtaned a market conform prce for the land the owned at Canons Marsh, although the land revenues are not made publc. The local authorty ndrectly benefts from the free transfer of publc space whch s delvered by the developer. Also, the local authorty has put qute some effort nto the plannng and development process, probably resultng n hgher than estmated overhead costs. However, t s not clear whch budget has been reserved and fnally realzed n ths case. Crest Ncholson does have a hgh rsk degree as t undertakes fnancal actvtes. Frst, there s the plan development rsk. All the tme and effort that has been put nto desgnng three successve masterplans before beng granted plannng permsson must have had a substantal fnancal effect on Crest s budget. Second, Crest takes on the land acquston rsk of the development. Nevertheless, ths rsk was relatvely low as the process of acqurng all land ran rather smoothly; the dfferent landowners had unted ther land n the Harboursde Sponsor Group. Thrd, the developer took on the land development rsk. Here agan, some rsks were lowered as Brtsh Gas decommssoned ther land for remedaton. Nevertheless, accordng to Crest the land value of the ste has dropped to over 10%. Ths means that the scheme becomes less feasble posng hgh rsks n a market where demand s not up to pre-crss levels. Fourth, Crest runs the real estate development rsks. The case shows that demand for real estate n the frst two mplementaton phases, due to economc boom tmes, was rather hgh. However, hgher real estate rsks are foreseen n phase 3 and 4 due to the changed market condtons. Not only are there substantal retal vacances and some housng vacances n completed buldngs, the scheduled housng development of apartments has not yet commenced n sprng 2011, but estmated to be completed n summer 2012. However, the offce development of phase 3 has been secured of nvestment and a user. Fnally, Crest runs the fnancal rsks as they partly rely on bank loans that are only provded under tghtened condtons. In terms of revenues, Crest ams at achevng a decent proft, balancng the land and real estate development. Muñoz Gelen (2010) argues that the total real estate value s estmated at 404 mllon; however, ths does not tell us anythng about development revenues. 281 Cases n the UK

Rules & requrements In terms requrements the local authorty has provded several pre-development stage condtons whch were provded n the Development Framework and Plannng Bref. Especally, the outlne plannng applcaton requrements part of the plannng bref state some clear publc requrements. These nclude a descrpton of the proposed land uses, the quantum of proposed uses, the means of vehcle access and parkng provson. Furthermore, the negotated Development Agreement and Secton 106 Agreement nclude more specfc requrements to be met by the developer. These nclude developer s contrbutons for nstance on the amount of affordable housng, desgn and sustanablty gudelnes, the amount of match fundng the cultural development, nfrastructure provsons, publc space delvery and operaton amongst others. These requrements evolved from qute general wshes to more specfc detals once progresson was made n the development process. Other rules ncluded that Crest had to perform temporary mantenance actvtes untl the local authorty adopted the land for publc space and nfrastructure. 7.2.4 Management In Chapter 2 we dscussed that the management from actors n prvate sector-led urban development projects has been underestmated as a way of nfluencng the outcome of projects. Therefore, here we analyze the dfferent management measures appled by the publc actor (Brstol Cty Councl) and prvate actor (Crest Ncholson). Project management The man project management actvtes for publc and prvate actors to nfluence development projects are based on the development stages, summarzed nto four categores; ntatng, desgnng, plannng, and operatng. In terms of ntatng the development project, the Brstol case shows that the local authorty played a crucal role. For several decades Harboursde had been an undeveloped ste wthn the cty center. As a result of establshng the Harboursde Sponsor Group as a partnershp of landowners (ncludng the Brstol Cty Councl) the ntatve for the urban development made a start. Furthermore, dfferent publc actors secured dfferent grants to fnance the cultural development, and they agreed upon a development framework. Here, the central government body Englsh Partnershps also played a role. Nevertheless, there was also qute some help of the prvate sector, as Brtsh Gas and Brtsh Ral as landowners and the Brstol Chamber of Commerce played a role n establshng the partnershp. Effectvely, the BCC ssued a Plannng Bref and wrote out a tender askng for developer nterests. Thus, n ths case, the developer dd not play a role n the ntatve stage, and the local authorty could set the condtons for development, effectvely nfluencng the outcome. In terms of desgnng the development project, the Brstol case shows that the project developer Crest took on the leadng role. In dfferent desgn stages they delvered three masterplan schemes. The frst two applcatons were not beng granted plannng permsson, 282 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

but a thrd succeeded. Thereby, the local authorty effectvely managed to avod the approval of a scheme whch dd not meet all publc and cvc nterest. However, n the thrd desgn round Crest carefully nfluenced the fnal contours of a scheme by carryng out a professonal consultaton process and desgn workshops. Thus, despte the long desgn process Crest has managed the development outcome accordng to ther nterest and that of others. In terms of plannng the development project, the Brstol case shows that the developer s able to nfluence the speed of development. Although both the BCC and Crest Ncholson agreed upon the phasng of the development wth delvery deadlnes, n practce the developer manages the development plannng. As a result of the decreased demand for housng Crest s not able to delver n tme. Despte efforts from the BCC to facltate development, by lowerng the requrement of affordable housng, Crest wll not commence on the development unless fnance s secured and a substantal demand s at place. The BCC has lmted nfluence on ths market demand and therefore hardly s able to nfluence the speed. Thus, plannng can be seen as a prvate project management actvty. In terms of operatng the development project, the Brstol case shows that the local authorty has been able to nfluence the outcome drectly. As the land for publc space and nfrastructure s transferred to the BCC for mantenance they have negotated publc realm materals and lay-out. The developer has had nsuffcent nfluence on some aspect of the publc space. For nstance, the developer opted for a footbrdge crossng the harbor to the tourst attracton SS Great Brtan at the end of the boulevard to ncrease pedestran movement, whch dd not pass negotatons as t was not n the nterest of the local authorty. Thus, operatng can manly be seen as a publc project management actvty. Process management The man process management actvtes for publc and prvate actors to nfluence development projects relate to the cooperaton and nteracton between publc and prvate actors and therefore are structured n three categores; negotatng, decson-makng, and communcatng. In terms of negotatng n the development process, the Brstol case shows that both actors have been dscussng ther objectves n an on-gong process from the desgn stage nto the realzaton stage. Frst, n the negotaton process towards the Development Agreement and Secton 106 Agreement both actors agreed upon the condtons for development. Later, n the realzaton stage several negotatons took place after each stage for whch a new plannng applcaton was needed. These negotatons for nstance focused on the mplementaton of hgher percentages of affordable housng as a result of changed central government polcy targets. These targets were not all met, nstead the local authorty and Crest negotated a fnancal package deal n return for not realzng the amount of affordable housng. Thus, both actors were able to nfluence the development based on negotatng. In terms of decson-makng n the development process, the Brstol case shows that n all development stages both actors had several moments and nstruments to make decsons on behalf of ther organzatons. The local authorty used nformal and formal documents n whch t stated dfferent decsons that had to be taken nto consderaton by the prvate actors. The man example was the BCC Plannng Commttee s decson to refuse Crest plannng permsson for the frst two plannng applcatons. Grosvenor manly made decsons based on tme, fnance, and desgn ssues whch were ncorporated n Masterplans and agreements wth 283 Cases n the UK

other consultants. Jontly the local authorty and the project developer made decsons on the terms for development, ncludng for nstance delvery deadlnes. Thus, both actors were able to nfluence the development based on decson-makng. In terms of communcatng n the development process, the Brstol case shows that Crest took on the responsblty to communcate desgns and progress. However, t can be argued whether ths communcaton has been effectvely managed. One of the reasons for the falure of the frst two schemes was the lmted attenton pad to the objectves of local needs. As a result, opposton rose aganst the frst two plans made by Crest. Therefore, also the local authorty came n the poston to communcate about the desgn process to local meda for nstance. Nevertheless, n the thrd desgn stage Crest managed the communcaton process more accurately as they organzed a clear consultaton process supervsed by a steerng group. In the realzaton stage, t also has become clear that Crest manages the communcaton as they nstalled a sale offce at the ste promotng the development and purchase optons. Thus, communcatng s a management actvty that s largely prvate sector-led. Management tools The man management tools that publc and prvate actors have to secure and provde condtons as a way to nfluence development projects are categorzed n four man categores; shapng, regulatng, stmulatng, and capacty buldng. In terms of shapng the development project, the Brstol case shows that the local authorty shaped development condtons for the developers. Under the responsblty of the Harboursde Sponsor Group a vson and development framework were establshed. Ths shaped the project condtons for developers to respond to. Furthermore, by makng the Brstol Local Plan followed by a Plannng Bref for the Harboursde development the BCC stated ts ntentons for the cty and the project, thereby creatng certanty for developers. Therefore, shapng development was largely a management tool used by the publc actor. In terms of regulatng the development project, the Brstol case shows that the local authorty dd use regulatons as a way to nfluence development. Crest argued that ths project can be characterzed as a development control process from ntatve untl delvery. Due to the fact that both actors had negotated terms that stated that each mplementaton phase of the project requred a new Plannng Applcaton the local authorty was able to regulate the several development aspects. Therefore, new publc polcy objectves such as affordable housng and conservaton objectves could be njected n the project. Nevertheless, the nature of these regulatons was often was on outlnes. For nstance, buldng heghts and denstes were not regulated n agreements, whch gave the developer some space for fnancal optmzaton. But, n essence, the local authorty used ther regulatory powers to manage development results. In terms of stmulatng the development project, the Brstol case shows that the publc actor dd manage to secure grants for the fundng of the cultural development. By dong so, the BCC kck started the development for the whole ste; they created functonal condtons for a feasble commercal development. Also, after the second tme plannng permsson was refused the local authorty put effort nto alterng the poltcal and cvc crtcsm on Crest s scheme, whch gave the developer a chance to proceed. Nevertheless, n several negotatons about the commercal development the local authorty dd not stmulate the development. At ths stage, accordng to the developer, regulatng became the man management tool wth tghtenng 284 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

condtons. However, takng nto account that the partnershp arrangements and subsequent fundng was n place before the commercal development started, the concluson can be drawn that the publc actor stmulated development n order to manage ts nterest. In terms of capacty buldng the development project, the Lverpool case shows that the BCC arranged development nterests qute well, n the form of helpng to establsh a partnershp for Harboursde. The Harboursde Sponsor Group (HSG) conssted of representatves from both publc and prvate bodes, whch managed dfferent nterests wthn the project and apponted development facltators to facltate the process. However, nether the HSG nor the cty councl was unable to buld support under cvc organzatons and poltcal partes. Actve opposton rose aganst the plans of Crest, whch proved to be hard to reverse. Hence, also Crest n the frst stages was not able to manage these nterests. Later they buld capacty for the commercal development as they held extensve consultaton meetngs and thereby create wder poltcal, governmental, busness, meda and socetal support for the development. Thus, capacty buldng has been a publc and prvate management actvty. Management resources The man management resources that publc and prvate actors have to nfluence development projects are categorzed n three categores; land, captal and knowledge. In terms of usng land as management resource for the development project, the Brstol case shows that both actors were able to nfluence the project. The land for development was partally owned by the cty councl and local landowners. BCC s land department became accountable for obtanng a market conform land value for ther land asset once they handed ther land over to the HSG. Hence, Crest dd not own any of the land pror to the development agreement. After acqurng all land from the landowners Crest could use ths at ther dsposal by runnng the land development and real estate development smultaneously. However, they were not able to solely nfluence the features of the publc space as the land s beng adopted by the local authorty for mantenance after delvery. Thus, land has been a management resource used by both actors to nfluence development. In terms of usng fnancal captal as management resource for the development project, the Brstol case shows that nvestment by the Crest was used to make decsons accordng ther prvate nterests. The local authorty dd not contrbute any drect fnancal means nto the development tself. Nevertheless, they made the cultural development possble by encouragng other publc, prvate and cvc bodes to apply for cultural development grants. But, wthout Crest s nvestment, the development of the cultural functons would not have been possble as they match-fund ths part of the ste. Thus, the prvate actor used captal as a management resource to nfluence the project. In terms of usng knowledge as management resource for the development project, the Brstol case shows that both actors had specfc knowledge on dfferent felds. The local authorty used ther local knowledge about the potental for an attractve cultural and commercal development n the cty center. The developer used ts knowledge about market value of a project at the prme waterfront locaton n Brstol to create a mxed-use envronment whch would attract a varety of users. Thus, both actors used specfc knowledge and to nfluence the outcome of the development. 285 Cases n the UK

In concluson, Table 7.7 shows the emprcal management measures undertaken by publc and prvate actors n Brstol Harboursde. Ths table ndcates that ths case s hard to be classfed as a pure prvate sector-led urban development project. In terms of the amount of management functons appled by the actors, the project developer managed fve, the local authorty fve as well, and together they also managed fve functons. The table shows that the prvate actor manly focused ts attenton on project management and management resource actvtes. The publc actor used most of the management tools to nfluence the project. And together they have been runnng most of the process management actvtes. Management Measures Project Management Process Management Management Tools Management Resources Management Functons Intatng Desgnng Plannng Operatng Publc Prvate Prvate Publc Negotatng Decson-makng Communcatng Both Both Prvate Shapng Regulatng Stmulatng Capacty buldng Publc Publc Publc Both Land Captal Knowledge Both Prvate Both Table 7.7 Emprcal management measures n Brstol Harboursde 7.2.5 Effects The effects are determned qualtatvely by ntervewng nvolved publc and prvate actors about the cooperaton. The effect varables are; the effectveness of the cooperaton, the effcency of the process, and the spatal qualty of the product. Effectveness The cooperaton by both publc and prvate actors s consdered effectve, as most of the goals of the project are acheved or wll be acheved n the near future. The local authorty argues that Brstol after a long perod of no development fnally has got a mxed-use waterfront development whch contrbutes to the lveablty of the cty center. The project developer argues that most of ther objectves are met, but that the dffcult decson-makng process has resulted n an extended delvery as a result of beng under nfluence of a severe recesson. However, ths does rather caused by external or contextual crcumstances, than by the cooperaton between the actors themselves. Nevertheless, one can argue whether or not the cooperaton has been effectve n brngng forward the development as severe opposton rose aganst the schemes. 286 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Effcency The development process by both publc and prvate actors s not consdered ef fcent. It does not come as a surprse that the long dffcult desgn process stage has resulted n tme and probably budget overruns. The ntatve stage up to the selecton of Crest as a developer could be consdered as effcent. Fundng was secured and grants applcaton deadlnes and fundng spendng focused people s attenton on acceleratng the speed for the cultural development. However, once Crest produced the frst two schemes cvc and poltcal opposton rose aganst these plans whch halted the development process twce. Only after an extensve consultaton process was the developer able to get outlne plannng permsson after 4 years from beng chosen as preferred developer. Ths relatve long pre-development stage could have had an effect on commercal development sales, whch came under nfluence of low demand due to the economc crss n 2008/2009. Ths has resulted n Harboursde not beng completed yet, whch must have caused Crest fnancal dffcultes. Spatal qualty The publc actor states that the overall spatal qualty s good, whle the prvate actors argues that the overall spatal qualty of the development s all rght but could have been better. Despte the ncrease of buldng denstes the local authorty mentons that a substantal part (25%) of the ste has been converted nto publc space. Ths ncludes a large square, boulevard, and waterfront pedestran walk ways. Accordng to the publc actor there was a Desgn and Access Statement (DAS) and materal consderatons whch had to be submtted to every applcaton. It looked n detal on desgn and effectvely ncluded qualty condtons for the prvate actor to respond to. The dea behnd the DAS s that t s supposed to help gude the desgn from the outset provdng a whole set of parameters. As ths mght have worked for the local authorty, Crest argues that they have lmted ther possbltes to create a dynamc and conc destnaton. The developer provded examples of resdental waterfront buldngs facades and a harbor-crossng. Crest s archtects wanted to create smlar facades for ths buldng as the mult-colored Brstolan terraced housng nearby. Furthermore, at the end of the boulevard Crest wanted to buld a pedestran brdge over the harbor whch made t attractve to walk to the SS Brtan tourst attracton, but ths proposal dd not pass. Also standard materal has been appled for the publc space. The developer argues that both examples were compromsed by plannng offcers. However, despte ths, the Commsson for Archtecture for the Bult Envronment (CABE) awarded the project Harboursde a Gold Standard status wth a Buldng for Lfe Award whch recognzed the area as a well-desgned sustanable development. Fgure 7.7 shows an mpresson of the completed waterfront apartment buldng. 287 Cases n the UK

Fgure 7.7 Brstol Harboursde, mpresson waterfront resdental buldng ( Erwn Heurkens) 7.2.6 Experences The actors experences wth the cooperaton based on ths prvate sector-led urban development project are structured by the motves to choose ths approach, the problems encountered wth the approach, and the condtons for usng ths approach. These experences stated by the publc and prvate actors are valuable as they contan practcal recommendatons for Dutch practtoners. Motves The man motves for the local government to choose ths partcular prvate sector-led urban development approach are related to objectve to attract prvate nvestment nto the cty center to fnally develop a ste that lay abundant for decades. Furthermore, the local authorty dd not have the labor and fnancal capacty to become nvolved n realzng the project. Harboursde also s an example of transferrng rsks to a developer as local authortes are not enttled to take fnancal development rsks. Prvate land ownershp was not a reason to choose a prvate sector-led urban development approach, as most land was owned publcly or by local landowners. Furthermore, the developer dd not take the ntatve for development, the local authorty dd. 288 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Problems Ths project has encountered many problems over a long perod of tme. The man problems are related to refusal of gvng the developer plannng permsson for two successve tmes. Here, the man problem has been that nether the local authorty nor the developer was aware of, and able to deal wth, the power of cvc organzatons and poltcal opposton partes. Communty nvolvement by the developer and effectvely handlng the opposton by the local authorty only really took place at the thrd desgn process. Ths has caused qute some delays n project delvery, fnancally affectng the development to date. Accordng to the developer, the plannng process became a poltcal process, as project and poltcs became entangled. Other problems have been mentoned by Bassett et al. (2002), whch ncluded tensons between plannng and development prortes n the councl. It was unclear to whch publc offcers had whch responsbltes n the dual nterest n land development and plannng objectves. Also, busness leadershp roles whch could have been expected from the partnershp organzatons were not effectuated. From the ntervews t became clear that both actors had a dfferent vew about the cooperaton. Despte the publc actor mentonng that the cooperaton between BCC and Crest was generally good, the developer argues that the culture of development control wthn the local authorty n ther opnon caused some frustratons. An example was gven about the tght Secton 106 condtons that kept beng followed n economc recesson tmes by (operatonal) publc offcers, whle councl board members showed more wllngness to jontly work wth the developer to solve dffcult ssues. Hence, the man problem stated by both actors n ths type of development approach relyng entrely on prvate nvestment s that t would only work n economc favorable tmes as demand s more certan. In summary, the man problems encountered n Brstol Harboursde were: Publc and prvate nablty to deal wth local communty opposton; Publc project leader s dffculty to deal wth poltcal opposton; Tenson between publc plan and development processes and objectves; Amount of publc development control on the project; Relyng entrely on prvate nvestment for the project. Condtons Several dfferent types of condtons for usng a prvate sector-led urban development approach were gven by the actors. Frst, ths case has shown that one of the man condtons for applyng a prvate sector-led approach n these types of developments s communty nvolvement. Both actors state that t has become absolutely necessary to nclude cvc nterests n the early development stages n order to create support and ncrease the effcency of development processes. Ths mght nfluence the length of the desgn process, but eventually could contrbute to some tme-gan n the realzaton stages of the project. Brstol of course showed that cvc socety was very well establshed and organzed, but t nevertheless seems to be a condton for startng major development projects. 289 Cases n the UK

Second, the local authorty argued that partnershps can be valuable contrbutons to ntate developments only f they are accompaned by leadershp of sklled and commtted ndvduals from both the publc and prvate sector. Ths condton emphaszes the human aspect of managng and executng projects. It s an addton to creatng organzatonal structures that functons as certanty for nsders and outsders. Makng a partnershp thus also ncludes formng a project team that s equpped wth all knds of personaltes wth specfc sklls from dfferent professonal backgrounds. Thrd, another major condton for a prvate sector-led urban development approach s to separate plannng and development roles and objectves wthn the local authorty at all tmes. The Brstol case has shown that n prncple the local authorty acted as a landowner role and a plannng role whch were nsttutonally separated. However, both the developer and HSG argue that n practce t was not always clear whose objectves were at stake. Publc offcers were not always aware about ther role n the development or plannng process. 7.2.7 Conclusons The Brstol Harboursde project has showed us how a developer and local authorty work together on major redevelopment brownfeld ste n the UK. Despte the fact that Crest as a developer has led much of the commercal development by takng on the desgn, feasblty and realzaton of the development, effectvely takng all development rsks by nvestng solely n the scheme, we also have seen that there are several publc management possbltes to nfluence development outcomes, by usng ther plannng tools at ther dsposal. Notce that, the amount of publc management mght be caused by the complex nature of ths nner-cty urban development project. Furthermore, from a project pont of vew, ths case shows that contextual aspects such as poltcal and cvc support can have a drect nfluence on organzatons and the development process whch are hard to manage once they have not been taken nto account serously. In the followng secton we wll descrbe and analyze the second UK case for ths research. 7.3 Lverpool One Our second prvate sector-led urban development case study n the UK s Lverpool One. Ths secton provdes nsght nto the project s context, plannng and development process, organzaton, management, effects, and experences from key stakeholders, followed by conclusons. Fgure 7.8 shows an aeral vew of Lverpool One. 290 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Fgure 7.8 Lverpool One, aeral vew ( Grosvenor) Ths project n Lverpool s cty center s regarded as one of the largest and most mpressve urban regeneraton projects n Europe of ts tme (Parker & Garnell, 2006). It s a 42-acres 1 bllon mxed-use retal-led urban regeneraton project n the cty center and was completed n 2009 (see Table 7.8 for the project characterstcs). It has been developed by Grosvenor n collaboraton wth Lverpool Cty Councl. Note, as long-term development and nvestment company, Grosvenor represents a qute unque type of developer when compared to the nature of other UK developers. Project Characterstcs Surface area 17 ha (42 acres) Lesure 21,500 m2 (230,000 ft2) Open area 2.2 ha (7.4 acres) Offce 3,250 m2 (35,000 ft2) Total space 234,000 m2 (2.5 mln ft2) Resdental over 600 unts Retal 154,000 m2 (1.65 mln ft2) Hotel 2 buldngs (377 rooms) Table 7.8 Lverpool One, project characterstcs (based on Lttlefeld, 2009: 248) (data from 2010) 291 Cases n the UK

7.3.1 Context Lverpool One as an urban development project took place aganst a partcular context whch s hghly mportant to understand t. Here, the project s relevant contextual features are descrbed n terms of the economc-poltcal stuaton and spatal polces. Economy & poltcs Accordng to Parker & Garnell (2006: 294) Lverpool had been one of Brtan s and the world s great commercal centers a vbrant economc hub that was home to major shppng, bankng, legal and nsurance companes that operated across the globe. The cultural wealth and dversty of 800 years of martme hstory gave Lverpool a specal dentty of nternatonal recognton. In the 1930s Lverpool s populaton peaked 900,000. But after the Second World War bombng, the cty suffered a serous declne n economc actvty, resultng n halvng the cty s populaton n the 1990s. Such was the depth of the declne that n 1994 the cty receved a mxed blessng of beng a recpent of Objectve One fundng, a program set up to ad the European Unon s poorest regons (Lttlefeld, 2009: 20). Thus, n terms of economy Lverpool was sufferng badly and structural change became necessary to prepare the cty for the new mllennum. Accordng to Parker & Garnell (2006), the recessons of the early 1970s and 1980s left the cty wth a myrad of economc problems wth several decades of sustaned under nvestment and market falure. Nevertheless, under ths surface of declne the cty also showed some more postve features for development. For nstance, Parker & Garnell (2006) argue that t s a cty rch of Hertage, wth some of the fnest archtecture n the world, examples of whch are the archtectural masterpeces lke the Lver, Cunard, and Port of Lverpool buldngs and the Albert Dock. Therefore n 2004, the Mersey rver waterfront and parts of the cty center were gven the Unesco World Hertage status. Furthermore, as a result of several decades of under nvestment n the cty, land prces dropped sgnfcantly n comparson to other Brtsh ctes whch saw substantal regeneraton nvestments n the same perod. However, n the 1990s condtons to provde suffcent market ncentves were not rght enough to develop the structural change needed. What was mssng was the rght commtment and approprate governance mechansms to effectvely kck start the process. In terms of poltcs, Lverpool Cty Councl (LCC) had developed a reputaton for beng nwardly focused, wth low horzons and aspratons of lowest common denomnator (Parker & Garnell, 2006). The most sgnfcant changes whch turned the tde for economc recovery of the cty resultng n greater market nterest and more urban regeneraton possbltes, partly have been mentoned by Parker & Garnell (2006). Frst, the redevelopment of Albert Dock by the Mersey Development Corporaton n the 1990s was an ntal catalyst for regeneratng Lverpool. Second, n 1998 the Lberal Democrats won poltcal control over the Labour Party puttng them n place as the LCC. Ths resulted n the appontment of a new manageral and poltcal structure wthn the LCC capable of transformng the Cty Councl s performance as a leader n local governance (Parker & Garnell, 2006: 295). Ths was a sgnfcant factor to mprove nvestor confdence. Thrd, a clear vson for Lverpool was put n place to become a premer 292 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

European cty wth a compettve economy. Ths vson was translated nto a comprehensve ten year program of ntegrated acton. Strategc local plannng frameworks were developed, leadng to the appontment of several functonal dstrcts wthn the cty center, presented n Fgure 7.9. And fnally, there was a change n approach by the LCC to embrace the prncple of partnershps to delver polcy objectves. The LCC started workng collaboratvely through nnovatve partnershps wth other publc bodes, the prvate sector (ncludng the local busness communty), and cvc organzatons. Fgure 7.9 Lverpool cty center, spatal strategy ( LCC / Lverpool Vson) Spatal polces The LCC for numerous years had been thnkng about the rehabltaton of ts cty center. In fact, at the end of the 1990s, t became apparent that Lverpool s cty center of faced two major challenges. Frst of all, there was the hole left n the cty center as a result of WOII bombng and followng urban plannng and renewal actons. Ths had resulted n largely derelct and underused land characterzed by an eclectc mx of small busnesses, dfferent parkng lots, and a grassed over area. Accordng to Lttlefeld (2009), ths area lay adjacent to Lverpool s man shoppng area and therefore offered the possblty of grandly extendng the cty s retal heart whle reachng eastwards towards the lesure area of Ropewalks. Furthermore, the area could potentally lnk the cty to ts (partly) redeveloped waterfront but now t was 293 Cases n the UK

characterzed by an unclear routng. Secondly, shoppng n the cty center of Lverpool, and the economc actvty as a result, could be seen as far from reachng ts potental. A report from Experan on the Brtsh Retal Destnatons revealed that Lverpool had dropped from on the Natonal Rankng from beng thrd n 1971 to place seventeen n the md-1990s. Therefore, n 1999, the LCC commssoned Healey and Baker to carry out a retal study to nvestgate the potental of Lverpool as a retal destnaton. The report revealed that Lverpool could rely on a potental catchment populaton of 2.5 mllon vstors and that t was short of 93,000 meters of retal space. These sgns made the LCC realze that ths partcular part of the cty was crucal n delverng the needed change to Lverpool as t could solve several deeply rooted problems wthn the cty center for once and for all. In the 1990s several ntatves by publc and prvate actors had faled to produce the necessary change needed to alter Lverpool s declne, despte the successful regeneraton of the Albert Dock nto a hstorc toursm destnaton. Therefore, several spatal polces for the regeneraton of Lverpool began to take shape n ths perod. Accordng to Lttlefeld (2009: 31), there was a strategy document from the Northwest Regonal Development Agency, an acton plan called Lverpool Frst from the Lverpool Partnershp Group and a Strategc Development Framework from yet another agency called Lverpool Vson. Ths s all qute apart from the varyng drafts (and publc nqures nto) the cty councl s Untary Development Plan, a wderangng document that took seven years to fnalze and sets out the plannng agenda for the whole of Lverpool. There were also plannng gudelnes set out at a natonal level and the much publczed Urban Whte Paper n 2000 whch were nfluental n thnkng about the urban renassance of nner ctes. These spatal and economc documents and reports form the (spatal) polcy background for the project at that tme labelled as the Paradse Street Area, now known as Lverpool One. 7.3.2 Plannng & Development Process Wth the project s context n place, now we take a closer look at the plannng and development process. Ths process was taken forward on three parallel tracks: plannng polcy, developer selecton and scheme evoluton from 1999-2002, leadng to formal plannng submsson (Unversty of Lverpool, 2008), whch was followed by the constructon and operaton perod. The man actvtes and decsons wthn the dfferent process stages for the area are descrbed n ths secton. The Tables 7.9 and 7.10 gve an overvew of these man events and thereby support the descrptons hereafter. Plannng polcy: 1999-2002 Lttlefeld (2009: 34) argues that t was out of ths hghly charged and deeply poltcal envronment that an advertsement n the Fnancal Tmes and Estate Gazette emerged n the summer of 1999 seekng prvate developers to renvent a substantal chunk of the cty center, as t was beleved that regeneratng the cty had to start from the center. The ambton 294 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

was for a massve new extenson to what Lverpool already had to offer, but of hgher qualty wth a superor mx, broader appeal, better served and ntegrated nto what was already there (Lttlefeld, 2009: 34). Potental developers were asked to consder smultaneously desgn qualty, hertage, retal provson, car parkng, publc transport, pedestran lnks, vtalty, overall vsual appeal and fnancal vablty (Lttlefeld, 2009: 40). Accordng to Lttlefeld (2009: 34) connectons would have to be strengthened wth other mportant dstrcts the Per Head, the Three Graces, the waterfront, the ralway statons, the unverstes and the resdental buldngs of Rope Walks. The councl wshes to see desgn proposals whch provde an external, vsble and self-advertsng facade, provde new external vson for the cty center and rase the profle of the cty center both natonally and nternatonally, announced the bref to nterested developers (Lttlefeld, 2009: 48). The developer s nterest n regeneratng the Paradse Street Project was overwhelmng accordng to the LCC, as 47 developers expressed an nterest. Ths response was a relef for the Lverpool Cty Councl (LCC) as t confrmed that the prvate sector shared the ambtons for redevelopng Lverpool s cty center. Accordng to Lttlefeld (2009: 40) the proposton back n the 1999 and 2000 was that f the cty could do a deal wth the prvate property sector, t mght be possble to regenerate the cty from the center and buld outwards. Thus, ths expresson of nterest n developng the area provded the local authorty wth confdence that the prvate sector could be engaged n reactvatng the entre cty. Ths process of gettng the attenton of the prvate sector had been encouraged by Healey & Baker, the frm that had been retaned as consultants by the cty councl. They had been speakng nformally wth developers three or four months n advance of the advertsement s publcaton; the property ndustry knew t was comng (Lttlefeld, 2009: 48). Table 7.9 shows the ntatve and desgn stage actvtes. Date Actvty Actor 1996 Draft Untary Development Plan (UDP) approved LCC 1999, February Retal Study ssued Healey & Baker 1999, March Paradse Street Development Area Plannng Framework LCC 1999, June 5 Advertsement for developer nterest n PSDA LCC 1999, October Developer shortlst & Outlne Development Bref LCC 1999, December Wrtten responses submtted by shortlsted developers Developers 2000, Jan-Feb Workshops & presentatons to LCC Developers 2000, March 6 Selecton Grosvenor/Henderson as development partner LCC 2000, November Fnal Development Bref ssued LCC 2001, January Masterplan submtted Grosvenor 2001, May-Oct Publc exhbton of proposals & Publc consultaton Grosvenor 2001-02 Nov-May Publc Inqury amendng UDP plan ncl. PSDA plans LCC 2002, Oct 22 Secretary of State confrms PSD wll not be called n Secretary of State Table 7.9 Lverpool One project tmelne, ntatve & desgn stage (based on Lttlefeld, 2009: 244) 295 Cases n the UK

Thus, the publshng of the advertsement by the local authorty effectvely establshed a frst set of plannng and development gudelnes for the area. Furthermore, t accelerated developers nterests. The content of the advertsement tself was based on the Plannng Framework for the Paradse Street Development Area ssued by the Lverpool Cty Councl and plannng consultants Cushman & Wakefeld n May 1999. The Councl adopted the Retal Strategy by Cushman & Wakefeld wthn the Plannng Framework, as addtonal plannng gudance n March 1999 and ths was further modfed n May 2000 (Unversty of Lverpool, 2008). The 1999 Plannng Framework ncluded some partcular requrements for the area whch accordng to Lttlefeld (2009: 22) were as follows: Delverng a retal development provdng approxmately 1 mllon ft2 (93,000 m2) of modern and functonal retal space, ncludng at least two anchor stores; Ensurng the development contans a mx of uses; Incorporatng sustanable development prncples, ncludng publc transport accessblty; Provdng a safe and attractve envronment, of hgh qualty materals; Provdng pedestran lnks to surroundng area; Ensurng provson of road lnks and hgh qualty car parkng. Durng ths perod the cty also commssoned an urban desgn study from Chapman Taylor Partners and a transportaton study from W.S. Atkns (Parker & Garnell, 2006: 302). These documents were ncorporated n an Outlne Development Bref establshng gudelnes for the PSDA, ssued by the LCC to these short-lsted developers n October 1999. Ths document provded more detaled gudance on polcy objectves and delvery process (Parker & Garnell (2006). Accordng to Lttlefeld (2009: 22), the 1999 Outlne Development Bref s prncpal recommendatons ncluded the followng objectves: Retanng lsted buldngs and other buldngs of nterest and character; Retanng at least some of the pre-exstng street pattern; Maxmzng permeablty (that Is, through routes, elmnatng dead-ends) over a 24-hour perod; Renforcng the character of the cty center, especally the physcal and commercal lnk wth the sea; Renforcng to the scale and massng of buldngs and the metropoltan character of Lverpool; Explotng the changes n level across the ste; Creatng actve permeter frontages, such as shop fronts rather than blank walls; Provdng full access from the man shoppng route of Church Street; Relocatng any busness or actvty that s napproprate for the redeveloped ste; Creatng hgh qualty, open, publc space; Creatng vtal lnks to neghbourng dstrcts, such as the Rope Walks, central busness dstrct and the waterfront. Developer selecton: 1999-2000 Despte these content related requrements for the development, the LCC acknowledged that to acheve ts objectves t was crucal to select a development partner rather than a detaled development proposal normally part of a formal tender. To that extent, the selecton 296 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

process focused on potental partner resources, expertse, approach and experence, and ther understandng of the cty, as well as a track record n delvery (Parker & Garnell, 2006: 301). Accordng to Parker & Garnell (2006: 302) the whole selecton process was very comprehensve n ts approach and recognzed by all bdders as exemplary. In fact, the whole process has become an exemplar nternatonally of how to do t. All 47 companes were nvted to complete a questonnare on ther experence, resources and expertse, and they were nvted to comment on the proposed selecton procedure as well. Out of the 14 completed questonnares the LCC shortlsted seven developers: Grosvenor/Henderson jont venture, Hammerson, Captal Shoppng Centres, Australan frm Westfeld, Dutch company MDC, a Land Securtes/Lend Lease jont venture, and Peel Holdngs. The 1999 Outlne Development Bref clearly ponted out the wshes from the local authorty for the development competton and the area under consderaton. Furthermore, the companes were then asked to prepare ndcatve concept solutons and respond to key polcy objectves (Parker & Garnell, 2006: 302). The submssons of concept solutons and wrtten responses by the shortlsted companes were handed n to the LCC by 17 December 1999. Then, n January and February 2000, these concepts became subject to detaled scrutny at workshop sessons attended by senor offcers: plannng, hghway, desgn and property consultants, and representatves from Mersey Travel, the URC, Lverpool Vson, Englsh Partnershps and the Regonal Development Agency (Parker & Garnell, 2006: 302). Followng the workshops and techncal ntervews developers were then nvted to present ther proposals at ntervew wth leadng Cty Councl Members ncludng crtcally the Leader of the Councl. Followng responses to the development bref from the short-lsted companes to share ther aspratons for the development area, further dscussons took place ncludng detaled desgn workshops and fnancal semnars (Parker & Garnell, 2006: 302). Alster Parker, partner at Cushman & Wakefeld (n Lttlefeld, 2009: 61) argues that when we [LCC and Healey & Baker] wrote the brefs for the developer competton, the requrement for open streets was clearly set out. Despte that, fve out of seven of the UK s leadng development companes came forward wth mono-cultural lumps. As a result, t merely came down to a choce for ether Grosvenor/Henderson or Hammerson as the preferred developer for the Paradse Street Development Area. Fnally, on 6 March 2000, the cty councl announced that Grosvenor/Henderson had been selected as ts preferred development partner. The wordng s mportant. The cty councl was not lookng for a fully worked out soluton; rather, t sought a developer wth whom t could work over the long term. The councl wanted a developer, rather than a desgn, and the fne detal could wat Lttlefeld (2009: 52). However, the choce for Grosvenor was a close call, as the councl selecton commttee put n charge of selectng the developer for the ste, was splt rght down n the mddle. So the choce came down to Mke Storey, the leader of Lverpool Cty Councl, to make the fnal decson. He recalls that (n Lttlefeld, 2009: 44): I just felt more comfortable wth Grosvenor s approach. I lked the scheme and the people. Grosvenor s approach for regeneratng the Paradse Street Area was dfferent from the others and appealed to the Cty Councl, whch needed a partner from the prvate sector that would look far beyond the mmedate horzon (Lttlefeld, 2009: 55). Mcheal Burchnall, LCC s Head of Plannng argues that the Grosvenor scheme was an nterestng one. It wasn t as developed as the others, but t emboded some nterestng prncples that was a key factor. It was also 297 Cases n the UK

about trust and personaltes (Lttlefeld, 2009: 53). Grosvenor was ensured that they wanted to work closely together wth the LCC as a partner and that they wanted to commt themselves to the project for a long duraton. Furthermore, ths confdence was backed by Grosvenor s development and management of Mayfar and Belgrava n London for more than 300 years. Therefore, the company understood that hgh qualty and good fnancal returns only go together when a long term vew towards developments s taken. Jeremy Newsum, Grosvenor s Chef Executve (n Lttlefeld: 2009: 55), argues that ths type of busness model for developers s especally applcable to nner-cty regeneraton: developng nner-cty stes s an expensve busness, not least because of the prce of land, whle the cost and complexty of ntegratng buldngs wth the transport and street/servces nfrastructure add sgnfcantly to the economcs of a project. Gettng a return on the sort of nvestment necessary s always gong to mean takng the long vew. However, the project also contaned several consderable rsks: the project would undoubtly requre the use of compulsory purchase orders and the Paradse Street Development Framework had yet to be fully ratfed (Lttlefeld, 2009: 53). Nevertheless, Grosvenor saw opportuntes to nvest as mportant ndcators ponted n the rght drecton, as several researches and studes had showed. The whole busness plan proposton came down to three man factors: the revved spendng power of local consumers; the demand for space from retalers; and the antcpated rental growth (Lttlefeld, 2009: 62). After the selecton of Grosvenor/Henderson as preferred developer for the area the Paradse Street Fnal Development Bref was drawn up by for cty councl by consultants Healey & Baker and ssued n November 2000. Ths bref essentally ncluded the gudelnes for the prospectve developer of the ste, and was by common consent, excellent, but purely aspratonal as well, as detaled requrement were not provded by the Cty Councl. The 2000 Fnal Development Bref embraced and developed the already mentoned gudelnes of the 1999 advertsement and 1999 Outlne Development Bref and the outcomes of the dfferent workshop sessons n 2000 between the developers and the LCC. Therefore accordng to Lttlefeld (2009: 22) the Fnal Development Bref ncluded the objectves to: Develop a hgh qualty scheme adjacent to an area whch could probably be desgnated as World Hertage Ste; Provde spaces for qualty department stores and a range of other large stores; Provde retal unts of suffcent sze and qualty to attract retalers not present n Lverpool, ncludng specalst retalers; Encourage the use of publc transport and provdng convenent bus facltes; Create publc spaces and facltes other than retal to enhance the cty center for resdents and toursts, and to mprove cty center vtalty and vablty after normal shoppng hours. Scheme evoluton & consultaton: 1999-2002 Accordng to LCC & Grosvenor (2009) Lverpool One has been based on Grosvenor s cohesve Masterplan of new and refurbshed buldngs, streets and spaces all of whch have been desgned to embrace a wde varety of uses and actvtes. The choce for ths cohesve approach was underlned by the concept of vtal and successful ctes, whch as Grosvenor beleved, are characterzed by varety and not unformty. These prncples accordng to 298 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Grosvenor (2002) follow the recommendatons of the Towards an Urban Renassance report (Urban Task Force, 1999), the By Desgn report (DETR & CABE, 2000), as well as Natonal and Regonal Plannng Gudance. Furthermore, t responds to the emergng Modfcatons of the UDP and the PSDA Development Bref (Grosvenor, 2002). The Unversty of Lverpool (2008) argues that the masterplan reflects a conscous decson by the Councl to reject the orthodox nward lookng mall-based solutons and rather to seek to create a seres of new places connected by open streets. The urban desgn aspraton was to re-buld a slce of tradtonal cty, wth open streets, mxed uses and seamless ntegraton. An underlyng prncple s that ths part of the cty should regan ts organc development pattern, wth buldngs beng renewed or replaced at dfferent tmes n the future; thereby avodng the need to ever repeat the process of comprehensve redevelopment of the whole area. Grosvenor (2002) beleves that the Masterplan wll make the PSDA the mxed-use heart of the cty as t s suffcently robust to accommodate modfcatons. Sgnfcantly, the decson was taken very early on n the concept phases of the project to dvde the development nto dstnct urban dstrcts and to share the work between a large number of dfferent desgn frms (Lttlefeld, 2009: 65). Fgure 7.10 shows how these urban dstrcts are stuated and connect to the surroundngs. Fgure 7.10 Lverpool One, sketch showng dstrcts and connectons ( Grosvenor) The desgn of the Masterplan was undertaken by Grosvenor whch assembled a Masterplannng Team as early as August 1999. Ths masterplannng team comprsed BDP [Buldng Desgn Partnershp], masterplanners; Symonds Group, transportaton consultants; Drvers Jonas, plannng consultants; PMA, property research consultants; and Scutt & Parker, retal 299 Cases n the UK

consultants and one of the lettng agents (Lttlefeld, 2009: 65). Ths multdscplnary team took the gudelnes from the Development Bref and turned the aspratons and requrements nto plans and massng studes. BDP managed the desgn process by commssonng twentyfve dfferent archtectural frms to desgn ndvdual buldngs and publc spaces. In essence, accordng to Grosvenor (2002) the Masterplan dentfes twenty-two ndvdual buldngs or groups of buldngs, together wth shares servcng areas, car parks, bus staton, bus layover area, publc park, other publc spaces, two arcades and open streets. Fgure 7.11 shows the Masterplan for Lverpool One defnng the twenty-two ndvdual stes wthn the project. Fgure 7.11 Lverpool One, masterplan defnng 22 ndvdual stes ( Grosvenor) Furthermore, Grosvenor worked very closely together wth the local authorty on desgn and programmatc matters as s hghlghted by Parker & Garnell (2006: 302) whch also stated the sgnfcance of partnershp. Accordng to LCC & Grosvenor (2009) the Masterplannng team engaged wth the cty [councl] and ts planners at an early stage to make sure the masterplan was as robust as possble. Parker & Garnell (2006: 302) argue that Grosvenor and the Cty Councl worked jontly together under the drecton of a Jont Steerng Commttee, chared by the Chef Executve of Lverpool Cty Councl and ncluded the Chef Executve of Grosvenor UK. Here, clear reportng mechansms were put n place to ensure the desgn process could be managed accurately. Ths enabled the Cty Councl offcers to partcpate as an equal and proactve partner throughout the development of the program (Parker & Garnell, 2006: 302). LCC & Grosvenor (2009) argue that the cty councl played a pvotal role n the plannng process, ensurng that Grosvenor was able to delver hgh qualty ndvdual desgns n record tme. Dedcated plannng staff was put onto the project and plannng decsons were delegated to a specalst workng party. Drvers Jonas acted as the condut for all plannng applcatons 300 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

by becomng the sngle pont of contact for new applcatons and revsons all of whch followed an agreed format. Ths enabled those nvolved n the Desgn Revew process to reach decsons quckly. As a result, only three stes had to be approved by the councl s plannng commttee. Furthermore, creatng poltcal support for and agreement about the scheme and the development was establshed by engagng Councl Members n an Advsory Group of key Lverpool Cty councllors, chared by the Leader of the Councl (Parker & Garnell, 2006). Thus, the desgn process as well as the plannng process from the early stages was led by the developer s Masterplannng Team n close partnershp and cooperaton wth dfferent levels of the local authorty. The evoluton of the scheme was based on BDP s Masterplan wth a hybrd plannng applcaton (part detaled/part outlne), to acheve flexblty and allow the scheme to evolve over tme. As a result of ntensve, teratve work by the jont Grosvenor and Councl team, the general outlne of the Masterplan was establshed by September 2000 (Grosvenor, 2002). From ths moment on the other stakeholders became closely nvolved n fnalzng the Masterplan for the area. Between September and December 2000 ths outlne Masterplan was dscussed wth prncpal consultees (Grosvenor, 2002). Accordng to LCC & Grosvenor (2009: 23), the approach to consultaton was comprehensve and endurng wth publc engagement from the very outset of the project. Through the development process Grosvenor held publc stakeholder meetngs every twelve weeks. People wth an nterest n the development were nvted and regularly 200-300 people attended these events. For nstance, the transportaton proposals were dscussed wth the Hghways Authorty, desgn matters and stuatng and massng of dfferent buldngs were dscussed wth Englsh Hertage and CABE, and Mersey Travel was consulted about the proposed bus staton. Furthermore, publc workshops were held whch also ncluded partcpants from Lverpool Vson focus groups (e.g. Lverpool s Economc Development Company). Engagng resdents and local busnesses was secured by a number of desgn workshops and open forums, where the evolvng proposals were shared wth ctzens throughout the perod followng selecton untl the very end of the project. But the prncple of consultaton was not lmted to the ntatve and plannng stages. In November 2004, after constructon had commenced, Grosvenor opened an Informaton Centre wth a 1:200 development scale model for publc vewng. Therefore, accordng to Grosvenor (2002), the prncples of publc partcpaton, wde consultaton, collaboratve workng and partnershp and Grosvenor s commtment to them have been demonstrated throughout the project to date, together wth the benefts of dfferent perspectves, the crossfertlzaton of deas and the progressve buld-up support. Plannng consent: 2001-2002 Accordng to the Unversty of Lverpool (2008) these three parallel processes of plannng polcy, developer selecton, and scheme evoluton, culmnated n the sgnng of a Development Agreement, Secton 106 Agreement and Plannng Permsson. However, as the desgn process steadly evolved over tme, the ste also offered some complextes n the path to plannng permsson. The desgn and consultaton process resulted n submttng a Masterplan for outlne plannng applcaton (accompaned wth an applcaton fee) n January 2001, as the desgn would evolve n a later stage. Followng ths frst submsson, a second round of 301 Cases n the UK

Publc Consultaton took place n whch Grosvenor organzed several workshops and a large Publc Exhbton to nform people and to further ncorporate dfferent wshes from dfferent stakeholders. Ths extensve consultaton exercse resulted n resubmttng the Masterplan for plannng applcaton n October 2001. The most mportant complex ssues to be resolved n reachng plannng submsson and development agreement ncluded: Dealng wth acqurng all the land, possbly by ssung compulsory purchase orders; Dealng wth the plannng applcatons for dfferent buldngs and publc functons; Securng that the Paradse Street Development Framework (PSDF) would be ncorporated n an amended Untary Development Plan (UDP) for the cty, whch had to go through Publc Inqury; Dealng wth a rval scheme for a mall from another developer, whch could resolve n the project beng called-n by the Secretary of State. Lttlefeld (2009: 84) argues that although the LCC owned one thrd of the land that had been earmarked for development (and has prepared to lease t to Grosvenor), the rest had to be assembled by merely makng someone an offer, or pursung compulsory purchase orders. One of the landowners fought partcularly hard, and contnued to object even after Publc Inqury had found Grosvenor s favor. Also Grosvenor has taken the decson to commsson more than 20 archtects to work on dfferent plots throughout the ste, makng plannng permsson and publc consultaton far more cumberstone than f a sngle desgn frm had been nvolved. Furthermore, the development was not lmted to prvate propertes; the development ncluded publc functons such as roads, publc spaces and transport facltes. Therefore, accordng to Jones (2010) the LCC receved more than 60 plannng applcatons and had to check ts 800 plannng condtons for the development. Another problem was that a rval developer Walton Group has a clam n Chavasse Park and ntended to develop a large shoppng mall on t. Ths ssue was possbly gong to resolve n the Secretary of State to call-n the project and take over control of the process. Also, the LCC s Untary Development Plan dd not menton anythng about the Cty Councl s plannng prortes and broad ntentons for the Paradse Street project. The PSDF had to be amended nto the UDP, whch had to go through Publc Inqury to gve t legal status. However, between January 2001 and September 2002 the LCC receved just 67 formal plannng objectons n the Publc Inqury process. Ths can be consdered as beng a relatvely low amount of objectons n such a partcular nner-cty development ste. In May 2002, the nspector charng the Publc Inqury publshed a report acceptng the cty councl s case for modfyng the UDP (Lttlefeld, 2009: 95). The emphass n the PSDF on the comprehensve approach to ntegrate dsparate quarters of the cty center contrbuted to ths decson. Later the nspector also dsmssed the Walton Group s challenge, whch was backed by the decson of the Secretary of State not to call-n the project ssung a letter on 22 October 2002. LCC also adopted the revsed UDP n November 2002. These events created certanty for the developer and local authorty to carry on development. Therefore, on 19 December, Grosvenor and Lverpool Cty Councl fnally sgned the Development Agreement and agreed the terms of the Secton 106 Agreement works (coverng matters lke respect for archaeology, phasng, hghway mprovements and provson for mantenance) Lttlefeld (2009: 97). And fnally, on 23 December 2002 Plannng Permsson was granted. 302 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Land & fnance: 2002-2004 Wth the closure of the formal agreements and plannng permsson at the end of 2002 the preparatons for the realzaton stage took off. Ths started wth the acqurng of land for development by the Cty Councl promotng Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs) n March 2003. Despte one-thrd of the ste beng owned by the LCC themselves several other landowners had to be bought out. The LCC receved 56 CPO objectons; however, Lttlefeld (2009) argues that the majorty were merely seekng clarfcatons and reassurances. CPO requres another Publc Inqury, and at the tme the CPO Inqury began only 14 objectons were left. The LCC and Grosvenor once agan persuaded the nspector handlng the objectons by statng that a step change was needed to create a comprehensve development wthn the cty center, and that therefore all property had to be acqured. However, ths also comes at a cost, as land purchases amounted around 180 mllon (Lttlefeld, 2009), payng for the plots and property of the owners. One last owner Quggens threatened to appeal n Hgh Court aganst the CPO decson, but eventually dropped the case. The orders were confrmed, wthout modfcaton, n May 2004 (Unversty of Lverpool, 2008). Date Actvty Actor 2002, Dec 19 Development & Secton 106 Agreement sgned LCC & Grosvenor 2002, Dec 23 Plannng Permsson ssued LCC 2003, March 21 Compulsory Purchase Orders ssued for land assembly LCC 2003, June 4 Lverpool named European Captal of Culture 2008 European Unon 2004, February Revsed Plannng Applcaton submtted Grosvenor 2004, sprng Detaled Desgn of major works start Grosvenor 2004, Nov 22 Prncple Buldng begns Grosvenor 2005, Nov 1 Paradse Project rebranded as Lverpool One Grosvenor 2008, May 29 Openng Phase I, South John, Paradse St., anchor stores Grosvenor 2008, Nov 22 Openng Chavasse Park, entre ste open to publc Grosvenor Table 7.10 Lverpool One project tmelne, feasblty & realzaton stage (based on Lttlefeld, 2009: 245) In the meantme, on 4 June 2003 the UK government announced that Lverpool was to be the European Captal of Culture n 2008 (Lttlefeld, 2009: 199). Ths created an extra challenge for the developer, as at the tme Grosvenor was nvolved n the CPO Inqury, and t ddn t have the land, the desgns, the bulder or even the money to take ts project forward. The company then dd an extraordnary thng t promsed to fnsh ts work n tme for the cty s bg year. Grosvenor was under no legal oblgaton to meet ths new tmetable. (Lttlefeld, 2009: 199). Despte some major uncertantes, Grosvenor decded to submt a Revsed Plannng Applcaton n March 2004, as durng the CPO process, desgns on the scheme had evolved steadly. The revsed applcaton dealt wth specfc changes to the south-west corner of the scheme. These changes arose from an agreement reached wth Mersey Travel to change the poston of the Paradse Street Transport Interchange durng the course of the CPO Inqury (Unversty of Lverpool, 2008), together wth changes to two other stes. The revsed scheme was approved n June 2004. It was based on the dscharge of pre-commencement plannng condtons 303 Cases n the UK

whch provded for the approval of over 18 ste-wde strateges. The approval of those stewde strateges later was followed by the phased approval of reserved matters and detals, or, as happened n a number of cases, fresh applcatons as part alternatves, for the more than thrty ndvdual buldngs whch make up the scheme, together wth sx defned areas of publc realm, ncludng the park (Unversty of Lverpool, 2008: 4-5). These applcatons were based on the detaled desgns of works that were beng produced n the meantme. Table 7.10 shows the man events from the sgnng of the development agreement n 2002 untl completon of the project n 2008. Lttlefeld (2009: 202) argues that by the tme that constructon could actually begn towards the end of 2004, Grosvenor had just one more hurdle to overcome; rasng the funds. However, Henderson, the nvestment partner for Grosvenor, wthdrew from the project n early 2002, makng fundng more dffcult. As a result, Grosvenor pursued a twn-track approach n the search for partners t would look for loans and nvestors. Orgnally, the development was projected to cost 650 mllon and the company put together a package comprsng 255 mllon of equty (n whch Grosvenor tself has a 20 per cent stake) and 400 mllon of debt, fnanced by four banks (Lttlefeld, 2009: 205), ncludng Barclays, Eurohypo, HSBC, and Royal Bank of Scotland. Lttlefeld (2009: 205) argues that the bank loans were secured relatvely easly, but the terms of equty holders were more demandng. These equty holders were partners contrbutng nvestment n the Grosvenor Lverpool Fund, whch ncluded: Grosvenor; Aberdeen Property Investors; Hermes; Lverpool Vctora; Maroon Captal; Redevco Propertes UK. Hermes became the man representatve of the other contrbutors for negotatng nvestment terms wth Grosvenor, who drove a very hard bargan. The upshot was that nvestors sad there would be a lmt to ther nvestment; apart from a contngency fund of 50 mllon, any cost overruns would have to be borne by Grosvenor alone (Lttlefeld, 2009: 205). Ths cost cap eventually caused a huge budget overrun for Grosvenor. However, ths move by the equty holders was plausble from ther pont of vew, as they merely protected ther clent s nvestment and eventually commtted themselves to a very long-term partnershp. No one nssted on gettng ther money back upon completon these nvestors, lke Grosvenor, were n t for the long haul. So by the end of 2004 [before constructon started], Grosvenor had a fundng deal on offer. The terms were harsh, but t was fundng (Lttlefeld, 2009: 205). Realzaton: 2004-2008 Thus, by the end of 2004, everythng was n place, ncludng fundng. As a result, constructon commenced n November 2004, but constructon preparaton already started pror to full plannng permsson, as early as 19 December 2003, when Grosvenor selected Lang O Rourke as the preferred contractor for the ste. At the start of the realzaton stage Grosvenor beleved 304 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

t could manage the project on the strct fnancal terms. Despte the fnancal rsks, drectors beleved t was a calculated rsk. However, the project took place aganst the background of rapdly rsng property prces and rampant nflaton n the constructon sector. Another major project cost overrun contrbutor was the commtment to qualty. As project management merely s based on balancng tme, costs and qualty, Grosvenor could have chosen a value engneerng approach, effectvely lowerng spatal and buldng qualtes. Nevertheless, despte costs contnung rse, Grosvenor s project drector Rod Holmes nssted n mantanng the ntended qualty level. In January 2006 n the Lverpool Daly Post, Holmes commented that unless the project delvers somethng very specal, as the sngle bggest component of the new Lverpool, t wll not acheve the fnancal returns that are requred to justfy the huge nvestment (Lttlefeld, 2009: 213). Delverng a hgh qualty envronment would ncrease the amount of shoppers, effectvely securng to persuade retalers to choose Lverpool as ts prmer retal destnaton. The basc dea of fnancal return was that a hgh qualty envronment would create a hgher footfall over a long-term perod, and ths would ensure nvestors of obtanng stable rent cash flows from the dfferent retal tenants. As a result Grosvenor already had secured two man retalers, Debenhams and John Lews, as renters of the two man anchor stores, thereby ncreasng the chance of other retalers to put an nterest n Lverpool One, whch became the rebranded name for the Paradse Project on 1 November 2005. In sprng 2006, the tmetable was n danger of slppng. Grosvenor beleved that contractor Lang O Rourke dd not have the capacty to delver the entre project n tme and decded to propose another contractor (Balfour Beatty) to the project that took over the eastern part of the ste. Moreover, the project contaned over half a mllon pages of documentaton, threatenng effectve management of the project. Accordng to Lttlefeld (2009: 216) early fndngs ndcated that rsng land values (whch forced up the cost of acqurng the ste) and sprallng constructon costs had led to an overrun of at least 90 mllon. In Aprl 2007, Grosvenor announced that ts project n Lverpool had lost the company 150 mllon. Clearly, tough new control measures were n order. And organzatonal structures were tghtened, by appontng a new project management drector charng the steerng group. However, as a result of all these project management decsons, Lttlefeld (2009: 221) argues that Grosvenor had found tself torn between ts commtments to qualty and tmelnes, and the commercal necessty of fnancal prudence. Slowly but surely, beng seen to delver on ts promses became the domnant factor, n spte of fnancal pan. Mke Preston, Grosvenor s project management drector declared n a revew that apart from the under-estmate of the prce of the project at the very start, there was no sngle moment whch steered the costs of course; rather, t was a very slow ncremental process (Lttlefeld, 2009: 221). Upon completon the project total nvestment costs of the project were 1 bllon (contanng 500 mllon constructon costs and fees), a total of 350 mllon above the estmated 650 mllon. In summary, the followng reasons contrbuted to ths cost overrun: Strct condtons of the nvestment package deal; Underestmaton of the project costs at the start; Rse of land values; Rse of constructon costs (eventually); Commtment to tme; Commtment to hgh qualty. 305 Cases n the UK

Nevertheless, despte the ntal fnancal dffcultes by steerng on tme and qualty, Grosvenor delvered the Phase One of the project n tme on 29 May 2008. The openng of Lverpool One to vstors ncluded the man retal anchor stores and South John Street and Paradse Street. At a later stage on 22 November 2008, Chavasse Park was delvered, effectvely completng the major works Lverpool One, and some ndvdual buldngs followed completon durng 2009. Thus, the whole project constructon perod s four years. Operaton: 2008-now A major characterstc of Lverpool One s the agreement about the prvate operaton of the ste. Grosvenor has a 250-year lease on the Lverpool One ste, durng whch tme the company s commtted to mantanng, lghtng, cleanng and managng the entre development (LCC & Grosvenor, 2009). Furthermore, as a co-nvestor t partly owns retal propertes, whch allows them to obtan long-term fnancal returns through rent cash-flows. Although the Lverpool Cty Councl techncally owns the land, and negotated a 5% share of the proft (overage) of the rent, the operaton of the ste s n hands of Grosvenor. As result of the combnaton of land lease and real estate owner, Grosvenor s able to balance qualty mantenance and fnancal returns. Thus, for Grosvenor Lverpool One s a long-term bet and therefore t can afford to wat for the payback. Thus, ths long-term commtment t justfes the huge amount of nvestment put nto the project. The day-to-day management of the ste, accordng to LCC & Grosvenor (2009: 29) s undertaken through an nnovatve jont venture wth Broadgate Estates. Ths nnovatve partnershp approach dffers from the more typcal approaches to property management whch nvolve ether fully outsourcng or managng n-house. The strategy led to the creaton of a bespoke property management team charged solely wth delvery of: mantenance of the publc realm; ndustry leadng servces to the Lverpool One occupers; the hghest standards of customer care for vstors, and a consumer marketng campagn to establsh Lverpool One as the regonal destnaton of choce. In return, occupers pay agreed upon servce charges. However, despte the prvate control of Lverpool One, the ste remans open to publc 24/7 and accordng to LCC & Grosvenor (2009: 29-30), has no doors barrng access presentng unque challenges from a securty pont of vew. Lverpool One has a 24/7 manned Control Room, publc realm and back of house as well as 600 CCTV cameras whch also count footfall. The management team works closely together wth the Emergency Servces ncludng a dedcated polce team wthn Lverpool One. Lverpool One has a 117 strong team whch covers Management, Waste & Cleansng, and Customer Support n total. The mpact of Lverpool One s already evdent accordng to LCC & Grosvenor (2009). A research by Expedan revealed that Lverpool had reclamed ts poston as 5th n the UK retal herarchy. Collers CRE reported that Prme Zone A rents n the center have also gone up n 2008. Local retalers are benefttng from the ncreased footfall of Lverpool One and the street connectons, as n May 2008 pedestran flows were consstently hgher at 30-40%. Furthermore, accordng to LCC & Grosvenor (2009: 30), Lverpool One also acted as a catalyst for wder mprovements n the area. Lverpool Vson reported a further 900 mllon of development was ether on ste or n the ppelne, ncludng plans by Land Securtes for a 100 mllon redevelopment of St John s Shoppng Centre and a 105 mllon redevelopment of the Lews buldng. Thus, 306 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

both establshed retal estates n Lverpool beneftng from Lverpool One. Also, n a consumer research 83% of the surveyed people thnk the cty has mproved over the last fve years, and 91% of vstors wll were lkely to return to the cty center. In terms of jobs, Lverpool One has created n excess of over 3000 temporary constructon jobs and 5000 permanent jobs for the local communty, as well as provdng tranng for young people and opportunty for local busnesses (LCC & Grosvenor (2009: 24). In 2009, Lverpool One won the BCSC Town Centre award, a prce for excellence n retal-led urban regeneraton, desgn and Publc-Prvate Partnershps that support and sustan thrvng communtes. 7.3.3 Organzaton Here, we now analyze the organzaton of Lverpool One on the bass of our analytcal framework, whch enables us to compare both UK cases and foregn cases wth one another. We provde an answer to our frst case study research queston: what are the nter-organzatonal roles of publc and prvate actors? In successve order, tasks and responsbltes, rsks and revenues, and rules and requrements are dscussed, before we conclude ths secton wth an overvew. Tasks & responsbltes Publc Actor Intatve Stage Commssonng consultants Makng plannng framework Publshng of advertsement Makng developer shortlst Issung development bref Organzng developer workshops Selectng preferred development partner Desgn & Feasblty Stage Issung fnal development bref Amendng untary development plan Sgnng development & secton 106 agreement Grantng plannng permsson to developer Issung compulsory purchase order Handlng publc nqury Transferrng land assembly to developer Realzaton & Operaton Stage Provdng plannng permsson for buldngs Montorng prvate operaton/management Prvate Actor Intatve Stage Statng development nterest Provdng wrtten & conceptual desgn proposal Gvng presentaton to local authorty Desgn & Feasblty Stage Commssonng masterplannng team Desgnng masterplan Submttng plannng applcaton Organzng publc consultaton meetngs Sgnng development & secton 106 agreements Securng nvestment for development Realzaton Stage Submttng revsed plannng applcatons Appontng development team & contractors Rebrandng project Constructng, delverng & openng the project Operaton Stage Carryng out temporary ste management Appontng management company Table 7.11 Emprcal tasks & responsbltes n Lverpool One 307 Cases n the UK

Here, we dscuss the tasks and responsbltes from the publc (LCC) and prvate (Grosvenor) actor n Lverpool One, by analyzng them n the dfferent development stages. Table 7.11 gves an overvew of the tasks & responsbltes of the publc and prvate actors n Lverpool One. Ths table shows that publc and prvate roles were very much formally separated from ntatve to operaton stage. However, the nformal partnershp approach between both actors resulted n several meetngs and dscussons about the evoluton of the scheme n the desgn stage. Effectvely, ths publc-prvate nteracton process was coordnated by two organzatonal bodes, one formal jont steerng commttee and one nformal Advsory Group. In the ntatve stage, local authorty Lverpool Cty Councl (LCC) provded the necessary plannng framework for the development. Frst, t explored the market demand for a new cty center development by commssonng consultants Healey & Baker to carry out a retal study. Second, the LCC wrote the Paradse Street Development Area Plannng Framework, effectvely provdng clearness about the local authorty s ntentons for the area. Thrd, on the bass of both documents, the LCC publshed an advertsement n newspapers based on the plannng framework, askng developers to state ther nterest n the area. Fourth, after recevng the nterests of developers, the LCC provded a developer shortlst and ssued a Development Bref for the selected developers, provdng more specfc condtons for the development. Ffth, the LCC organzed workshops wth the selected developer n whch they could present ther conceptual deas and plan for the area. And fnally, the LCC selected one developer, Grosvenor as the preferred development partner for the project. As a developer Grosvenor frst stated ther development nterest to the advertsement. Second, after Grosvenor became part of the developer shortlst, t provded a wrtten and conceptual desgn proposal as a reacton LCC s development bref. And fnally, Grosvenor gave a presentaton about ts conceptual deas n a workshop to the Cty Councl. In the desgn and feasblty stage, frst LCC ssued a Fnal Development Bref to developer Grosvenor provdng the prncpal gudelnes for the development based on the workshop outcomes. Second, after recevng a masterplan for the area, the LCC ssued a Publc Inqury, amendng the Untary Development Plan ncludng the Paradse Street Development Area plans, gvng the development a legal status. Thrd, LCC sgned the Development Agreement and Secton 106 Agreement wth developer Grosvenor after a negotatng process between the two actors. Fourth, the LCC gave Plannng Permsson to Grosvenor to develop the ste. And fnally, as a closure of ths stage, LCC ssued a Compulsory Purchase Order to assemble land for development, whch was carred out by the developer, and held a CPO Publc Inqury to handle objectons to the development. Grosvenor frst commssoned a Masterplannng team to carry out detaled desgn and plannng of the ste resultng n a Masterplan based on the requrements from the fnal development bref. Second, Grosvenor submtted ths masterplan n a hybrd (part detaled/part outlne) Plannng Applcaton. Thrd, the developer organzed a publc exhbton about the desgn proposal and publc consultaton to nvolve other stakeholders n the desgn process, creatng support for the project. Fourth, Grosvenor sgned the Development Agreement and Secton 106 Agreement wth LCC after a negotatng process between the two actors. And fnally, Grosvenor secured nvestment for development by equty and loans. Furthermore, the LCC and Grosvenor jontly establshed two organzatonal bodes as part of the Partnershp approach. The frst was a Jont Steerng Commttee, chared by the chef executves of both LCC and Grosvenor UK, whch coordnated desgn scheme ssues. 308 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

The second was an Advsory Group, contanng poltcal members of the Cty Councl, meant to create poltcal support for the development. In the realzaton stage, frst LCC provded Plannng Permsson for ndvdual buldngs whch were part of a Revsed Plannng Applcaton submtted by Grosvenor, now ncludng more detaled proposals ndvdual buldngs for the outlne part of the frst plannng applcaton. Second, after securng of (legal) plannng permsson and (fnancal) nvestment, Grosvenor apponted an (organzatonal) development team and contractors to coordnate the delvery and carry out the work. Thrd, t rebranded the project nto Lverpool One, establshng a commercal name for the development. And fnally, t organzed the openng the project for the publc, delverng the project. In the operaton stage, frst LCC sgns a Land Lease Agreement wth Grosvenor, transferrng the responsblty of mantenance and securty to the developer. Second, LCC pays attenton that Grosvenor lves up to ts responsbltes as a development operator. Developer Grosvenor sgns a Land Lease Agreement wth LCC, effectvely makng them responsble for the mantenance, securty and cleansng of the entre ste. Second, as the responsble prvate leaseholder of the ste Grosvenor commssons the management company Broadgate Estate to carry out the day to day ste operaton. Rsks & revenues In terms of rsks and revenues, there has been a clear dstncton between the two actors n Lverpool One. The local authorty does not have any substantal fnancal rsks; however, t does have some poltcal and socetal rsks and overhead costs. The poltcal and socetal rsks nvolved wth the project relate to locaton of the ste to whch the councl commtted tself as a crucal project to provde the necessary substantal change for the cty. Furthermore, Lverpool beng the European Captal of Culture n 2008 provded some socetal rsks n terms of publc opnon about the cty of Lverpool n case the cty center project was not delvered n tme. Parker & Garnell (2006) mentoned that LCC s overhead costs for the whole process from concept to the grantng of plannng permsson are estmated around 3 mllon. In terms of revenues, LCC negotated a 5% share of the proft (overage) of the retal store rent that s collected by retal owner Grosvenor, thereby guaranteeng a constant cash flow. The prvate ntervewee mentons that LCC does not run a fnancal rsk n ths constructon, as losses have to be taken solely by Grosvenor. Grosvenor does have a hgh rsk degree as t undertakes fnancal actvtes. Frst, there s the plan development rsk. Even before they were apponted preferred development partner, desgns were made by the developer. Second, Grosvenor takes on the land acquston rsk of the development. The assemblng of land was a task apponted by to the developer by LCC, effectvely gvng Grosvenor the mandate and responsblty to buy out local land and property owners, whch proved to be a dffcult process Thrd, Grosvenor took on the land development rsk. As the ste was located at the very heart Lverpool, the ste contaned some archaeologcal works from early settlements of the ste, and the ste also contaned some decontamnaton costs. Fourth, the developer took on the real estate development rsk, whch rose as a result of the constructon prces at the tme of realzaton. However, Grosvenor lowered the real estate development rsks, by securng tenants for the dfferent real estate objects at an early stage of the development. Ffth, Grosvenor ran a plannng permsson rsk, as fnancal 309 Cases n the UK

agreements wth nvestors, and constructon agreements wth contractors were made, pror to the plannng permsson of all buldngs n the development. Fnally, Grosvenor ran severe fnancal rsks, as the nvestment of the development was pad partally by equty, and partly by bank loans. Bank loans were secured very easly. However, Grosvenor took on the largest share of equty n the Grosvenor Lverpool Fund, where other nvestors lmted ther share to a fxed amount, resultng n the agreement that any cost overruns would have to be borne by Grosvenor alone. As a result of several reasons (ndcated n Secton 7.3.2) the project budget overrun estmated 350 mllon. Thus, Grosvenor therefore dd not have any drect project revenues but rather a substantal project loss. However, as owners of the realzed real estate and 250 year land leasng constructon Grosvenor s able to get a long-term return on nvestment by generatng a constant cash flow. Rules & requrements In terms requrements, the local authorty has provded several pre-development stage condtons. However, these publc requrements have been very mnmal n descrpton, lke establshng connectons to other neghborhoods, nfrastructure provsons etc. For a full lst of requrements see the plannng polcy paragraphs n Secton 6.3.2. In the advertsement seekng development proposals from developers, LCC stated general condtons for the development. In the followng shortlsted developer selecton process, LCC ssued an Outlne Development Bref, statng more clear condtons for a concept desgn. After the selecton of a preferred development partner, the LCC ssued a Fnal Development Bref statng more clear condtons based on collaboratve desgn workshops wth the developer. Both actors negotated the terms and condtons n the Development Bref and the developer contrbuton to publc works n the Secton 106 Agreement. Lttlefeld (2009) argues that these condtons were a logcal outcome of an ntensve collaboraton process, and therefore can be regarded as formal confrmaton of what both actors ntended. For nstance, the Development Agreement and Secton 106 Agreement contan condtonal rules about the phasng of the development, the qualty and structure of the scheme, the delvery of publc facltes, the amount of floor space for dfferent functons, the use of compulsory purchase orders, the conservaton of hertage, dealng wth envronmental ssues, and mantenance and management system, fnancal contrbutons to publc works, and even human rghts ssues, amongst others. In these agreements nether specfc artcles were found wth establshed rules for dealng wth unforeseen crcumstances, nor dd t became clear what was meant by them. We conclude that both actors were able to rase and tackle unforeseen problems durng the development process as they were n constant dalogue wth each other. 7.3.4 Management In Chapter 2 we dscussed that the management by actors n prvate sector-led urban development projects has been underestmated as a way of nfluencng the outcome of projects. Hence, nter-organzatonal arrangements of publc-prvate cooperaton do to 310 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

a certan extent determne the possbltes publc and prvate actors have to manage the projects. Therefore, here we analyze the dfferent management measures appled by the publc actor (Lverpool Cty Councl) and prvate actor (Grosvenor). Project management The man project management actvtes for publc and prvate actors to nfluence development projects are based on the development stages and therefore are categorzed as; ntatng, desgnng, plannng, and operatng. In terms of ntatng the development project, the Lverpool case shows that the local authorty played a crucal role. Unlke some other examples n the UK of unsolcted proposals by developers for an area, n ths case the LCC took the ntatve for the nner-cty development. Frst, ths was done by moblzng the councl members to commsson Healey & Baker to carry out a retal study to provde nformaton on the potental of development. Second, the LCC publshed an advertsement n newspapers contanng general gudelnes and requrements for developers to take nto account n development proposals. Later these requrement were further elaborated n and outlne and fnal development bref. Thus, n essence, project developers n strct sense dd not ntate the project. Hence, the nfluence on the end result by the publc body here has been crucal by ntatng ts requrements. In terms of desgnng the development project, the Lverpool case shows that developer Grosvenor started nfluencng the outcome of the development project by reactng on the advertsement n whch Grosvenor translated ts conceptual vews on the development nto a desgn proposal. Furthermore, when t was chosen as the preferred developer Grosvenor further detaled ts goals nto a Masterplan for the area. By presentng and dscussng these desgns and plans wth other stakeholders they managed the development. In terms of plannng the development project, the Lverpool case shows that n general Grosvenor was able to nfluence the realzaton of the development. By schedulng an end date for delvery and consequently conductng several project management actvtes t was able to balance tme, costs and qualty. LCC dd not have a major nfluence n ths; however, t provded gudelnes for delvery n the development agreement, whch were agreed upon by both actors. As Grosvenor also commssoned contractors, and made a choce to add a contractor for a specfc part of the development, t showed that plannng the project became a project management actvty largely undertaken by ths prvate actor. In terms of operatng the development project, the Lverpool case shows that developer Grosvenor takes management responsbltes for the ste after delvery. Based on a 250-year land lease agreement wth the local authorty, Grosvenor based on the prvate operaton of the ste at pervous stages was, and stll s, managng ts nterests n the development. They use a prvate management company to carry out operaton actvtes for them. The local authorty has a mnor nfluence n operaton as they montor ste mantenance. Thus, Grosvenor through operatng manages the project. 311 Cases n the UK

Process management The man process management actvtes for publc and prvate actors to nfluence development projects relate to the cooperaton and nteracton between publc and prvate actors and therefore are categorzed as; negotatng, decson-makng, and communcatng. In terms of negotatng n the development process, the Lverpool case shows that both actors have been dscussng ther objectves n an on-gong process untl the start of constructon works. The frst nteractve process between both LCC and Grosvenor took place n the workshops about the desgn proposals, the second n the Jont Steerng Commttee, and the thrd n the negotatons about the development and Secton 106 agreements. Lttlefeld (2009: 45) mentons that Although Lverpool One s the result of a close partnerng between the cty councl and Grosvenor, the relatonshp was also characterzed by tough and often dffcult negotatons. Ths has been confrmed by the prvate actor ntervewee who stated that the local authorty was very persstent n achevng publc goals through negotatons. So, through dfferent arenas and at dfferent moment both actors nfluenced the outcome of the development by negotatng objectves. In terms of decson-makng n the development process, the Lverpool case shows that n the pre-development stages both actors had several moments and nstruments to make decsons on behalf of ther organzatons. The local authorty used nformal and formal documents n whch t stated dfferent decsons that had to be taken nto consderaton by the prvate actors. Grosvenor manly made decsons based on tme, fnance, and desgn ssues whch were ncorporated Masterplans and agreements wth other stakeholders. Furthermore, both the LCC and Grosvenor jontly made decsons as they worked n an nformal partnershp whch each other. In terms of communcatng n the development process, the Lverpool case shows that communcatng by Grosvenor was wdely nterpreted. They not only communcated Masterplannng desgns wth relevant publc and prvate stakeholders, they also organzed publc exhbtons for the local communty, even n the realzaton stage. Thereby, t nfluenced publc opnon and generated support from several stakeholders. The local authorty dd perform less communcatng actvtes, although t communcated progress wthn ther own organzaton, creatng poltcal support. However, ths was a jont task from Grosvenor and LCC. Thus, communcatng as a way of nfluencng development processes was largely prvate sector-led. Management tools The man management tools that publc and prvate actors have to secure and provde condtons as a way to nfluence development projects are categorzed n four man categores; shapng, regulatng, stmulatng, and capacty buldng. In terms of shapng the development project, the Lverpool case shows that the local authorty shaped condtons for the developers by publshng an advertsement and ssung an outlne development bref, later followed by a fnal development bref. Nevertheless, also the developer used ths management tool to accomplsh ts goals by desgnng a Masterplan for the area. Therefore, both actors actvely shaped the development. In terms of regulatng the development project, the Lverpool case shows that the local authorty dd regulate the development by ssung development brefs. However, ths was not done very strctly, as there was not a predefned plan n place for the use of land nor a detaled 312 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

functonal program. Thus, publc set of requrements manly nvolved general wshes and condtons. Therefore, the developer was able to react on these condtons and put creatvty nto the development proposal. Therefore, regulatng was done by the publc actor, but wth a hgh degree of freedom for Grosvenor to ncorporate ts wshes nto the scheme. In terms of stmulatng the development project, the Lverpool case shows that the publc actor dd not really provde fnancal ncentves for the market actors. Nevertheless, by ssung compulsory purchase orders t ensured that Grosvenor had a legal bass for acqurng the necessary land for development. In addton, Grosvenor put together the nvestment captal, and organzed that dfferent retalers were sgned as tenants of Lverpool One. But clearly, stmulatng development has been a management tool used by the publc actor. In terms of capacty buldng the development project, the Lverpool case shows that the LCC dd organze poltcal support for the development by engagng councl members n decsons. However, t was Grosvenor who put a lot of effort nto dfferent meetngs, consultatons and exhbtons for whch t nvted publc, prvate and cvc actors to comment on plans, ncludng several governmental bodes. Ths created wde poltcal, governmental, busness, and socetal support for the development. Thus, capacty buldng became a prvate management actvty. Management resources The man management resources that publc and prvate actors have to nfluence development projects are categorzed n four three categores; land, captal and knowledge. In terms of usng land as management resource for the development project, the Lverpool case shows that both actors were able to nfluence the project. The land for development was partally owned by the cty councl and local landowners. However, despte the prvate actor not ownng any pece of land pror to development t dd use land as a way to manage the development. The 250-year land lease deal that the developer sgned wth the local authorty resulted n prvate land ownershp. Therefore, as the leaseholder of land Grosvenor effectvely ensured that t could operate the entre development based on ts own nsghts. All decsons consderng the lay-out, program and functons therefore had to be approved by Grosvenor themselves, although ths was done n close collaboraton wth the local authorty whch formulated some condtons for the land transfer, lke the provson of open streets for nstance. Nevertheless, land became a management resource prmarly used by the prvate actor to manage the development. In terms of usng fnancal captal as management resource for the development project, the Lverpool case shows that nvestment by the prvate sector was used to make decsons accordng to prvate nterests. Grosvenor put together the entre fundng for development based on prvate equty and bank loans. Even more, the long-term fnancng model enabled them to manage the development qualty durng the process. The local authorty dd not contrbute any fnancal means nto the development tself. Therefore, the developer used captal as a management resource was to nfluence the development. In terms of usng knowledge as management resource for the development project, the Lverpool case shows that both actors had specfc knowledge on dfferent felds. The local authorty used ther local knowledge about the potental of the cty center to connect dfferent parts of the cty together nto development requrements. The developer used specfc knowledge about the retal market, long-term fnancng, and conceptual desgnng as a way of 313 Cases n the UK

nfluencng the development outcome. Thus, both actors used specfc knowledge and put ths together n the partnershp approach to manage the development. In concluson Table 7.12 shows the emprcal management measures undertaken by publc and prvate actors n Lverpool One. Ths table ndcates that ths case can be consdered as a prvate sector-led urban development project, despte the nvolvement of, and collaboraton wth, the publc sector. It s Grosvenor that manly leads the project n a certan drecton. Management Measures Project Management Process Management Management Tools Management Resources Management Functons Intatng Desgnng Plannng Operatng Publc Prvate Prvate Prvate Negotatng Decson-makng Communcatng Both Both Prvate Shapng Regulatng Stmulatng Capacty buldng Both Publc Publc Prvate Land Captal Knowledge Prvate Prvate Both Table 7.12 Emprcal management measures n Lverpool One 7.3.5 Effects The effects are determned qualtatvely by askng nvolved publc and prvate actors about the effects of the cooperaton. The effect varables are the effectveness of the cooperaton, the effcency of the process, and the spatal qualty of the product. Effectveness The cooperaton by both publc and prvate actors s consdered very effectve. The local authorty argues that there s no doubt ths publc prvate cooperaton was effectve n achevng ts objectves, t even exceeded expectatons. The developer also argues exceeded the ntended objectves of Grosvenor. Both actors argue that one man reason for the effectveness was the partnershp approach whch resulted n a close workng relatonshp that affected quck decson-makng n the project. In general both actors confrm that all the ntended objectves from the Fnal Development Bref were taken care of n the end result. 314 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Effcency The effcency of the development process shows a more complcated pcture. In tryng to meet the project delvery deadlne n 2008, Grosvenor started constructon whle not all plannng permssons were n place. Thereby, they probably saved a lot of tme, contrbutng to effcency. Nevertheless, the project budget almost doubled as a result of several reasons contrbutng to costs rsng. Grosvenor s project manager argues that the man focus of Grosvenor s managng was on delverng n tme and wth the rght qualty, therefore costs were overlooked. In general the prvate actor argues that ths wll never happen agan as t resulted n severe pressures for the fnancal lqudty of the company also affectng other development projects. Grosvenor also stated that effcency would have been reduced f the pressure of delverng the project on tme was not n place. Costs would have rsen even hgher as the development speed would have been affected negatvely by the reduced demand as a result of the economc crss. Hence, the publc actor consders the eght years t took to delver such a complex large scale nnercty development as an outstandng achevement. Therefore, t s hard to judge whether the development process was effcent. One could argue that everythng was done to gan tme at the expense of costs. Spatal qualty Fgure 7.12 Lverpool One, mpresson man retal street ( Erwn Heurkens) 315 Cases n the UK

Both actors argue that the overall spatal qualty s exceptonal. As a result of the long term ownershp Grosvenor kept the qualty level at a hgh level. Ths n the end would create an envronment whch would sustan the attracton of vstors and retalers. The desgn of the scheme nvolved several archtects resultng n a wde varety of desgns and materals used. Also the publc space s consdered of hgh qualty. Despte ths, the publc actor argues that there were thngs that were compromsed on. For nstance, the lowerng of apartment buldng under pressure of Englsh Hertage by both actors s seen as a mssed chance to establsh a landmark buldng. Nevertheless, n general the user and experence value of the whole development are consdered as postve by ts users, as argued n the plannng & development process secton. Clear connectons were made to the surroundng areas and a publc park has been realzed. Despte some crtcsm (see Mnton, 2009) about the ste beng an enclave n the cty operated by a prvate management company, there are no clear sgns of a decreased user and experence value of the development. However, t s hard to judge f the development contans a sold future value at present tme. Some crtcsm focuses on the lack of flexblty to react on changng future needs, as the development s not consdered as an example of an organc development. Despte ths crtcsm, one can argue that the development per se s of exceptonal spatal qualty. Fgure 7.12 shows the man retal street n Lverpool One. 7.3.6 Experences The actors experences wth the cooperaton based on ths prvate sector-led urban development project are structured by the motves to choose ths approach, the problems encountered wth the approach, and the condtons for usng ths approach. These experences stated by the publc and prvate actors are valuable as they contan practcal recommendatons for Dutch practtoners. Motves The man motves for the local government to choose ths partcular prvate sector-led urban development approach are related to objectve to attract prvate nvestment nto the cty center. It was a delberate choce to let the prvate sector come wth proposals for development. Furthermore, the local authorty dd not have the labor and fnancal capacty to become nvolved n realzng the project. Lverpool One also s an example of transferrng rsks to a developer as local authortes are not enttled to take fnancal development rsks. Prvate land ownershp was not a reason to choose a prvate sector-led approach, as most land was owned publcly or by local owners. Furthermore, the developer dd not take the ntatve for development, the local authorty dd. Important to notce s that the local authorty contnued to follow ths approach as condtons to nfluence the project remaned rght, as s explaned herenafter. 316 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Problems Of course no development runs smoothly from ntatve to end result, several problems need to be overcome. The prvate developer argues that the management of all the work of all the dfferent archtects n the end was hard job to fulfl. Furthermore, the developer argues that the lack of nternal pressure wthn Grosvenor on vablty and fnancal comprehensve apprasal resulted n substantal cost overruns. Also the land deal negotatons wth the local landowners contrbuted to hgh land acquston rsks for Grosvenor. Even so, the fact that Grosvenor dd not own all the land pror to plannng permsson resulted n development rsks as well. Furthermore, despte the publc actor argung that the cooperaton ran smoothly, the developer states that the local authorty could have done more to stmulate the development, by gvng fnancal ncentves of any knd. In the eyes of the developer, the local authorty was very tough n negotatons tryng to acheve as much plannng and fnancal gan as possble. Hence, the man problem stated by both actors n ths type of development approach relyng entrely on prvate nvestment s that t would only work n economc favorable tmes as demand s more certan. In summary, the man problems encountered n Lverpool One were: Prvate budget overruns due to lack of nternal organzatonal pressure; Prvate desgn management of dfferent archtectural frms; Costs of land deal negotatons wth local landowners; Publc actor s mnmum effort to fnancally stmulate the project; Publc actor s focus on maxmum plannng gan of the project; Relyng entrely on prvate nvestment for the project. Condtons Several dfferent types of condtons for usng a prvate sector-led development approach were gven by the actors. Frst, the general publc gudelnes beforehand stated n the development brefs provded both certanty and flexblty for developers. The gudelnes created certanty as t contaned the man development prncples for the developer to react on. The gudelnes also created flexblty as there were no detaled wshes ncorporated, leavng room for the developer s creatvty n the desgn process to ncorporate ts own objectves and those from relevant stakeholders. The selecton of a development partner nstead of a more or less fxed development scheme also contrbuted to the flexblty as the developer dd not thnk n end products from the start of the project. Second, the jont partnershp workng between the LCC and Grosvenor s argued to be a condton for success of the development. Although ths cooperaton s based on a clear role dvson and the formalzng of responsbltes, t s consdered to be a collaboratve jont achevement. Despte that the formal publc and prvate roles were separated, and clearly formalzed nto the Development and Secton 106 Agreements and a Jont Steerng Commttee, close day-to day collaboraton and relatonshps durng the entre development process exsted between the actors. The actors kept nformng each other about the progress made 317 Cases n the UK

on tasks performed wthn ther own organzatons, jontly elaborated on several decsons for the scheme desgn and delvery. By dong so, they acted jontly towards formal workng commttees, poltcans and dfferent stakeholders n consultaton processes. Thrd, we have not yet stated the personal leadershp role of both ndvduals from the publc and prvate sector s consdered as a major condton for ths development. Project drector Rod Holmes from Grosvenor s consdered to have commtted hmself and the company to Lverpool One from day one. In essence, he played a key role n persuadng all drectors and other employees to commt themselves n makng somethng unque and lastng for the company. Hs role was counter parted by a strong councl leader, Mke Storey who algned all publc poltcans and offcals to establsh a long term legacy for the cty. Both personaltes had a consderable drve and passon to succeed wth ths project and therefore developed a sense of determnaton to carry everyone along. Fourth, the professonal atttude of the developer can be seen as a man condton to apply a prvate sector-led urban development approach. Grosvenor commtted tself to a long term 250 year land lease ownershp whch n tself results n thnkng professonally about the development as t becomes a long-term asset. Choosng a long term nvestment return brngs along that several objectves of dfferent stakeholders are taken care of from the begnnng as meetng other one s demands s crucal for sustanng the developer s returns over a long tme. For nstance, ths professonal atttude resulted n holdng extensve poltcal and publc consultaton and nformng actvtes to create development support, the n-house ncorporaton of dfferent specalzed professons to ntegrate all relevant aspects resultng n a balanced process and comprehensve scheme, and creatng openness and transparency about ts ntentons. Ffth, another condton for the prvate sector-led urban development approach les n Development Agreements whch should not menton commercal vablty as a condton for developer to start developng. On the one hand t seems rather strange to gnore the fnancal vablty of a scheme as t s often ncluded n publc-prvate contracts, but on the other hand t does not gve the developer the chance to walk away from the project based on fnancal reasons. So ncludng the commercal vablty as a condton for development n an agreement s redundant. Instead, the PSDA Development Agreement stated that constructon had to commence once four thngs had been acheved (Lttlefeld, 2009: 230): that anchor tenants had been secured; that the CPO process had been concluded satsfactorly [acqurng land for development]; that a road closure order had been obtaned; and that plannng permsson was granted. Sxth, accordng to Grosvenor, a condton for developng nner-cty projects of ths scale n the future wll be that t s dvded nto two or more phases. Developng a ste lke ths based on a prvate sector-led urban development approach s just too complex and brngs along too many fnancal rsks, as Lverpool One showed. Despte the fact that the economc tde was favorable, at least there was enough demand for the retal unts and the nvestors were wllng to nvest, costs rose as the project had to be developed n one chunk wthn a specfed tmeframe. However, the new economc realty s that demand has fallen and that developers apply rskavodng measures lke the phasng of urban development projects. 318 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Conclusons The Lverpool One case has shown us an excellent example of a complex prvate sector-led urban development project. Developer Grosvenor has managed the desgn, feasblty, realzaton and operaton stages of the development and effectvely used all knds of management measures. The local authorty manly facltated ths project and worked n close partnershp wth the developer to realze the project. Thus, despte the fact that there has been a close nvolvement of the local authorty, and a jont leadershp, t has been manly developer Grosvenor that has led the projects nto a certan drecton. Such jont-up collaboratve ways of workng do not undermne the concept of prvate-led development approaches, rather they prove to be an essental condton for t. In the next secton we cross-analyze both UK cases. 7.4 Cross Case Analyss Ths secton contans a cross-case analyss of two UK prvate sector-led urban development projects that have been descrbed n the prevous sectons. In successve order, the cross-case fndngs on the context (Secton 7.4.1) organzaton (Secton 7.4.2), management (Secton 7.4.3), effects (Secton 7.4.4) and experences (Secton 7.4.5) of the use of the UK prvate sector-led approaches are presented. By conductng a structured cross-case analyss we are able to determne to whch actors certan organzatonal or manageral roles can be attrbuted, and what knd of effects, motves, and condtons are applcable to practce accordng to the actors nvolved. By conductng ths structural cross-case analyss we are able to draw general conclusons about prvate sector-led urban development projects n the UK (Secton 7.5). 7.4.1 Context The economc, poltcal and socal context for both cases s qute dfferent and has had an nfluence on the way publc and prvate actors organzed and managed the development. However, smlar n these projects s that both cases represent rather strategc nner-cty developments wth a mxed-use functonal program, and therefore, a possbly expected hgh complexty. We here descrbe how the contextual features nfluenced the roles of and relatonshp between publc and prvate actors n these urban development projects. In terms of economy, both cases represent a dfferent economc and market context as Brstol s stuated n the relatvely economcally growng South-west regon, and Lverpool s stuated n the relatvely economcally declnng North-west regon of England. As a result of economc declne n Lverpool, the local authorty was rather pro-actve n development atttude. It became crucal to redevelop a large part of the nner-cty and attract the prvate sector to nvestment heavly n the cty center to put Lverpool back on the map. Here, Lverpool Vson, an economc development company, has played a crucal role by formulatng a cty vson whch focused on ntegratng economc and physcal developments and establshed busness and 319 Cases n the UK

enterprse nterests n the cty. The councl chose a developer whch could help them delver the cty s ambtons. As Brstol s economy s rather strong the need for attractng prvate sector nvestment was less crucal for the local authorty. They were more re-actve n development atttude. However, also here a substantal development potental for an abundant nner-cty area was n place, wth a long plannng hstory of nactvty. Therefore, the local authorty adopted a more growth orented governance model at a certan pont by establshng a partnershp for Harboursde. Ths nformal Publc-Prvate Partnershp provded opportuntes to kck-start development. In terms of poltcs, both cases have shown that (a lack of) poltcal leadershp can have qute some nfluence on urban development projects. In Lverpool, n 1998 the Lberal Democrats took over poltcal control over the Councl at the expense of the Labour Party whch had run poltcs for decades. Ths resulted n the appontment of a new manageral and poltcal structure wthn the LCC whch was capable of transformng the Cty Councl s performance as a leader n local governance. The role of the Mayor has been mentoned as crucal as he algned and nformed the Cty Councl and opposton partes about the course of acton for Lverpool One thereby creatng poltcal support for the project. In Brstol, no such poltcal change has occurred n the development perod of Harboursde as the (New) Labour party has been n poltcal control for decades. Therefore, t has been mentoned n the case descrpton that the councl showed a more conservatve atttude towards the development ndustry. Furthermore, poltcal opposton partes were rather organzed and opposed to the proposed development schemes from Crest. There was no poltcal leader that could effectvely prevent that the plannng process at a certan moment became a poltcal process. Ths resulted n a somewhat negatve mage of the local authorty and developer, whch n a later stage was altered when the councl fnally came wth solutons to resolve the poltcal a cvc opposton tensons. Thereby both actors nfluenced the envronment whch resulted n less tensons and more support for development ncreasng process effcency. In terms of the socal context, both case represent rather dfferent cvc envronments. In Brstol the cvc organzatons had a long tradton of beng crtcal about development and were qute well organzed n the form of the Brstol Cvc Socety. Furthermore, local resdents, archtects, meda and non-proft organzatons proved to be very actve n safeguardng ther Brstolan nterests n relaton the Harboursde development. As Crest and BCC dd somewhat msjudge the power of these cvc groups and dd not nvolve them drectly n the scheme desgn cvc support for development was lackng. At a later stage ths was fxed by the extensve process of communty dalogue. In Lverpool, no such cvc groups were actve, despte some local land and real estate owners who ressted aganst purchasng ther propertes for the Lverpool One development. However, as good fnancal compensaton and replacement was provded ths dd not resolve n major process bottle-necks. For the sake of the cty most opposton groups wthdrew ther objectons. Thus, the UK cases show that economc, poltcal and socal envronments can nfluence nnercty development projects heavly, but that there are possbltes for actors to handle ths context as well. 320 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

7.4.2 Organzaton The organzatonal roles of prvate sector-led urban development projects to a large extent defne the management of actors. Based on the emprcal case studes conducted n ths chapter we here descrbe the cross-case study fndngs of the role characterstcs, whch are dvded n three man categores; organzatonal tasks and responsbltes, fnancal rsks and revenues, and legal rules and requrements. Tasks & responsbltes Both cases show that the tasks and responsbltes of both actors are clearly dvded between the local authorty and project developer. In essence, publc actors take care of the legslatve part of the plannng process by ssung plannng brefs, amendng local plans, producng tenders, handlng plannng applcatons, grantng plannng permssons, and ssung publc nqures. Prvate actors apply for plannng permssons by handng n plannng applcatons. Bascally, n the development process, publc actors establsh condtons for development by ether producng development brefs or frameworks for developers to respond to. Developers take on most of the tasks nvolved n developng the project ncludng, desgnng schemes, handlng publc consultaton, securng nvestment, settng up project teams, and delverng the project, and sometmes (Lverpool One) even operatng publc space. In prncple, ths strct role dvson encountered n the cases s n lne wth the descrpton of publc and prvate roles n urban regeneraton descrbed n Chapter 6. However, we also notce that actors perform shared tasks. Together they negotate the terms and condtons for development n development agreements and Secton 106 agreements. Furthermore, whle desgnng schemes are the responsblty of prvate actors, a lot of publcprvate cooperaton takes place n the desgn process before a fnal desgn s accepted. And, nformal partnershps are set up to gude the process of desgnng schemes. Also, steerng commttees contanng representatves of both actors are put n charge of controllng the qualty level of development for nstance. Rsk & revenues Both cases show that rsks and revenues manly can be attrbuted to the prvate actor; publc actors do not take on development rsks. They only have poltcal and socal rsks, as they are democratcally accountable for the project s progress. Developers do have great rsks as the cases showed. They take on plan development rsks, land acquston rsks, land preparaton rsks, land development rsks, real estate development rsks, and fnancal rsks. Ths amount of rsks n the Lverpool case led to many problems for the prvate organzatons. Here, the optmzaton between tme, fnance and qualty has resulted n favorng tme and qualty at the expense of severe budget overruns. However, here the revenues come nto play to cover these rsks. We have seen that Grosvenor as the developer used a long term nvestment return model by land leasng the development for 250 years. In ths way project rsks can be handled by the certanty of beng n charge of constant cash flows over a number of years. To alter the 321 Cases n the UK

rsks for developers, especally n economc dffcult tmes, both local authortes took steps to create certanty of publc commtment for development by establshng partnershp models, and ssung development brefs wth clear objectves for developers to respond to. However, a development control atttude by the local authorty n Brstol durng the realzaton stage resulted n ncreasng the rsks for developers as addtonal requrements were added n the negotaton process. Nevertheless, these cases confrm our vew of separated rsks and revenues n urban regeneraton n the UK whch are manly a prvate matter. Rules & requrements Both cases show that publc actors set requrements and rules for developers to work wth n development projects. Ths s normally done by producng general publc requrements for development n development brefs. Furthermore, these brefs for nstance contan rules for how prvate actors should hand n plannng applcatons. The publc requrements become more detaled once developers have responded wth desgn proposals and development agreements and Secton 106 agreements are beng negotated. Here, the rules for cooperaton are establshed, gvng prvate actors the possblty to also take care of securng prvate nterests n the negotaton process. Also publc actors here negotate on ste and, n case of Brstol Harboursde, off-ste developer contrbutons, resultng n what s called plannng gans for local authortes. What has become clear from the cases s that local authortes tend to formulate general objectves for the development at the start of prvate sector-led urban development projects. The detals on scheme structure, exact program, materals to be used are beng determned n cooperaton wth prvate actors who have ntal freedoms to come up wth vable development proposals. Thus, the UK cases show that nter-organzatonal roles of local authortes and project developers are formally dvded n terms of tasks, responsbltes, rsks, and revenues by strct contractual rules and requrements, but that nner-cty urban development projects also result n substantal (nformal) publc-prvate collaboraton and nteracton, whch supports jont partnershp workng. 7.4.3 Management In Chapter 2 we dscussed that the management of publc and prvate actors n prvate sector-led urban development projects has been underestmated as a way of nfluencng the outcome of projects. Hence, nter-organzatonal arrangements of publc-prvate cooperaton do to a certan extent determne the possbltes publc and prvate actors have to manage the projects. Therefore, based on the emprcal case studes conducted n ths chapter, we here descrbe the cross-case fndngs of the emprcal management measures of both actors whch are descrbed n four man categores; project management actvtes, process management actvtes, management tools, and management resources. Table 7.13 shows whch emprcal 322 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

management measures have been used by publc and prvate actors to nfluence UK s prvate sector-led urban development projects. Management Measures Project Management Process Management Management Tools Management Resources Management Functons Intatng Desgnng Plannng Operatng Publc Prvate Prvate Publc/Prvate Negotatng Decson-makng Communcatng Both Both Prvate Shapng Regulatng Stmulatng Capacty buldng Both/Publc Publc Publc Both/Prvate Land Captal Knowledge Both/Prvate Prvate Both Table 7.13 Emprcal management measures n UK cases Project management The man project management actvtes for publc and prvate actors to nfluence development projects are based on the development stages and therefore are categorzed as; ntatng, desgnng, fnancng, plannng, and operatng. In terms of ntatng development projects, the case have shown that local authortes ntate the development projects, establshng certanty for developers by settng development parameters. They wrote out tenders and produced development brefs for developers to respond to. Furthermore, n Brstol Harboursde, the local authorty establshed a partnershp that functoned as an nter-organzatonal body that kck-started development nterests and secured publc fundng. Here, we see that developers dd not come wth unsolcted proposals for developers what sometmes happens n the UK. In terms of desgnng development projects, the cases have shown that prvate actors take the lead once they are selected as development partners. They are responsble for producng schemes for plannng applcatons. However, we see that local authortes are able to nfluence the outcome of development as n practce publc-prvate elaboratons about the content of the scheme take place. Both cases also showed that prvate actors use communty nvolvement to create support for these schemes. Nevertheless, prvate actors have qute some degree of freedom to use desgns as management measures and secure prvate goals. In terms of plannng development projects, the cases have shown that prvate actors n both cases take the lead once desgns, land and fnance are n place. They have the management possblty to decde when the project s beng completed. Furthermore, they determne whch contractors are hred to delver the project. However, the Brstol case also showed that the local authorty and the developer both had nfluence on the phasng of development. In practce t turned out that ths publc nfluence has been margnal as economc crcumstances forced the developer to adjust the delvery of housng. In terms of operatng development projects, the cases have shown a mxed pcture. In Lverpool the developer Grosvenor operates the entre development after completon. Thereby, they have been able to nfluence the development of publc spaces and buldng. In Brstol, developer 323 Cases n the UK

Crest hands over the operaton and mantenance of the publc space to the local authorty after delvery. Therefore we see that the local authorty was able to nfluence the structure, materals and poston of the publc space and nfrastructure at an earler stage. In concluson, we can state that project management actvtes are manly prvate sector-led as only ntatng and once operatng actvtes are a publc matter. Process management The man process management actvtes for publc and prvate actors to nfluence development projects relate to the cooperaton and nteracton between publc and prvate actors and therefore are categorzed as; negotatng, decson-makng, and communcatng. In terms of negotatng n development processes, the cases have shown that both actors are able to nfluence developments. Especally n the negotaton process towards the sgnng of development and Secton 106 agreements both actors are n a tradng-off publc and prvate objectves nto a development package. In terms of decson-makng n development processes, the cases have shown that both actors are jontly makng decsons durng the process. Here you see the nterdependency between the actors: developers depend on the local authorty gvng them plannng permssons and the local authorty depend on the developer s expertse and fnance to delver the project. Therefore, both actors nfluence the development process. In terms of communcatng n development processes, the cases have shown that communcaton between the actors s sometmes structured n steerng commttees. However, communcaton about the development actvtes manly s a prvate matter. Developers communcate to stakeholders, local authortes and even councls about desgns and progress. Communty and stakeholder nvolvement n both cases have been crucal for the effcency of the development process. Prvate actors are very much aware of the dffcultes of ncorporatng other nterests n the project but seem to see the added value of ths approach as t creates development support and ncreases realzaton process effcency. In concluson, we can state that process management actvtes are under nfluence of both actors. Publc and prvate actors make negotatons and jont decsons, whle prvate actors n both cases use communcaton as a devce to create support for development. Management tools The man management tools that publc actors have to secure and provde condtons as a way to nfluence development projects are categorzed n four man categores; shapng, regulatng, stmulatng, and capacty buldng. In terms of shapng development projects, the cases have shown that publc actors can use ndcatve development frameworks and structures, publc brefs as management tools to shape developments. However, the Lverpool case also showed that both actors used desgns to shape development. The local authorty manly set the parameters for development, but dd not produce any spatal plan or structure, ths was only done n wrtten words. Therefore, 324 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

the developer Grosvenor had the freedom to desgn a scheme themselves. In Brstol the Harboursde Sponsor Group produced a development framework whch conssted of a general parcelsaton whch showed the prncple stes for development and nfrastructure. In terms of regulatng development projects, the cases have shown that publc actors use plannng brefs, development frameworks, development agreements, Secton 106 agreements, desgn gudelnes, and even plannng permsson as management tools to regulate development. Thus, wth these tools publc objectves can be secured. The prvate actor n Brstol has referred to ths as development control atttudes from local authortes to developers. However, we also notce that regulatng development has not been conducted n a detaled manner. In terms of stmulatng development projects, the cases have shown that both actors use ths as management measure. The publc actor Brstol used grants obtaned from central government and cultural funds to fnancally contrbute to and kck-start developments. However, n Lverpool the local authorty dd not stmulate development that much. Ths was rather a tool used by the developer. Grosvenor put together the nvestment and organzed that dfferent retalers were sgned as tenants of Lverpool One. Furthermore, they used the compulsory purchase order provded by the councl to acqure the land for development. In terms of buldng capacty for development projects, the cases have shown that both actors try to get support for the project by consultng local resdents n plans. In Lverpool ths was manly a prvate management tool, as they managed to nvolve all necessary stakeholders for development such as Englsh Partnershps and Mersey Travel. In Brstol ths was done by both actors, the HSG partnershp was supported by the local authorty and communty and stakeholder nvolvement was under management by the developer. In concluson, we can state that management tools are manly used by publc actors to nfluence development. However, some tools are used by both actors, and some by prvate actors whch manage by applyng stmulatng and capacty buldng tools. Management resources The man management resources that publc and prvate actors have to nfluence development projects are categorzed n four three categores; land, captal and knowledge. In terms of usng land as management resource for development projects, the cases have shown that n prncple prvate actors can use land ownershp to nfluence developments once they obtaned t. Hence, n both cases the developers dd not own any land pror to development as land was scattered among dfferent publc and prvate owners. However, local authortes, n accordance to what s common practce, dd not use land development as a resource to manage the project. Developers take on the land development and thereby have the possblty to nfluence the outcome of the development as they hold control over the fnancal consequences of land decsons. But, n Brstol, the local authorty dd sell ther land n Harboursde under certan condtons for developng cultural functons. In terms of usng captal as management resource for development projects, the cases have shown that manly prvate actors secure fnance for development. They secure nvestment by prvate equty and bank loans and thereby have possbltes to decde on the outcome of the project. Wthout captal local authortes are relatvely unable to nfluence the development, 325 Cases n the UK

although the Brstol case has shown that creatng a partnershp that secures publc fundng from grants s a possblty to realze publc objectves. In terms of usng knowledge as management resource for development projects, the cases have shown that both actors use t for nfluencng developments. Publc actors use knowledge on publc procedures and the poltcal envronment, prvate actors use knowledge of (local) market demand and project marketng. Ths does seem to matter as the Brstol case showed that the local knowledge of both Crest and the BCC on development opposton was absent or underestmated. In Lverpool, Grosvenor not only proved to be n control over the market potental for retal, t also was aware of local envronment and demand. In concluson, we can state that management resources are at least used by the prvate sector and sometmes n cooperaton wth the publc sector. Therefore, prvate actors use most of the management measures; thereby ths s a prvate sector-led management measure. In concluson, based on Table 5.16 and the cross-case analyss of the management measures above, we conclude that: UK prvate sector-led urban development projects are ndeed led by prvate actors, however, not as much as we mght had expected from the lterature. Although local authortes conform themselves to prvate development nterests, they also apply several publc management measures that are used to nfluence the outcome of development. The cases show how publc actors accomplsh ths. They ntate developments, negotate about fnal schemes, make jont decsons, and use regulatng and stmulatng plannng tools. However, overall, developers are n the lead as they manage dfferent stages of the development process, and use all management resources for development. In both cases, communty nvolvement was a prvate matter and n the Lverpool case the operatng of publc space s solely the responsblty of the developer. Hence, we also notce n the cases that more prvate sector-led approaches ask for dfferent competences of managers. Publc-prvate leadershp, professonalsm and commtment of staff have proved to be crucal to prvate sector-led urban development projects. Whether ths s a generc management condton for all types of urban development projects however cannot be answered. 7.4.4 Effects The effects of the use of the prvate sector-led approach are determned qualtatvely by askng the nvolved publc and prvate actors about the effects of the publc-prvate cooperaton. The three effect varables are; the effectveness of the cooperaton, the effcency of the process, and the spatal qualty of the product. Table 7.14 shows the response of the publc and prvate actors to the emprcal effects n the UK cases. 326 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Publc Actor s Response Prvate Actor s Response Effects Yes No Y/N N/a Yes No Y/N N/a Effectveness cooperaton 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 (achevng objectves) Effcency process 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 (reducng tme & costs) Spatal qualty product (addng values) 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Table 7.14 Emprcal effects n UK cases Effectveness Table 7.14 shows that the prvate sector-led development approaches by both actors are consdered to be effectve n achevng the ntended objectves. Both cases showed that most of the ntended objectves have been acheved or are gong to be acheved. Therefore, publc and prvate actors argue that the cooperaton based on the prvate sectorled development approach has been very effectve as they had the possblty to realze ther ntentons. Effcency Table 7.14 shows that the prvate sector-led development approaches by both actors are judged dfferently n terms of effcent processes. In Brstol, the local authorty argued that the development process was not effcent; manly because t took the developer three attempts to produce a satsfyng plan. Ths was confrmed by the developer, whch saw (overhead, land and constructon) costs rse as a result of the desgn process stagnaton whch put the constructon works further nto the future. In Lverpool, the local authorty argues that the process was very effcent n terms of tme, as the development from ntatve to delvery took only eght years. However, ths postve answer does not take nto account the budget overruns that Grosvenor had to deal wth. Therefore, the developer argued that t s hard to judge effcency as tme had been reduced n all possble ways, at the expense of costs. Therefore, the UK cases show that nner-cty development project delvered wth a prvate sector-led development approach are not necessarly ef fcent as economc, poltcal and socal crcumstances can have a bg nfluence on the speed of the desgn process. In the realzaton stage, however, prvate actors proved to be ef fcent n delverng the project. 327 Cases n the UK

Spatal qualty Table 7.14 shows that the prvate sector-led development approaches by both actors n general can result n hgh spatal qualty levels. For nstance, both developments receved awards for ther archtectural and/or sustanable end result. In Brstol, the local authorty s qute satsfed wth the delvered qualty, whle the developer argues that t could have been a more dynamc development wth more dstnct qualty characterstcs. Compromses on materals and publc space had been made to make the development operatonable for the local authorty. However, n Lverpool both actors argue that the spatal qualty level s exceptonal, apart from some detals. Here, the developer has put n all the effort to realze a qualtatve envronment as they are responsble for the operaton of the project after delvery. Thus, we conclude that prvate sector-led urban development approaches n the UK can generate hgh spatal qualty levels. 7.4.5 Experences The experences of publc and prvate actors wth the cooperaton n the prvate sector-led urban development cases are descrbed here. These experences n successve order are descrbed n terms of motves for choosng the prvate sector-led urban development approach, the general experences and the problems encountered n the concesson model, and the condtons for usng and applyng prvate sector-led urban development projects. Ths data enables us to refne the desgn for new publc and prvate roles n Dutch prvate sector-led urban development projects n the future. Motves Both cases show qute some smlartes n terms of the motves to choose the prvate sectorled urban development approach. In summary, these motves nclude: Attractng prvate nvestment nto the cty center; Developng a prme ste that lay abundant for decades; The lack of fnancal capacty to become nvolved n realzng projects; The lack of labor capacty to become heavly nvolved n development; Transferrng development rsks to the prvate sector. Prvate land ownershp was not a reason to choose a prvate sector-led urban development approach, as most land n both cases was owned by publc or local landowners. Furthermore, the developer dd not take the ntatve for development, as n both cases the local authorty dd. 328 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Problems Both cases show that ths prvate sector-led urban development approach can result n several problems. In summary, problems found n ether one or both case(s) are: The fnancal dependency on the prvate sector, whch can delay the project; The lack of fnancal ncentves for publc actors, whch can cause less commtment; The lack of awareness of cvc demands, whch can cause conflcts and delays; The lack of controllng poltcal opposton by publc actors, whch causes conflcts; The very tough and long negotaton processes, whch can rase conflcts The publc prortes for ether plannng or development, whch can create confuson; The absence of sklled publc project managers, whch can solve nter-organzatonal nterests. These problems can not only be attrbuted to the cooperaton based on the prvate sector-led development approach. Some of them are general problems n urban development projects. However, from these problems stated by the actors or scholars, t becomes clear that some of them are related to the dependency between the two actors. Therefore, they are valuable for desgnng preferred roles for publc and prvate actors n the Netherlands as well. Condtons Both cases show that n order to use a prvate sector-led urban development approach several condtons must be met. Crucal condtons found n ether one or both case(s) nclude: General publc gudelnes n the development brefs provde both certanty and flexblty for developers; Informal partnershps and jont workng between publc, prvate and cvc bodes; Personal leadershp and sklls of both publc and prvate project managers; A professonal atttude and long term commtment of developers; Incorporatng communty nvolvement n the desgn stage of the project; Separatng plannng and development roles and objectves wthn the local authorty; Handlng poltcal pressure n tme. Hence, the man condton stated by both actors n both project wth ths type of development approach s that t can only work n economc favorable tmes as demand s more certan. As the development reles on prvate nvestment and the schemes are of substantal scale, feasblty of the projects become uncertan. Therefore, they recommended that these developments wll be more clearly phased n the future. 329 Cases n the UK

7.5 Conclusons In ths chapter we explored the UK prvate sector-led urban development practce by descrbng and analyzng two nner-cty redevelopment projects n terms of organzaton, management, effects, and experences. The reason for studyng our cases les n the fact that we wanted an answer to the followng queston: How do publc and prvate actors organze and manage UK prvate sector-led urban development projects, and what are the project effects and actor experences? Some key fndngs from the Brstol Harboursde and Lverpool One cases are presented here. Notce that our conclusons are partcularly nfluenced by the nature of both nner-cty cases n terms of ther scale, locaton and mportance whch requres government nterventon and engagement and thus mght not be vald for other UK urban development projects. Frst, n terms of context, from the cases we notced that n terms of context, urban regeneraton projects n UK can be consdered as poltcally complex. Both cases show that poltcs can have a major nfluence on the organzaton and management of development projects. Ths confrms our fndngs from the lterature revew. Especally, changng urban polces under dfferent poltcal powers changed condtons for development. These were hard to nfluence by the actors themselves. Moreover, strong and effectve poltcal leadershp s consdered crucal for the success of both projects. Second, n terms of organzaton, the cases have shown that local authortes do not take on development rsks as they do not develop themselves, as expected from the lterature revew. Also, revenue sharng wth prvate actors s absent, or lmted to what the publc and prvate actors agree upon. Furthermore, we notce that local authortes encourage all knds of partnershps wth other publc, prvate or cvc actors n order to create project support and rase funds. Ths also confrms the lterature revew fndngs. Moreover, despte the dvson of publc and prvate roles on the bass of formal development agreements, n practce, a substantal amount of nformal collaboraton and shared management takes place. The UK cases show that there s a lot of publc-prvate collaboraton nvolved, through negotatons on formal publc-prvate agreements throughout the development process, and through nformal day-to-day management. Thus, cooperaton n the UK s not nsttutonalzed nto rsk-sharng organzatonal bodes but nto legal agreements. Thrd, n terms of management, local authortes have dfferent possbltes to nfluence development, despte takng less rsks and responsbltes. The cases ndcate that publc actors can manage developments and thereby acheve publc nterests. However, the largest share of managng the project takes place by the project developer. Hence, both publc and prvate actors seemngly have ther own ways of managng projects. Publc actors use all knds of managng tools to shape, regulate and stmulate development. Prvate actors manage the projects from desgn towards possbly the area s operaton, thereby workng on a longterm bass commttng themselves to projects. Hence, prvate sector-led urban development projects requre an actve role of publc and prvate actors n managng the project. Notce that t does not necessarly nvolve less publc management. 330 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Fourth, n terms of effects, the cases have shown that although the projects were carred out effectvely and hgh qualty levels have been acheved, the effcency of the process s lackng behnd. The man reason for ths s that the negotaton process towards reachng an agreement between the actors takes a lot of tme. Also, durng the realzaton stage, new requrements can be added to the agreement as fnal plannng applcatons can be approved at a later stage when desgns for buldngs or buldng blocks are completed. In summary, before we go nto detal on the emprcal lessons learned n Chapter 8, what have we already learned from the UK cases n general for the Netherlands? In essence, UK prvate sector-led urban development projects nvolve: A form of actve publc sector management and leadershp/commtment; A form of actve prvate sector commtment and stakeholder engagement; A publc-prvate relatonshp based on formal agreements and nformal collaboraton. In Chapter 8, we present detaled lessons from both the Dutch and UK prvate sector-led urban development practces and projects, by confrontng them wth each other. 331 Cases n the UK

Part 3 Synthess 332 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

333 Cases n the UK

334 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

8 Emprcal Lessons & Implcatons 8.1 Introducton Netherlands Dfference / Unted Kngdom Smlarty Context Moderate poltcal nfluence on project Dfference Hgh poltcal nfluence on project Actve publc-prvate relatons Dfference Actve publc-prvate-cvc relatons Polces qute stable, certanty for project Dfference Polces change, uncertanty for projects Organzaton Blurred task/responsblty dvson Dfference Strct task/responsblty dvson Rsk/revenues both publc & prvate Dfference Rsk/revenues almost entrely prvate Detaled requrements/rules Dfference General requrements, but detaled rules Management Project management by both actors Dfference Project management manly prvate Process management by both actors Smlarty Process management by both actors Management tools sub optmally used Dfference Management tools almost optmally used Management resources by prvate actors Smlarty Management resources by prvate actors Effects Cooperaton generally effectve Smlarty Cooperaton generally effectve Process sometmes effcent Dfference Process hardly effcent Spatal qualty product mostly satsfyng Smlarty Spatal qualty product mostly satsfyng Table 8.1 General characterstcs of Dutch & UK prvate sector-led urban development projects In the prevous chapters we dscussed the most mportant characterstcs of Dutch and UK s urban development practce as well as prvate sector-led urban development projects. Ths chapter bulds upon these fndngs and ams at drawng emprcal lessons from these practces and projects for the roles of publc and prvate actors n urban development projects n the Netherlands. In ths secton, frst we want to brefly repeat the conclusons from the Dutch and UK cases provded n Chapter 5 and 7. We start by comparng the man characterstcs of these projects n both countres to ndcate dfferences and smlartes. Ths general comparson s shown n Table 8.1 and has been ndcated by Heurkens (2011a). Ths table s constructed on the bass of the central varables n ths research. 335 Emprcal Lessons & Implcatons

Of course ths table s somewhat general n nature, specfcally focused on our research purposes. Nevertheless, t provdes a clear overvew of our case study research fndngs. Ths table reveals some nterestng ponts from the Dutch and UK cases, whch are mentoned by Heurkens (2011): The nfluence of the project s context n the UK seems to be hgher than n the Netherlands; especally the poltcal power and changeable polces nfluence development. Project actors have dffcultes to manage these envronmental aspects. The organzatonal role dvson of prvate sector-led projects n the UK seems to be strcter than n the Dutch projects, where publc requrements sometmes are formulated n more detal. Management n the Dutch cases are slghtly less prvate sector-led than n the UK, where local authortes and developers are more aware of how to use management measures at ther dsposal. The effects show qute some resemblance; effectveness and spatal qualty can be acheved, whle effcency remans dffcult as tme and budget overruns occur frequently (Heurkens, 2011). In essence, these general fndngs are already scentfcally relevant. However, n ths chapter we am to mprove the scentfc relevance by drawng more detaled lessons from the Dutch and UK prvate sector-led urban development cases. The am s to dentfy whch organzatonal arrangements and manageral roles seem to support effectve, effcent and hgh qualty urban development projects n ths partcular context. In ths research, the objectve was to draw these types of lessons from both Dutch and UK projects. Therefore, n ths chapter we confront the prvate sector-led urban development case study fndngs from both countres wth each other. We ask ourselves the queston whether solutons, support and nspraton from the UK cases can be found for Dutch prvate sector-led urban development. In order to do so, n Secton 8.2, frst we descrbe Dutch unsolved ssues n concessons, and mrror these ssues wth possble solutons from the UK cases (Secton 8.2.1). Second, we nterpret the recommended mprovements mentoned by the actors n the Dutch cases and search for support n the UK cases (Secton 8.2.2). Thrd, n addton to the above, n Secton 8.3 we search for addtonal nspratonal lessons from the UK cases for the Netherlands (Secton 8.3.1). And fnally, we ndcate whether the UK lessons can be consdered as contextdependent or context-ndependent (Secton 8.3.2). Secton 8.4 provdes some conclusons about the man lessons learned from ths emprcal research. 8.2 Lessons from Dutch & UK Prvate Sector-led Cases Ths secton repeats and explans the unsolved ssues and recommended mprovements stated by the actors nvolved from the Dutch case studes. In Secton 5.12 and 5.13 we have ndcated the man unsolved ssues and recommended mprovement wth regard to applyng a more prvate sector-led approach to urban development projects n the Netherlands. Hence, these are perceved practcal problems stated by the ntervewed publc and prvate professonals. Hence, the am of ths study s to fnd solutons for these ssues and support for the mprovements by studyng UK prvate sector-led urban development projects whch are stated n Secton 7.4 and 7.5. Therefore, we compare them wth the fndngs from the UK prvate sector-led urban development projects. 336 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

8.2.1 Dutch Issues & UK Solutons The unsolved ssues were mentoned repeatedly by the publc and prvate actors n the Dutch concesson cases. These are reflected upon by possble solutons from both UK prvate sectorled urban development cases. We aganst them relatonshp nstead of a cooperatve sphere Netherlands Ths ssue nvolves a contradcton between nformal publc-prvate cooperatve nteracton and the formal contractual dvson of publc and prvate organzatonal responsbltes and tasks. In Dutch concessons, responsbltes, rsks and revenues are predomnantly attrbuted to prvate actors. Therefore, ths clear role dvson between actors easly resolves n a we aganst them relatonshp whch s consdered not to be benefcal for the development process. Several ntervewees argue that nformal nteracton on the development of desgns, handlng fnancal ssues, sharng thoughts and communcatng s lackng n some of the prvate sector-led urban development projects. It seems that socal factors such as trust n and empathy wth each other s poston and objectves are undermned by the clear role dvson. Hence, Geutng (2011) also concluded that nformal publc-prvate cooperaton, despte a formal role dvson remans a necessary element of market-orented development practces. UK The case of Lverpool One shows that the local authorty and developer Grosvenor worked n close relatonshp n the ntatve and plan development stages. Although the developer was responsble for makng desgns, t was very transparent n the desgn process by nvolvng the local plannng authorty, the Cty Councl, other governmental actors, and the local communty. By organzng several (publc) meetngs nterested actors were nformed about the prvate plans; n ths way a cooperatve sphere developed. The local authorty also decded not to nterfere n ths desgn process. Rather, they worked alongsde the developer n creatng the new cty center, trustng on the professonalsm of ts partner. The process n Lverpool has also been labelled as jont-up workng between both actors. In Brstol the developer at frst manly worked nternally on ther development plan for Harboursde, wth the subsequent rejectons of plannng permsson as a result. Not untl developer Crest nvolved the local communty (resdents and busnesses) and the Cty Councl dd they acheve cvc and poltcal support for the plans, and dd they establsh a cooperatve sphere. Hence, also the local authorty establshed an enablng partnershp called the Harboursde Sponsor Group. Ths partnershp operated to attract publc fundng and establshed a vson for the area. Such a partnershp pulled together publc and prvate nterests, and creates shared project ambtons, common support, trust and fnancal certanty. 337 Emprcal Lessons & Implcatons

Possble solutons The UK cases shows a possble soluton for a closer collaboraton between the publc and prvate actors for the Netherlands, specfcally when developers organze regular nformal meetngs wth local authortes n the desgn stage of the development plan. It seems that these meetngs create opportuntes for both developers wth local authortes to share deas and concerns, resultng n jont-up workng and cooperatve sphere between the actors. However, the UK cases also show that we aganst them relatonshps can be present n the negotaton and realzaton stage. For nstance, n the UK the concept of development control s vewed by developers as strengthenng the we aganst them relatonshp wth the local authorty. Development control nvolves a tough publc negotaton atttude towards prvate developers n order to let them (fnancally) contrbute to developng publc functons n the area. These negotatons resolve n Secton 106 agreements n whch both actors agree upon developer contrbuton packages resultng whch are also called plannng gans. Here, the publc plannng process (plannng brefs, plannng permssons, Secton 106 agreements) and the prvate development process (plan, land, and real estate development) are knt together by publc-prvate negotatons. Although characterzed as a publc-prvate nteracton process, these negotatons hardly provde a chance to establsh a cooperatve sphere between the two worlds. Here, both actors strve to secure ther own objectves wthn common agreements. Hence, ths we aganst them relatonshp caused by negotatons s less present n the Netherlands as local authortes already have fnancal compensaton possbltes legalzed wthn the Land Development Act. Lack of publc role consstency durng realzaton stage Netherlands Ths ssue nvolves the df fculty of local authortes to facltate prvate actors n ef fcently carryng out prvate sector-led urban development projects. They tend to nterfere actvely n the realzaton stage, whereas carryng out of agreed upon spatal plans and contractual agreements n the form of project plannng s a prvate responsblty. The reason for ths s that local authortes n the Netherlands are used to actvely partcpate n the realzaton of development projects for decades. Ths actve nvolvement wth project plannng was accompaned by fnancal ncentves as local authortes also beneftted from land development revenues. In concessons ths ncentve does not exst. Furthermore, there s the ncentve of ownershp of publc space whch drves local authortes to nfluence the physcal outcome of the neghborhood for mantenance reasons. UK The Brstol Harboursde case shows a somewhat smlar stuaton wth regard to the above mentoned exercsng of development control. The local authorty at certan moments actvely nterfered n the realzaton stage. As a result of changed affordable housng targets from central government the muncpalty opted for addtonal publc housng unts. Ths created tenson wth the developer, as they had fnancally and physcally optmzed the balance between socal and free market housng wthn ther buldngs. Nevertheless, ths resulted n openng up new publc-prvate negotatons for real estate that stll had to be developed by 338 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Crest. As a result, compromses were made to the amount of affordable housng unts n the form of developer contrbutons to publc functons and fnancal compensaton. But, ths also resulted n process neffcences and an ncreased fnancal rsk for Crest. Nonetheless, the local authorty also actvely stmulated development at the start of the project. Here, they ntated the development of several publc buldngs as a fnancal ncentve for the commercal prvate development project of Harboursde. In Lverpool One we see that the local authorty facltated development qute well. Developer Grosvenor could control the project plannng qute autonomously, resultng n a four year realzaton stage. Also, Grosvenor tself set the delvery deadlne of the cty center development pror to Lverpool hostng the event of European Captal of Culture. Ths also created some goodwll wth the local authorty that the developer dd everythng n ts power to delver the project on tme. Therefore, n the realzaton stage, they hardly nterfered wth extra requrements. Ths also was supported by the fact that the desgn stage was characterzed by jont-workng towards detaled desgns for the area. Furthermore, the local authorty was aware of the mportance of obtanng all the land pror to development and ssued a compulsory purchase of exstng land and property. Hereby, they effectvely transferred land for development to Grosvenor. Possble solutons In general, the two UK cases show that local authortes are more aware of ther role n the realzaton stage. A possble soluton for the Netherlands s that local authortes tend to put more energy n securng publc objectves n the ntatve and plan development stage. Frst, ths can be acheved by frst developng a clear publc schedule of spatal requrements. And second, local authortes should am at securng the most mportant ssues and detals n negotatons wth developers, resultng n clear development agreements. Ths securty at n the UK results n respect from local authortes for the am of developers to fnd the optmal way of realzng the project at the hghest possble effcency. An mportant reason for ths atttude partly seems to be the fact that local authortes are not enttled to carry out (prvate) land and real estate development themselves. An ncentve for nterference, the publc ownershp of the publc realm after delvery, s present but handled n the pre-development stages. In general, for local authortes fnancal ncentves and rsks also do not apply, whch makes t easer to let developers do the fnancal engneerng and securng nvestment, and facltate development wth publc subsdes when necessary. Thn lne between judgment and control of plan proposals Netherlands Ths ssue nvolves a contradcton between the dynamc and complex nature of urban development projects and the somewhat nflexble nature of concesson agreements to react to changed crcumstances. Local authortes have dffcultes n smply controllng delvered prvate plan proposals and products to the specfed publc requrements and publc-prvate agreements. Often publc actors judge delvered products by addng several wshes to t. These addtonal wshes, however, have not been prevously agreed upon by both actors. The reason for ths s that t seems hard to specfy all publc wshes n advance. New nsghts sometmes 339 Emprcal Lessons & Implcatons

requre slght adjustments to plans and products. Nevertheless, prvate actors take most of the fnancal rsks for development, and therefore are reluctant to these addtonal publc wshes, as they may result n neffcences. Moreover, they also reason that they are responsble for delverng the product wthn the specfed publc constrants and agreed upon agreements. Therefore, they hold the thought that they should have a certan degree of freedom to act wthn these boundares. Hence, here we see that both actors seek a balance between certanty on the one hand and flexblty on the other. UK Both UK cases hardly show the demarcaton between control and judgment of prvate plan proposals. Nevertheless, Brstol Harboursde, wth ts dynamc and complex urban development process, shows some ndcatons for how to deal wth addtonal wshes due to changed crcumstances. Here, development had been subdvded nto dfferent development phases for dfferent plots. Once the developer had an outlne plannng permsson for the ste, n whch t responded to the general publc requrements, each of these development phases ncorporated the possblty to react to changed wshes and crcumstances. For each plannng permsson on the dfferent plots both actors negotated towards a more detaled plan for the ste. In ths process local authortes had the possblty to brng n the latest affordable housng targets. And the developer was able to brng the development speed and supply n lne wth market demand. Ths way of phasng the prvate sector-led urban development project creates flexblty to react to changes. Nevertheless, t also creates uncertanty about the fnal program and some fnancal rsks for the developer. The Lverpool One case shows that the developer had the freedom to desgn a fnancally vable development plan wthn the formulated publc constrants. The local authorty controlled f these plans answered to the publc schedule of requrements formulated n the development bref. But, they also had room to add addtonal detaled wshes once the desgn process progressed. Ths s part of negotatons and publc-prvate dalogue before plannng permsson s granted to the developer. Therefore, ths detalng process cannot be seen as the judgment and adjustment of agreed upon prvate plans. Furthermore, we also see that developer Grosvenor was not faced wth new publc requrements once development had commenced. In that sense, the local authorty only controlled f delvery was accordng to the development agreement and plannng permsson. Possble solutons In general, ths ssue s not a commonly encountered problem n our UK cases. It seems that the lengthy negotatons pror to development create enough room to add and ncorporate more detaled wshes from both actors n the development agreement. Local authortes tend to respect that developers need to have the room to carry out development actvtes on ther own professonal nsghts and plannng. They merely control f developers delver the product specfcatons n tme and accordng to the agreed condtons n the contract. However, once developments are beng realzed n dfferent parts they hold the possblty to negotate new demands nto the plan through negotatons. Hence, ths can create uncertanty for developers as they optmze and connect the dfferent parts of the overall development nto a fnancally vable and feasble urban development project. Thus, the balance between development flexblty and certanty also here remans a dffcult ssue. 340 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Commtment and competences of publc project managers Netherlands Ths ssue nvolves the mportance of commtted and competent publc project managers n prvate sector-led urban development projects. Frst of all, the publc project manager has an mportant poston for the effcency of the development process. He/she functons as a manager to algn the dfferent muncpal departments and has to make clear the publc responsbltes and tasks n workng wth concessons. Second of all, the publc project manager has an mportant poston n securng publc objectves. He/she needs to possess professonal negotatng sklls as concesson agreements are strongly formed by publc-prvate negotatons. Hence, local authortes n some cases have underestmated the mportance of competent project managers. UK Lverpool One shows that commtted publc and prvate leadershp s crucal to acheve a successful project. Not only dd the local authorty have a strong poltcal leader, also the publc project manager was aware of the agreed upon way of collaboratng wth developer Grosvenor. They made sure that all publc offcers knew what they had to delver at what stage. They also establshed that the councl became nvolved n the desgn process by organzng regular meetngs. These meetngs were chared by the mayor of Lverpool and the presdent of Grosvenor. Ths created support from both organzatons. Hence, the role of the prvate project manager from Grosvenor n ncorporatng a wde varety of actors n the desgn process also created a lot of publc support for the plans. Thus, both publc and prvate project managers n Lverpool showed a strong commtment to the development. The Brstol case shows that the local authorty frst apponted a publc project manager for the cultural part of the Harboursde project wth the am of creatng an nformal partnershp to attract grants and fundng. Despte the success of ths approach n securng funds the publc atttude towards developers stll caused some tenson. An ntervewee ponted out that the Brstol Cty Councl for decades had not been characterzed by a market-orented development culture. In the commercal development stage no such market-orented publc project manager was apponted. Nevertheless, the Head of Plannng was aware of the dffcult fnancal poston and stuaton due to the unfoldng economc crss and tred to fnd solutons wth the developer. But, other publc offcers n the eyes of the developer dd not show any sgns of beng aware of the appontments made on hgher publc management levels. Also, poltcal support for plans was consderably low n the frst two desgn proposals. Efforts to solve ths problem n the end were handled effectvely by project tme pressure and a possble termnaton of a decades-long on-gong project n Brstol cty center, whch no poltcal party wshed to take the poltcal responsblty for. Moreover, also the developer apponted a commtted and sklled prvate project manager for thrd desgn process stage. Here, Crest decded to appont a project leader that had the ablty lsten to publc and cvc wshes and nterests and could translate them nto a desgn proposal that could be approved by the local authorty. In prevous stages there was a manly nternally-orented desgn process. 341 Emprcal Lessons & Implcatons

Possble solutons In general, both large-scale UK cases show the mportance of good publc and prvate project managers. These ndvduals should be able to connect the project wth the poltcal, cvc and nternal organzatonal envronment. Furthermore, a combnaton of both publc and prvate manageral roles seems crucal for the project support and effcency. Both sklled and commtted publc and prvate project managers help to streamlne both plan and development processes, and poltcal and cvc context and envronment. Communcaton wth and nvolvement of the local communty Netherlands Ths ssue nvolves the mportance of communcatng wth and nvolvng local resdents, busnesses and future users. The prvate actors n prncple take on the responsblty to nvolve local resdents and busness communtes n the plan development and realzaton of the project. In practce, however, some publc ssues tend to be df fcult to manage solely by prvate actors. When the local communty s dssatsfed wth the way the development s carred out they mostly turn to the local authorty to express ther dssatsfacton and ask for solutons. In those stuatons t s poltcally mpossble for local authortes to redrect local resdents to solve ther problems wth the responsble developer. Not all developers seem to be aware of the mportance of communcatng wth the local communty and do not undertake suffcent effort to solve ths ssue. In general, t s beleved by developers that communty nvolvement resolves n mmedate process neffcences, and that potental long term benefts such as project support are hard to measure and quantfy n advance. UK The Brstol Harboursde case shows that the lack of local communty nvolvement can result n severe project delays. For nstance, local resdent groups organzed themselves qute well n opposton to the development plan. Partly because of ther pressure and appeals, developer Crest was refused plannng permsson twce. The local busness communty posed fewer dffcultes n ths case. After a more serous communty nvolvement through publc meetngs n whch ther wshes were heard, support for the development ncreased consderably. Overall, because of the delays, Crest commenced wth development three to four years later. Wthout ths delay the development could probably have been completed pror to the economc crss started n 2008. Now, ths also slowed down development speed and real estate sales at Harboursde, brngng fnancal dffcultes for the developer. In Lverpool the noton about the value of communty nvolvement was present, especally wth developer Grosvenor. Not only dd they nvolve all relevant natonal and regonal publc nsttutons such as Englsh Hertage and Merseysde Travel. They also held regular publc meetngs for the resdents of Lverpool. Grosvenor nstalled a temporary project nformaton center on ste at the start of development and held regular development progress updates. Ths created a lot of common support and belef n the project. However, some local shop owners ressted the comng nto beng of Lverpool One. Ther wshes n some cases were answered wth relocatng ther busnesses nto new accommodaton possbltes. But others saw that the local authorty ssued compulsory purchase orders to secure land for development. 342 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Nevertheless, Grosvenor put a lot of effort n nformng and nvolvng dfferent actors contrbutng to an effcent and effectve development process. Possble solutons In general, the UK cases show that knowledge about the local context and communty and busness nterests seems crucal for the support for prvate sector-led urban development projects. It can result n long-term process ef fcences. Furthermore, n both cases communty nvolvement s taken care of by developers, through well-organzed publc meetngs. Here, local resdents and busnesses can express ther wshes and developers present ther development ntentons. Ths s not mandatory, but ncreases the chance of beng granted plannng permsson. The local plannng authorty does hold oblged publc nqures as part of the plannng process, n whch nhabtants can offcally appeal to plan proposals. Hence, there s a strct dvson between publc actor responsbltes n the plannng and development process n the UK. Lack of publc management n development process Netherlands Ths ssue nvolves the df fculty for local authortes to comprehend that they can nfluence project outcomes wthout usng hard management measures such as land and captal. In ther eyes prvate sector-led urban development projects result n a decreased manageablty or a lack of control. Because plan, land and real estate development tasks are attrbuted to the prvate sector, the local authorty faces fewer possbltes to manage the project. They argue that they can only nfluence the outcome of the development n the pre-development stage. Ths nfluence nvolves usng plannng tools such as the publc schedule of spatal requrements and the legslatve adopton of land use plans. However, the case study fndngs on publc and prvate management measures ndcate that publc actors do have other possbltes to manage the project. Nevertheless, publc actors seem not to be aware that management actvtes such as negotatng are the key to secure publc objectves. Rather, ths nvolves creatng a conscous and broader vew on and atttude towards publc management. UK In general, ths ssue s not a perceved dffculty n both UK cases. As local authortes do not have the possblty of usng an actve land polcy to prepare and develop land themselves, nfluencng development outcomes takes place n another fashon. Local authortes have plenty of management measures to nfluence the outcome of prvate sector-led urban development projects. In partcular, the cases have shown that they conscously use management packages ncludng shapng, regulatng and negotatng as the man management actvtes and tools. However, these fndngs are partcularly vald n relaton to both nvestgated cases, they mght be hardly typcal for the experence of local authortes elsewhere n the UK. Such stuaton mght not be experenced n the vast majorty of schemes bult n the UK, n whch real control mght be qute lmted n practce. In Brstol, the developer used the word development control ndcatng the tough atttude of the local authorty n urgng the developer to nclude addtonal requrements. These ncluded 343 Emprcal Lessons & Implcatons

changng affordable housng and sustanablty targets whch became part of new negotatons n the development process. It seems that the amount of plannng gan for the local authorty also s condtoned by the negotatng sklls of publc offcers. Hence, n Lverpool One, the local authorty also establshed to share n project revenues. They hold a 5% share n the revenues of prvate cash flows obtaned from tenants. Hence, they negotated that they do not share n the losses, so the local authorty has no fnancal rsks. Also the sale of land to developers pror to development resulted n publc ncome. These fnancal revenues come alongsde the plannng gan n the form of prvate contrbutons to nfrastructure, parkng and publc space. Thus, these examples show that publc actors managng prvate sector-led urban development projects can acheve benefcal results for the local authorty wthout havng land and captal at ther dsposal. Possble solutons Hard management measures such as land and captal are (and cannot be) used as powerful resources to nfluence prvate sector-led urban development projects by publc actors. Rather local authortes use already exstng plannng nstruments at ther dsposal to nfluence development. For nstance, local plans, plannng brefs, development frameworks, and desgn gudelnes are used as shapng tools. Also, development agreements, Secton 106 agreements, and plannng permssons are regulatng legslatve publc and prvate plannng tools that are used by local authortes. Furthermore, local authortes nfluence development through negotatons. The development agreement s a result of negotatons wth developers resultng n a development package. Ths agreement ncludes condtons about the ams, content, fnance and plannng gans of the project. So, wth these tools publc objectves can be effectvely realzed, wthout usng land or captal. However, these negotatons also take a lot of tme whch reduces the development process effcency. 8.2.2 Dutch Recommendatons & UK Support Several recommended mprovements for the Dutch prvate sector-led urban development projects have been mentoned by the nvolved actors. These mprovements are responses to the problematc ssues mentoned n the prevous secton. Here, we explan them and use the UK case study fndngs to explore f such solutons are experenced and dealt wth n the UK as well. Cooperate n pre-development stage for publc support and commtment Netherlands From the Dutch cases t becomes clear that a strct role dvson n prvate sector-led urban development projects resolves n a we aganst them relatonshp between publc and prvate actors. Sure, actors emphasze that t s necessary to make a dvson between publc and prvate tasks and responsbltes. But, both actors also emphasze that n practce t s 344 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

necessary to cooperate closely n the pre-development stages on the master plan for nstance. Indeed, t s the pre-development stage n whch actors work on detalng the development plan whch ncorporates both publc and prvate nterests. A thorough and clearly structured negotaton process towards cooperaton and realzaton agreements seems crucal here. Hence, negotatons do not oppose or reject formal responsbltes of developers to make desgns, and the local authorty to formalze land use plans and strve for publc guarantees such as subsdes. Furthermore, prvate actors argue that wthout meanngful ncentves publc support for the project and publc commtment to these tasks becomes lmted. UK Both UK cases show that there s a hgh level of publc-prvate nteracton and collaboraton throughout all development stages, n the desgn stage n specfc. So despte the fact that n prncple the publc and prvate organzatonal tasks and responsbltes are dvded clearly on paper, n practce collaboraton prevals. In the UK, the local plannng authorty remans responsble for plannng procedures as an admnstratve functon, whle developers take the lead n securng nvestment, desgnng plans, and developng the project at ther own rsk. However, often the ntervewees menton the (nformal) partnershp approach or jont-up workng as crucal for stayng commtted to the project. In fact t s the coordnaton of dfferent tasks that created trust amongst the partners. Furthermore, n Lverpool, a jont steerng commttee wth publc and prvate representatves was set up. The am of ths commttee was to coordnate and manage ndvdual and common objectves whch had to result n an effectve and hgh qualty project. In Brstol, no such formal coordnaton wth publc and prvate delegates exsted. The absence of ths and several other factors resulted n a less cooperatve sphere compared to Lverpool. Strve for publc role consstency n realzaton stage Netherlands The Dutch cases ndcate that publc role nconsstency has negatve mplcatons for the realzaton stage. Although urban development projects are often subject to changed crcumstances and publc nterventons are sometmes needed, prvate actors argue that they rather wsh to manage the realzaton stage accordng to agreed condtons. They value the mportance of appontment s appontment and are reluctant to publc nterference as t possbly causes process neffcences and fnancal rsks. One of the reasons for publc actors to become actvely nvolved n the realzaton s ther future ownershp of publc space. Sometmes, durng the development process new publc space nsghts and wshes are added to the agreed physcal characterstcs. Ths publc-prvate dscrepancy n vewponts and nterests must be dealt wth and respected by the actors nvolved n an accurate manner. UK Ths recommendaton fnds support n the UK cases. Both projects show that both local authortes acted role consstent n the realzaton stage. The publc organzatonal and manageral role s carred out n accordance to the agreed upon condtons wthn the development agreement. For nstance, ths nvolves the publc responsbltes to (fnancally 345 Emprcal Lessons & Implcatons

or admnstratvely) contrbute to the development, and provdes ndcatons for moments of publc control on the delvered prvate product. Here, we see that local authortes manly respect and stck to the agreed contract condtons. Hence, n Brstol we notce that because of the agreed upon segmented phasng of the development, local authortes create possbltes to nfluence development outcomes at those moments. However, they reman role consstent as they act accordng to agreements. Ths creates a lot of certanty for developers, and potentally resolves n less frustrated atttudes and less dstrust among the actors. In Lverpool we see that the nterference of the publc actors was very lmted n the realzaton stage. Ths, amongst other reasons, s because of the strong nvolvement of the local authorty n the desgn process. In general, we conclude that n the UK publc actors are used to ther facltatng role n developments. Furthermore, they are aware of the legal role possbltes and lmtatons establshed n agreements and therefore act accordngly. Defne clear process agreements about moments of control and dscusson Netherlands The prvate sector-led urban development cases n the Netherlands show that the lne between publc actors control and judgment of prvate products often becomes blurred. Ths results n dstrust and tensons between the actors throughout the process. The reason for ths s that developers sometmes receve addtonal requrements on top of the agreed condtons. Both actors menton that clear process agreements on the moments of formal control and possble ssues for dscusson and negotatons could solve ths ssue. These process agreements should be carefully mplemented and connected to mlestones n both the publc plannng process actvtes and prvate development process actvtes. UK Both UK cases show the mportance of jontly made agreements about what can be consdered as fxed and negotable. In general, actors acknowledge the mportance of certanty, whch are expressed n contractual agreement about fxed moments and condtons for publc control on prvate plan proposals. Furthermore, wthn the desgn process towards reachng development agreements, publc and prvate actors value the mportance of flexblty. Often negotable elements nclude programmatc and aesthetc buldng desgns, and the materalzaton and postonng of publc space. However, once decsons about these elements have been made flexblty becomes lmted. Only once actors decde to phase the development and thereby to repeat the desgn and negotaton process for buldng separate stes does flexblty come nto play agan. 346 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Appont publc managers to connect the plannng and development process Netherlands The Dutch cases show the mportance of a publc project manager that can both manage the nternal publc nterests and respects the prvate nterests and autonomes. In the plannng process dfferent nterests of muncpal departments should be taken care of by such a manager. They also must make clear to publc offcers what the role of the local authorty s n such a prvate sector-led urban development project, and what s expected from them n terms of responsbltes. On the one hand, they should gather publc nformaton and communcate ths to developers. On the other hand publc project managers should accompany prvate plan proposals by relevant nformaton for muncpal departments to work wth. These plan proposals are part of the development process, n whch the developer takes the lead, and performs certan actvtes. Thus, streamlnng plannng and development processes requres publc project managers that can connect both publc and prvate nterests. UK Some support for the appontment of competent publc project managers can be found n the UK cases. Moreover, the cases show that a strong poltcal leader s absolutely needed from the local authorty. Ths publc leader s someone wth the competence of makng strategc decsons about the relevance, necessty, and contrbuton of the development for the cty as a whole. Thus, a commtted and competent publc project manager and a strategc poltcal leader can be seen as a strong muncpal team to deal wth publc and prvate nterests. Hence, the cases show the mportance of commtted prvate project leaders who manage prvate sector-led urban development projects. Ths person has the sklls to relate to the local context and demand. Furthermore, ths prvate leader s able to algn relevant stakeholders and nterests by communcatng and nvolvng them n the development process. Thus, a combnaton of both ndvdual publc and prvate leadershp s needed. Make a clear communcaton plan to nvolve communtes and busnesses Netherlands From the Dutch cases t becomes apparent that both publc and prvate actors have df fcultes wth professonally communcatng wth cvc actors about the project. A communcaton plan to nvolve the local communty has been addressed by both actors as an mprovement. Involvng, and communcatng wth, current and future resdents and busnesses seems to be a crucal condton for effcent development processes and project support n the long term. These cvc actors can provde nterestng vewponts and wshes for the project. The recommendaton s to appont the best equpped organzaton, publc or prvate, to carry out ths task. An mportant message here s to make clear to these cvc actors on what type of publc-prvate cooperaton the development s based. Ths nvolves ndcatng for whch ssues whch of the publc and prvate actors can be consulted. Thus, a communcaton plan wth clearly marked responsbltes for local authortes and developers, and an ndcaton of the ams of the dfferent communcaton strateges, could mprove process effcency. 347 Emprcal Lessons & Implcatons

UK Ths recommendaton fnds support n both UK cases. The mportance of takng communcaton and communty nvolvement serously has made some effcency dfferences n both cases. In Lverpool One, Grosvenor employed communcaton managers whch organzed several publc meetngs, nvolvng local resdents and busnesses. The am here not only s to nform stakeholders, but also to adopt possble publc recommendatons nto the fnal desgn of the masterplan. Furthermore, updates about the progress of the project, n the form of a temporary nformaton center provded nterested vstors wth nformaton. However, the benefts from a clear communcaton plan cannot be measured drectly. Nevertheless, the Brstol Harboursde case shows that the absence of a clear communcaton plan and strategy can result n a loss of cvc and publc support for the project, and even opposton. It seems that the long term benefts are the general publc support and that effcency gans can be acheved durng the realzaton stage of the project. Search for other publc management measures to nfluence development Netherlands It s argued by Dutch local authortes that they lose manageral control wthn concesson projects. One of the man mplcatons s that managng prvate sector-led urban development projects by publc actors mplcates a shft n mnd-set for local authortes. No longer are they able to drectly nfluence the development by usng tradtonal tools such as land and captal, e.g. actve land development polces. Hence, the Dutch actors dd not propose any concrete recommendatons for ths ssue. Therefore, based on the theoretcal concepts we constructed a comprehensve management toolbox whch ncludes both publc and prvate possbltes to nfluence development projects. As such, we wll dscuss the fndngs from applyng such management actvtes and tools n the followng nspraton secton. UK Ths recommendaton does not fnd support n the UK cases. In general, local authortes n the UK do not experence a lack of control n prvate sector-led urban development projects. Rather, as they are not used to steer developments wth land and captal, they try to nfluence projects wth other management measures, ncludng other management tools and actvtes. Hence, the UK cases showed us that managng projects ndeed can be explaned and vewed more broadly. Furthermore, by also analyzng the Lverpool One and Brstol Harboursde projects wth our conceptual management model nterestng nsghts were obtaned whch are explaned next. 348 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

8.3 Inspraton from UK Prvate Sector-led Cases The purpose of studyng UK prvate sector-led urban development not only focused on fndng solutons for the Dutch equvalent, the concesson model. We also am at drawng addtonal valuable lessons from the UK n the form of nspraton. Here, some nterestng nsghts are presented derved from the UK cases. 8.3.1 Inspratonal Lessons from the UK for the Netherlands Publc management toolbox As ndcated above, prvate sector-led urban development projects ask for a dfferent manageral approach of local authortes. No longer are they able to nfluence development wth hard management measures such as land and captal. In addton, publc actors can use soft management measures to acheve publc objectves. Furthermore, t mples that project developers have to apply dfferent management measures than they are used to. Therefore, our conceptual management model more comprehensvely ntegrated several opportuntes for nfluencng urban development projects. By usng such a model n studyng both Dutch and UK cases we amed at fndng an answer to the management questons nvolved n prvate sectorled urban development projects. The model proved to be helpful for more comprehensvely studyng the management of the project by actors. Our theoretcal fndngs and fndngs ndcate there are other ways of achevng that publc objectves are realzed. Notce that, wthn the UK cases we found that publc management nvolves conscously usng publc plannng tools to shape, stmulate, regulate, and buld capacty for market development. Both UK cases show examples about how the local authorty was able to nfluence the development to ther satsfacton wthout havng the opportunty to steer wth publc land or nvestment captal. Frst, for nstance, shapng nvolves establshng a general publc vson for the area by publshng local plans. These plans are amed at nformng developers about the development ntentons and ambtons of the local authorty. Ths can also be establshed by ndcatng the man publc requrements n the development bref. The formulaton of a publc schedule of requrements (Dutch: publek programma van esen) n a publc development bref or tender must both be flexble for developers to respond to and certan and detaled enough to secure publc nterests. For developers a more general spatal outlne, a programmatc bandwdth, and fnancal requrements provde more opportuntes and ncentves to come wth development proposals than detaled varants. Developers vew these somewhat flexble requrements as an opportunty to negotate the fnal development plans whch ncorporates ther own prvate nterests. More detaled requrements whch are a publc prorty than also can be accepted more easly by developers; these are nterpreted as non-negotable constrants the developers 349 Emprcal Lessons & Implcatons

to work wth. Thus, effectvely, by provdng both fxed and flexble requrements, local authortes both provde certanty as well as flexblty for prvate actors. Especally, plannng offcers (Dutch: ambtenaren) should take notce of ths mportant precondton for prvate sector-led urban development projects. Second, prvate sector-led urban development projects can also be stmulated by local plannng authortes who secure publc subsdes, funds or addtonal grants of varous knds, such as lottery money. Then, local authortes rely less on ther own captal nvestment n the project. These fnancal contrbutons also form ncentves for developers to prvately nvest n the area. It shows them that the local government s serous about ts development ntentons by actually seekng for external money to contrbute fnancally to the project. Furthermore, regulatng development can be acheved by negotatng wth developers to fnancally or spatally contrbute to develop publc functons. These developer contrbutons n the UK are establshed n Secton 106 agreements. It s mportant for local authortes to be capable of consttutng such S106 agreements, n order to secure publc nterests. Ths requres competent negotaton sklls of publc offcers n order to establsh a plannng gan. The outcome of negotatons s labelled as a plannng gan, as they contrbute to publc plannng polcy objectves of the area or cty. Hence, n the Netherlands, we also have a legal system n place that enables regulatng land use and development rghts. Instruments that can be used are the anteror agreements (Dutch: antereure overeenkomst) and the development plan (Dutch: explotateplan). In an anteror agreement, publc and prvate actors together can decde about the developer contrbutons n the form of developng publc functons or contrbutng money for publc bodes. If both actors do not succeed n reachng an agreement, local authortes must ssue a development plan on ther own. In ths development plan they can ssue oblged requrements for developers. Once the development plan becomes effectve, developers have to comply wth t and pay a contrbuton to t (Dutch: explotatebjdrage) (see De Boer & Lurks, 2010), n order to get a permt to buld (Dutch: omgevngsvergunnng), and thus effectuate ther development rght. So, besdes the use of legal publc plannng nstruments such as land use plans and plannng permssons whch remans a publc responsblty at all tmes prvate development agreements also provde an opportunty to regulate development n such a way that publc objectves are beng ncorporated. Fnally, capacty buldng has been an underrated management tool n the Netherlands. Ths capacty buldng nvolves a more market actvatng role of local authortes. Involvng other stakeholders by establshng enablng partnershps for nstance, creates local support for the plans. Furthermore, t creates the necessary mass of development nterests. Ths makes a project less vulnerable n economc dffcult tmes, as dfferent publc, prvate and cvc organzatons become nvolved and commtted to the project. Ths also reduces the complexty and rsks of development for prvate developers as possble opposng stakeholders are already nvolved by the local authorty. Moreover, n general n prvate sector-led urban development projects, next to these tools, a greater emphass lays on managng projects through negotatons. Professonal negotatons wth developers towards development agreements are a crucal part of securng and realzng publc nterest n prvate sector-led development processes. Ths means that publc project managers need to develop ther negotaton competences and sklls. Such soft management actvtes nvolve rethnkng the competences of publc project managers. They need to be more busness-lke n ther negotaton approach towards developers. 350 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Thus, prvate sector-led urban development projects requre a broader vew on publc management, n whch hard management resources could be replaced by several soft management actvtes and plannng tools, provdng opportuntes to nfluence development at dfferent moments n the process. Prvate development partner In Lverpool One, the local authorty wrote a tender for the project and delberately choose a development partner rather than a development plan as the man selecton crteron. The reason for ths fundamental choce was that the developer had to work wth the local authorty for some years and at the most mportant development project n Lverpool: the cty center. Developer Grosvenor was chosen as they had proved to be capable of delverng large scale mxed-use cty center project to clent satsfacton n other parts of the UK. Furthermore, they showed to be capable of mantanng a long term commtment wth the project. Also, they prevously proved to be capable to work cooperatvely wth local authortes whose nterests were taken nto account whle desgnng a development plan. The choce for a development partner provded a publc-prvate relatonshp of trust and dalogue. The weakness of more detaled plan proposals, whch often emerge n the concesson tender stages n the Netherlands, s that they do not allow for enough flexblty. Also, flexblty n ntal prvate plan proposals appeal more to local authortes who do not have a clear worked out physcal appearance of the area. Therefore, selectng a development partner wth a general vson for the area also s very applcable and sutable for prvate sector-led urban development projects. It creates the opportunty for local authortes to nfluence the outcome of the fnal master plan by jontly workng wth a prvate development partner. Thus, choosng a development partner nstead of development plan n the tender stage of prvate sector-led urban development projects, provdes good opportuntes to create a longterm prvate project commtment, a cooperatve publc-prvate relatonshp, and flexble jont workng on development plans. Enablng Publc-Prvate Partnershps Interestngly enough s the opportunty for publc and prvate actors to enter nto an enablng Publc-Prvate Partnershp agreement. These partnershps hold the possblty to create and mantan support and long-term commtment from several publc and prvate partes to the urban development project. An enablng partnershp can functon as a vehcle for marketng the project, to create nterests for market nvestment, and to obtan publc subsdes. Hence, n the current economc clmate wth a lot of uncertanty about future demand for urban projects ths enablng partnershp approach could be well sutable as a long term capacty buldng area partnershp n addton to the formal partnershp based on a contractual relaton. It could gve a sgn to the market that actors have the ntenton and commtment to develop and nvest n the area. Ths potentally attracts other publc and prvate nvestors and nterested real estate users. For local authortes ths also means that they can share the overhead costs of predevelopment actvtes wth other publc, prvate and non-governmental organzatons. 351 Emprcal Lessons & Implcatons

Hobma et al. (2008) also ndcated that the enablng partnershp could be well sutable for pullng together resources for development. But, also n our case study Brstol Harboursde we have seen what the enablng partnershp s capable of. Here, the Harboursde Sponsor Group was ntated by the local authorty for kck-startng the cultural part of the development. They nvolved nterested local busness communtes and other (cultural) organzatons that could promote the area and could ensure central government funds and grants for the area. Once there s enough mass of commtted stakeholders, t becomes easer to persuade other nterested actors and poltcans to support and contrbute to the urban development project. Thus, establshng a long-term Enablng Publc-Prvate Partnershp, n addton to the contractual agreements n prvate sector-led urban development projects, generates socetal and poltcal support for and market nterest n the area. Prvately-owned publc space Lverpool One shows that developers can own and mantan publc space wthout creatng a gated communty. Lverpool Cty Councl techncally owns the developed land but leases t to Grosvenor for a perod of 250 years. Ths land lease s based on certan publc condtons for the prvate actors managng the publc space whch are made explct n a land lease contract. Ths land lease contract becomes legally bndng once the developer has delvered the development project accordng to the development agreement. Hence, t s mportant to negotate the condtons for developng the publc realm pror to the fnal master plan s adopted and developers are granted plannng permsson. In ths way publc nterests can be secured, and prvate wshes can be ncorporated as well. The fnancal advantage of prvate ownershp of publc space for local authortes s that t elmnates publc mantenance costs. The fnancal advantage for the prvate actor s that they can mantan the area up to the qualty standards they strve for, whch s benefcal for real estate sales and returns. Hence, t s sometmes argued that prvately-owned publc space creates places wth a smlar appearance. However, some local authortes n the Netherlands standardze ther mantenance concepts nto dfferent qualty levels, whch are appled throughout the cty. One could argue that ths also creates places of sameness on a cty level. Hence, the Lverpool One s prvatzed publc space shows a qualtatve dstnctness of the surroundng envronment. Also, ths s crtqued by scholars (e.g. Mnton, 2009) as the developer s nablty of physcally connectng the project wth the exstng urban fabrc. We hold the argument that ths s a subjectve normatve vew on prvate publc spaces that s value-laden and not actor-free. It assumes that prvate actors are responsble for creatng the assumed dsconnecton of the publc space to surroundng areas. We hold the argument that t s both the local authorty and the developer who can negotate the physcal appearance of the area to a satsfyng level for both actors and ther nterests. Thus, applyng prvately-owned publc space n certan prvate sector-led urban development projects, based on negotated publc-prvate land and management agreements, can create hgh qualty places beng benefcal for local authortes. 352 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Long-term commtted prvate development nvestor In Lverpool One developer Grosvenor can be seen as a development nvestor rather than a project developer. They not only develop the urban development project, they also nvest n the real estate to obtan long-term profts. They have become a partner n a prvate nvestment consortum that owns and operates the real estate and publc space. In ths way Grosvenor s able to secure a long-term cash flow from pad rents by tenants whch compromses the often substantal constructon costs of developng the project. In ths way fnancal returns are spread out over a number of years. The development s vewed as an nvestment rather than a project. The advantage of ths long-term fnancal model s that t holds the ncentve to create a valuable, hgh qualty and sustanable area. The classc trade-off between costs, tme and qualty wth a long-term vew dsappears. It appears n a totally dfferent lght as the tradeoff drectly affects the long-term fnancal returns. For nstance, a poor qualty envronment does not attract enough users and nvestors. Ths low qualty eventually results n a loss of compettve poston n relaton to hgh qualty envronments. However, there s one major dsadvantage to ths approach; how to secure bank loans? In economc recessons t s proved to be dffcult for development nvestors to obtan suffcent bank loans for an urban development object that generates returns n the long-term. The fnancal rsks of these projects are perceved by banks as too hgh. It remans to be seen f and when banks can broaden fnancng optons for development nvestors when such fnancal defcts at the begnnng of development projects are present. Nevertheless, Dutch land and real estate development models used n concessons, n whch project developers have to secure ther proft margns at the moment of project delvery, also are under severe pressure. As demand for real estate s fallng, and predctons for project delvery are postponed, land lease costs rse and pose project feasblty dffcultes for developers. Ths also has made banks reluctant to provde loans to developers for projects that hold no certanty about returns. Thus, n response to dffcultes of securng nvestment n the establshed manner n urban projects, n the near future possble alternatve development strateges for urban development projects may come nto beng whch provde more certanty for developers and banks. In Dutch practce, some authors lke Peek (2011) and Van Rooy (2011a) already have ntroduced alternatve nvestment models for urban development. The former emphaszes the need to turn urban development nto urban nvestment as t s the long-term mantenance and the value creaton of the exstng real estate stock provdes the bggest development challenge n the Netherlands. The latter presented thrty new fnancal development models that could help secure nvestment for urban projects. Nevertheless, De Zeeuw (2011b) argues that establshed ways of fnancng urban development projects wll not dsappear. He states that t remans to be seen what new fnancal nvestment models wll bear frut n Dutch urban development practce. In Chapter 9 we further dscuss the current dffcultes of, and possble alternatves for prvate fnancng n relaton to prvate sector-led development projects. Thus, unlke project developers, long-term commtted prvate development nvestors, workng on the bass of a value-creatng urban busness models, can secure sold real estate returns n prvate sector-led urban development projects. 353 Emprcal Lessons & Implcatons

Publc fundng alternatves The Brstol Harboursde conssted of two dfferent development phases. The local authorty ntated the cultural part of the ste that was destned for functons wth publc buldngs such as a museum and a publc square. Ths area was fnancally connected to the commercal development led by the developer. The local authorty secured publc nvestment for ths area by establshng an nformal partnershp called Harboursde Sponsor Group. Ths partnershp wth local busness and communty organzatons was created to promote the urban development and to secure publc fundng for the cultural functons on ste. Publc nvestment was secured by obtanng central government grants and lottery funds for the publc real estate. Thereby, they not only put Harboursde on the map of the market. They also effectvely shaped the condtons for developng the commercal part of the development. The calculated surpluses from the commercal part also contrbuted to fnance the publc square. Thus, ths development package negotated wth the developer resulted n a plannng gan for the local authorty. The advantage for the developer s that the publc square wll be constructed by the local authorty wth the ncorporaton of prvate nterests as well. Furthermore, the development of the publc square potentally benefts the commercal part of the development as well. It creates potental footfall and could ncrease the property values of surroundng real estate. Thus, by kck-startng development wth publc nvestment n publc functons and combnng ths wth a fnancal constructon wth commercal functons, the local authorty establshed certanty about the ambtons for the area. Hence, n the Netherlands local authortes could well use a smlar approach to be creatve n searchng for funds for publc nvestment. As recent central government plannng polces pont towards decentralzaton, muncpaltes cannot rely on natonal subsdes for development projects wth a local relevance. Hence, wth regard to publc development ntatves, t s mportant to notce the dstncton between nternal and external fundng. The prncple of local authortes to creatvely seek and organze external fundng for development s somethng Dutch local authortes could do better. Then, they rely less on muncpal fundng whch at the moment s dffcult to obtan. Furthermore, by showng such an actve and entrepreneural atttude n the earlest stages of development also creates opportuntes to attract prvate nvestment as well. Hence, t creates condtons for applyng a prvate sector-led urban development approach for the (remanng) commercal parts of the area. Thus, actvely searchng for external publc fundng alternatves other than government subsdes, packaged n negotated publc-prvate fnancal agreements n prvate sector-led urban development projects, can generate market nterest, attract prvate nvestment, and publc plannng gans. Publc-prvate leadershp on dfferent manageral levels The UK cases show dfferent leadershp approaches towards the nner-cty development projects. In Lverpool, the Councl was very clear about the ntentons of the development and communcated towards ctzens about the mportance and relevance of the project for the cty, thereby effectvely managng the envronment. Furthermore, they delberately chose 354 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

a development partner wth a strong delvery track record and a long-term commtment to the project rather than a development scheme. Also, the role of the developer s prvate leadershp cannot be underestmated here. Grosvenor managed to create support wth varous government bodes and cvc groups n the pre-development stages, thereby algnng the varous nterests nto one comprehensve scheme. In Brstol, both the Councl and the developer Crest performed somewhat weaker leadershp as they underestmated the poltcal and cvc opposton towards ntal development proposals. Only after organzatonal changes n the form of a newly apponted project manager dd opposton aganst the plans fade away as varous nterests were takng serously. Thus, these cases show strong and weak examples of publc and prvate leadershp havng drect effects on the project. In general, the UK cases have also ndcated accurate levels and stages of publc and prvate leadershp. On the one hand, local authortes and other publc agences n Brstol and Lverpool manly lead projects on a strategc-tactcal level. By makng clear what a development project can contrbute economcally, socally and physcally to the cty creates certanty of drecton. Ths publc leadershp manly relates to the plannng mandate of local authortes and poltcal legtmacy. On the other hand, developers lead the development project on the tactcaloperatonal level, ensurng that all relevant stakeholders are n tune wth the ambtons of the project. Ths prvate leadershp manly relates to beng responsble for the delvery of a project for the neghborhood, and the revenues the project generates for the prvate organzaton. The demarcaton n leadershp styles has also been mentoned by Heurkens & Louwaars (2011). Thus, we encountered that both publc and prvate leadershp roles are pre-condtonal for successful prvate sector-led urban development projects. Thus, appontng strategc-tactcal operatng publc leaders and tactcal-operatonal operatng prvate leaders, connectng prvate sector-led urban development projects wth ther context, can support the development process. Complex prvate nner-cty development In the Netherlands, t s argued by academcs and practtoners that prvate sector-led urban development projects can only be appled to greenfeld locatons. The ratonale behnd ths s that these stes are consdered less complex than brownfeld locatons. They have a consderably less (scattered) land and property ownershp stuaton, less sol polluton dffcultes, and moreover, less poltcal and socal nterests nvolved. True they are consdered as complex developments. Brownfeld locatons often are more costly to redevelop and affect exstng cvlans and companes. Therefore, t s argued that nner-cty development cannot do wthout a substantal nvolvement of the local authorty on one hand. On the other hand, prvate developers are consdered not to have the competences and fnancal nvestment power to cope wth these poltcal and socal complex locatons. However, some Dutch concessons cases show that prvate actors can be competent and fnancally capable of leadng complex nner-cty development projects. Also, the two UK cases show hghly complex largescale nner-cty redevelopment projects whch are prvate sector-led. Here, both developers showed that prvate actors can be well equpped to perform the task of developng these dffcult stes. 355 Emprcal Lessons & Implcatons

Furthermore, we have also seen that both Lverpool One and Brstol Harboursde have been developed wthout large fnancal contrbutons from the local authorty. The development culture and plannng system n the UK seems to support the fact that local authortes facltate prvate ntatves and nvestment. Ths also creates an entrepreneural atttude from the prvate sector, as they cannot rely on a government that asssts n these fnancal, organzatonal or manageral development ssues. Rather developers take responsblty for such projects themselves and also professonally perform tasks that would be consdered as belongng to the Dutch publc sector. It seems that the atttude of developers n the UK n developng complex nner-cty projects s somewhat more professonal and entrepreneural than developers n the Netherlands. Ths s not a gven fact but a general observaton after studyng the UK development practce n ths research. The less entrepreneural atttude of Dutch developers s also beng supported by ther dependency on local authortes. Dutch developers, n comparson to the UK ones, n the past smply dd not fnd the ncentve and develop the competences and fnancal power to develop these complex stes themselves. Almost always fnancal and manageral contrbutons were made by local authortes. Hence, the UK cases show that t s possble for developers to take the lead n complex nner-cty developments. However, on the one hand a condton for ths seems to be that prvate actors develop a professonal, entrepreneural and socally aware atttude, and a fnancally capable and lqud organzaton. On the other hand, the condton seems to be that muncpaltes develop more rsk-averse atttudes to developments n whch they transfer fnancal rsks to the market. Thus, prvate sector-led urban development projects can be appled to complex nner-cty areas, but foremost requre a changed development atttude and professonal competence, askng for fnancally-capable socally-aware prvate actors, and facltatng rsk-averse publc actors. In retrospect, these nspratonal UK lessons show the rchness of the case study approach and lesson-drawng methodology. 8.3.2 Context-dependent & Context-ndependent Lessons Despte the fact that the nspratonal UK lessons descrbed above are nterestng for Dutch prvate sector-led urban development project, we need to confront them wth the contextual background of the Netherlands. Hence, the lessons from the UK cases derve from a dfferent urban development context than the one n the Netherlands. The methodologcal ssues of drawng lessons from one partcular context to another already have been mentoned n Chapter 3. Researchers who carred out comparatve nternatonal research wth the am of drawng lessons from one context to another all dealt wth ths ssue. We concluded that t s hard to generalze about a natonal context as such. Nevertheless, n the Chapters 4 and 6 we ndcated some general nsttutonal characterstcs of Dutch and UK urban development practce. These nsttutonal characterstcs have dfferent local contextual characterstcs, whch can nfluence the way publc and prvate actors organze and manage projects. 356 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

In our research we defned that context nvolves economy and poltcs, governance culture, and plannng system. Context-ndependent lessons can be appled by practtoners, regardless nsttutonal characterstcs. For our research, ths means that they are compatble wth the Dutch economc and poltcal crcumstances, development culture, and/or legal plannng arrangements. Then, context-dependent lessons can functon as nspraton for practtoners. For our research, ths means that these lessons are ncompatble wth Dutch urban development practce. Table 8.2 ndcates whether the nspratonal lessons from the UK cases are context-dependent or ndependent. Or to put t nto other words; t shows the lkelhood of UK s nspratonal lessons to be adopted wthn the Dutch urban development context. The table shows that several lessons are context-ndependent; they can be appled by actors n Dutch prvate sector-led urban development projects. But, some lessons mght be qute hard to match the Dutch contextual factors. Here, we dscuss the context-dependent lessons, by reasonng why they pose applcaton dffcultes for the Dutch practce. Lkelhood of Transfer to Dutch Context Inspratonal Lessons UK Economcs & Poltcs Governance Culture Plannng System Publc Management Toolbox Yes No Yes Prvate Development Partner Yes Yes Yes Enablng Publc-Prvate Partnershps Yes Yes Yes Prvately-owned Publc Space Yes No Yes Long-term Prvate Development Investor No Yes Yes Publc Fundng Alternatves No Yes Yes Publc-Prvate Leadershp on Dfferent Manageral Levels Yes No Yes Complex Prvate Inner-cty Development No No Yes Table 8.2 Lkelhood of lessons to be adopted wthn the Dutch urban development context Publc management toolbox Creatng a more comprehensve publc management toolbox to nfluence development could be a problematc ssue n the Dutch context. That s, local authortes n the Netherlands mght stll be somewhat reluctant to change ther actve land development polces. Although n concessons local authortes apply facltatng land development polces, n general t remans to be seen f and how many muncpaltes wll actually change ths development culture. For decades, actvely purchasng, sellng, preparng, developng land for urban development projects was common practce for muncpaltes. Ths resulted n successful projects, and moreover, substantal control over and nfluence n development projects. As a result, the publc development culture and steerng atttude has developed towards one that s based ownng hard management measures such has land and captal. Soft management measures such as negotatng wth developers, and usng legal publc nstruments to stmulate and actvate market nvestment wth publc fundng and partnershp approaches, at the moment mght be a dffcult operatonal transton for local authortes. Therefore, developng a comprehensve management toolbox could face organzatonal mplementaton dffcultes. Publc cultural and nsttutonal constructs may prevent such a 357 Emprcal Lessons & Implcatons

management toolbox to become effectvely used by publc offcers. Ths requres a cultural shft n publc offcers thnkng and actng. Furthermore, t requres publc offcers to learn professonal busness-lke negotaton sklls as these have proved to be more mportant n prvate sector-led projects. Prvately-owned publc space Lverpool One showed us that n prvate sector-led urban development projects t s possble for project developers to prvately own and mantan the publc space. Here, the local authorty techncally owns the land, but leases t to a prvate nvestment consortum. Ths s not an excepton n UK urban regeneraton projects. Especally retal-led urban regeneraton projects such as Brmngham Bull Rng and Brstol Cabot Crcus follow ths example. These types of development are consdered to be easly manageable by prvate nvestment companes. Hence, t creates opportuntes to keep the publc space up to the hgh qualty standards set by real estate nvestors. Often, estate management companes are establshed to effectvely manage the cleanng and securty of the publc space. Thus, bascally prvate actors take over some publc responsbltes. In the UK ths has rased some debates (see Mnton, 2009). But, t seems to be acknowledged by both planners and developers that ths s a part of UK s development culture due to lmted fnancal means of most local authortes. However, t remans to be seen f prvately-owned publc space as part of concesson agreements wll take effect n the Netherlands. The noton that what s accessble for the publc should be n the hands of the publc sector s deeply embedded n Dutch plannng and development culture. For decades, muncpaltes have been managng and mantanng publc spaces. There are some examples of prvatzaton of publc space on a smaller buldng complex scale. But n general, publc squares and plazas are owned and operated by publc nsttutons. Implctly, local authortes argue that publc ownershp and mantenance s ther publc responsblty. Also, prvate developers and nvestors, and n less respect housng assocatons, are not (yet) used to mantan and operate publc space. In general, the prvate atttude towards development s that publc space only accounts for hgh mantenance costs wthout the necessary benefts. Here, returns of urban development busness models focused on obtanng returns at the moment of project delvery. Hence, t remans to be seen whether Dutch developers themselves become enthusastc about the benefts of prvately-owned publc space. It remans unclear whether ownng and operatng hgh qualty publc spaces create value for ther real estate. Also, the dffcultes of creatng consensus among prvate owners and publc supervsors to upgrade prvately-owned publc space mght form an obstacle (see Eshus et al., 2011). Furthermore, n all our studed Dutch concesson cases for nstance, publc space s returned to local authortes after delvery. In Rotterdam Neuw-Crooswjk the prvate development company opted for prvately-owned publc space. They amed at keepng the qualty up to hgh standards, as t could have a postve effect on ther real estate values and sales. It was argued that ths also could beneft the local authorty as t could ncrease real estate taxes (Dutch: OZB). Nevertheless, despte publc fnancal retrenchments and mantenance ntentons of the developer, the local authorty stll owns publc space n ths area. So, the general lack of nterest of Dutch developers n mantanng publc space and the mantenance culture of Dutch local authortes wll pose dffcultes to ntroduce prvatelyowned publc space on a large scale n the Netherlands, although n recent years a rse n 358 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

prvately-managed housng domans can be notced (see Lohof & Rejndorp, 2006; Madho, 2008; Lankelma, 2009; Van Twst & Van Velzen, 2009; Eshus et al., 2011). However, the fnancal realty of muncpaltes mght force them to consder some publc spaces to become mantaned by prvate actors n the near future. Moreover, n a wder plannng perspectve, cty management and mantenance n the decades to come could play a more promnent role n urban development. It becomes ncreasngly mportant to keep Dutch ctes and ts publc space up to hgh lveablty standards. Hence, the focus on developng urban projects n the future can be expected to change towards the mantenance and qualty mprovement of the exstng real estate and publc space (see De Zeeuw, 2011a; Stronk, 2011; Laverman, 2012). Ths could become a major plannng challenge, as fnancng such qualty mprovements n the near future s unlkely to come solely from governments. Long-term commtted prvate development nvestor In Lverpool One we saw that developer Grosvenor also has a share n a prvate nvestment company whch owns the real estate. So, Grosvenor has a substantal long-term stake n the project. By obtanng nvestment returns from real estate over a longer perod of tme, therefore, they could compensate for the hgh project development costs. As a result, typcally prvate decsons about the optmzaton between development costs, tme and qualty n the realzaton stage shfted towards achevng a hgh qualty envronment. Ths creates long term benefts for the nvestment company they are part of, as t strengthens the compettve poston of the retalled regeneraton n comparson to others. Nevertheless, developer Grosvenor also argued that ths trade-off between costs, tme and qualty n the recent economc clmate could have been less benefcal for the qualty level. The fnancal rsks for the organzaton turned out to be very hgh, and would not be accepted by the company s management and banks n current tmes. Nevertheless, long-term commtment of developers as developng nvestors could potentally be appled to prvate sector-led urban development projects n the Netherlands as well. In recent years, as a result of the economc crss, t s consdered to be dffcult to obtan satsfyng development returns wth a short-term development-focused commtment. Proft margns for developers are under severe pressure, as land development prces and costs are too hgh, and development speed and market demand s substantally too low to make every project fnancal feasble. A shft towards obtanng real estate returns over a longer perod of tme, through offce, housng or retal rents, s not unthnkable n the future. Ths mght resolve n a splt of development focus n the Dutch development ndustry. For nstance Putman (2010) argues that developers n the Netherlands could become ether constructon developers or development nvestor. In ths regard, Maarsen n Bjsterveld & Laverman (2011) argues that development nvestors wll obtan a stronger role n urban development by takng a long-term value-orented nvestment model. Ths could decrease the market for tradtonal developers wth short-term project-orented busness models. However, as shown n Table 8.2 the (current) economc crcumstances nfluence the change towards long-term prvate development nvestors. Several developers n the Netherlands, n ther pursut to become fnancal lqud, begn to focus on keepng thngs smple. They tend to wthdraw from unvable urban development projects whch are too complex, large and therefore fnancally rsky. One of the reasons for the focus on realzng more demandcertan developments les n the fact that a large amount of Dutch developers orgnate from 359 Emprcal Lessons & Implcatons

constructon companes. In the last two decades they ncreasngly grew towards rsk-takng project developers, but now they turn back to ther rsk-avodng short-term focus. Thus, t remans to be seen f and when long-term commtted prvate development nvestors wll consttute a substantal part of the Dutch development ndustry. Publc fundng alternatves In Brstol Harboursde, the local authorty establshed a partnershp consstng of the local authorty, local busnesses, landowners and other cvc and publc nsttutons whch actvely pursued funds and grants for developng cultural functons. Ths resulted n makng the commercal development more nterestng for the market to nvest n. However, n the Netherlands, t remans to be seen f local authortes can make the shft from stmulatng development wth publc nvestments towards other publc fundng mechansms. It s qute normal for Dutch muncpaltes to frst develop publc real estate as part of an urban development project. Moreover, local development authortes (Dutch: Gemeenteljke Grondbedrjven) sometmes even drectly contrbute fnancally to prvate real estate developments, by carryng out ther actve land development polces. Also, publc real estate has played a major role n establshng a market for further commercal real estate development. For nstance, the Kop van Zud project n Rotterdam ndcates what local development authortes can establsh by marketng a development by nvestng n publc functons. Investment n publc functons lke a new metro staton, a brdge, a court house, and a theatre created the necessary market nvestment for the Kop van Zud. There are numerous less large-scale Dutch examples of publc real estate nvestment as a means to lure n market nvestment and development. But, the numbers of development projects that have been ntated and developed by creatve publc fundng mechansms are less known. As shown n Table 8.2 t remans to be seen f local authortes can play such a promnent creatve fund-rasng role n ntatng development n the future. Under the current economc crcumstances, local authortes mght be forced to search for alternatve fundng optons. Tme must show us f local authortes can make the shft towards a feasble development strategy for promotng prvate sector-led development projects wth external funds and grants. Publc-prvate leadershp on dfferent manageral levels Both the Brstol and Lverpool case show excellent examples that both publc and prvate leadershp s necessary to acheve successful prvate sector-led urban development projects. Furthermore, the UK cases show that ths leadershp focuses on dfferent scale levels. Publc leadershp n urban development focuses on the more strategc-tactcal level of plannng. Ths ncludes establshng an economc and socal development strategy for the cty, n whch development prortes are gven to certan areas whch contrbute to obtanng cty wde plannng objectves. Furthermore, ths strategy creates a plannng and development context for the market. Also publc leadershp focuses on algnng dfferent poltcal nterests and several publc nsttutons wth regard to the prvate sector-led urban development project. Prvate leadershp focuses on the project level and ts surroundngs. Ths ncludes algnng 360 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

local nterests and nvolvng dfferent local communty groups and nterested market actors n the development process. Local authortes have lmted nvolvement n the operatonal part of development, and are able to let prvate actors take the lead more easly. The dstncton between the two leadershp levels s hard to make explct, but n general there s a clear leadershp role focus of the actors. In the Netherlands, local authortes for decades have been used to act on the operatonaltactcal project level as well as on a more strategc-tactcal cty level. Although they set plannng prortes for ther ctes, muncpaltes also are heavly nvolved n settng parameters for urban projects n a detaled manner. Our Dutch concesson cases for nstance show that local authortes provde developers wth detaled publc requrements, desgn gudelnes and programmatc restrctons. It s especally the establshed workng culture of publc offcers (Dutch: ambtenaren) whch results n the operatonal management role. However, we do see sgns that local authortes are aware of the more strategc management role they play n cty plannng. But the bggest challenge seems for publc offcers to operate more strategcally and tactcally, whch leaves room for prvate and cvc actors to take a more promnent role n the operatonal project level. Furthermore, also the prvate leadershp role on the operatonal level for developers means that they act professonally, show commtment, ntegrty and transparency. Possbly, only by ncorporatng publc nterests n a transparent manner would publc offcers consder to loosen control on the operatonal level. Hence, t also seems to be mportant for publc and prvate actors to fnd each other on the tactcal level of project. Ths tactcal manageral role for both actors focuses on algnng publc plannng processes and prvate development processes. Complex prvate nner-cty development The UK cases show that t s possble to apply prvate sector-led urban development strateges n large-scale complex nner-cty development projects. In Lverpool, the local authorty trusted developer Grosvenor to develop a new cty center, as t had proved to be capable of dong so n other Brtsh ctes. Despte the complexty of the project Grosvenor almost solely lead ths regeneraton project. In Brstol, the poltcal complexty of and socal dynamcs around Harboursde were at frst not antcpated well by developer Crest. Ths caused a lot of project delays as publc dscussons and poltcal debates focused on the probablty of the project for the cty. Nevertheless, ths was corrected at a later stage, n whch Crest proved to be capable of leadng the project. Furthermore, we have also studed some successful less complex Dutch nner-cty projects and some problematc ones as well. Enschede De Laares, for nstance shows that a prvate consortum of developers and a housng assocaton was very capable of managng socal ssues wth regard to resdents. Other nner-cty cases, lke Tlburg Wagnerplen became part of a poltcal arena, as a megamall dscusson hghly nfluenced the project s decson-makng process. In the Netherlands, t seems that t s poltcally senstve to gve prvate actors the lead n managng complex nner-cty development projects. Aldermen are somewhat reluctant to gve prvate actors the lead as they fear publc opposton and probably a loss of democratc legtmacy. In general, Dutch ctzens and busnesses expect local authortes to take care of publc nterests n crucal urban projects and also at frst address ssues to muncpaltes. Furthermore, economcally t seems hard for developers to lead such complex nner-cty development manly on ther own merts. 361 Emprcal Lessons & Implcatons

Development costs are hgh, and moreover, socally and poltcally too rsky to be carred alone by prvate actors. Also, the Dutch governance culture s that local authortes prefer to stay n control over mportant complex nner-cty projects. Ths atttude prevals, despte the chance that these projects can result n hgh socetal costs and rsks. Thus, several contextual factors nfluence the possblty of lettng prvate actors take the lead n complex nner-cty developments n the Netherlands. 8.4 Conclusons In ths chapter we have hghlghted the emprcal lessons and mplcatons from the Dutch and UK cases. We ndcated the unsolved ssues and recommended mprovements from the nvolved publc and prvate actors n prvate sector-led urban development projects n the Netherlands. And, we took a closer look at what knd of UK case study fndngs could help solve and support these ssues and mprovements. Furthermore, addtonal nspratonal lessons from UK prvate sector-led projects have been provded that could mature the way publc and prvate actors organze and manage such projects. Also, we ndcated whether the UK s nspratonal lessons are context-dependent or that they can be appled and used to Dutch concesson project and urban development practce n general. We found that almost all recommendatons are context-ndependent. But we also found that several nspratonal lessons are context-dependent, and that (contemporary) Dutch urban development practce consttutes of nsttutonal characterstcs that are embedded qute fundamentally n cultural respect, and therefore mght be hard to change. Hence, here we would lke to add an mportant ssue; cultures can change as well, be t gradually. So, the UK lessons that are now consdered as context-dependent lessons as they do not ft the exstng Dutch development culture mght well be applcable n the future once the development culture n the Netherlands changes. In general, we flled some mportant knowledge gaps of prvate sector-led urban development projects by showng ts characterstcs. Furthermore, we showed possble mprovements wth regard to the roles of publc and prvate actors. Here, we argue that the conclusons generated n ths research do not am to propagate the UK plannng system and development practce over the Dutch varant. We rather amed to show that there are some specfc features of UK prvate sector-led urban development projects that are of nterest to Dutch urban development as t slowly moves towards a smlar stuaton. Ths also nvolves takng nto account the UK s crtcal percepton of ther own stuaton, as well as the fact that the Dutch focus on the UK as a result of dssatsfacton and lmtatons of the Dutch system. The followng chapter elaborates on the conclusons of ths research. It contans the answerng of the man research queston, reflectons on used theoretcal and methodologcal concepts for studyng our emprcal cases, and recommendatons for future research. 362 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

9 Concluson The objectve of ths research s to provde a useful understandng about how publc and prvate actors collaborate on and manage prvate sector-led urban development projects, n order to develop conceptual knowledge and draw lessons for urban development practce and scence. As n ths research a lot of ssues have been dscussed, whch demands qute a lot from the reader, here we formulate a concse general Concluson. Therefore, n ths chapter we answer the central research queston (Secton 9.1), reflect on the used theory and methodology n relaton to our emprcal cases (Secton 9.2), and provde recommendatons for further research (Secton 9.3). 9.1 Answerng the Research Queston The central research queston we here am to answer brefly s: What can we learn from prvate sector-led urban development projects n the Netherlands and UK n terms of the collaboratve and manageral roles of publc and prvate actors, and the effects of ther (nter)actons? In terms of roles, we can conclude that prvate sector-led urban development projects ask for a facltatng role for muncpaltes and a leadng role for project developers. However, we have argued that such a facltatng publc role requres a (pro-)actve publc management atttude and delberate use of a wde varety of publc plannng tools n relaton to market actors. That sad, prvate sector-led urban development projects do provde an mplementaton alternatve for actve publc and development polces. Notce that most of the cases ndcate such an approach does not necessarly nvolve less publc management opportuntes, but rather another broader perspectve on management. For prvate actors the leadng role consttutes a more comprehensve perspectve on urban development projects, nvolvng more long-term project-transcendng prvate commtment and substantal stakeholder nvolvement throughout the development process. The cases ndcate that a more nvestment-orented partcpatory development approach can create both project support and ncreases the chance of substantal fnancal returns. Also, despte the organzatonal nature of prvate sector-led urban development project, whch s based on a clear publc-prvate role dvson by contracts, practce shows that substantal publc-prvate nteracton and collaboraton s requred, especally n the ntatve and desgn stages of the project. Moreover, the cases also show that the formulaton of publc requrements s a balancng act between provdng enough flexblty for developers and certanty about the muncpal ntentons. Therefore, prvate sector-led projects requre a constant publc-prvate dalogue throughout the entre development process. Importantly, the cases ndcate that unforeseen crcumstances, such as the duraton and magntude of the current economc downturn, can put development agreements under pressure. In practce, we see that ether contractual agreements are mutually adapted to the stuaton leavng 363 Concluson

contractual responsbltes to developers, or publc nterference takes place often conflctng wth contractual prncples and sometmes resultng n ncreased publc rsks. In terms of effects, the cases show that prvate sector-led urban development projects can both result n hgh qualty urban areas and are perceved by the nvolved actors effectve nstruments. But, actors often consder the process to be hardly ef fcent, as development and plannng processes can be n conflct. Notce that our research ndcates that a prvate sectorled approach should not be excluded from beng appled to complex nner-cty developments. Both some Dutch and the UK cases show that, under the rght condtons, t could be a vable development approach, despte others suggestng that t s only sutable for smple projects. In summary, based on our research fndngs, we conclude that a prvate sector-led urban development project: Requres publc actors to take a facltatng and pro-actve role; Requres prvate actors to take a leadng and long-term commtment role; Involves not less, but a broader perspectve on, publc management; Involves a clear formal publc-prvate contractual role dvson; Involves ntensve and substantal nformal publc-prvate collaboraton; Requres a constant publc-prvate dalogue throughout the entre process; Requres both flexblty and certanty n contractual arrangements; Requres actors to agree on the way unforeseen crcumstances are handled; Is often consdered as an effectve nstrument to acheve hgh qualty areas; Is often consdered as an nef fcent development process; Is a sutable approach for complex nner-cty projects once used properly. The above mentoned general conclusons ncrease the mportance and relevance of our research fndngs as n stuatons t confrms but also refutes some common vews and opnons n theory and practce about these types of development projects. 9.2 Usefulness of Concepts for Emprcal Cases Ths part contans a reflecton on the theoretcal and methodologcal concepts used to analyze the emprcal case studes. As explaned n Chapter 2 we have used a comprehensve ntegratve urban management model n order to understand the complexty of prvate sector-led urban development projects. Nonetheless, as we dd not take a specfc theoretcal perspectve whch s a more commonly used approach n socal scences questons can be rased about the usefulness and added value of our conceptual model for the analyzng emprcal cases and testng theoretcal assumptons. Foremost, our broader vew n general proved to be helpful n both understandng the context of urban development practces and plannng systems n the Netherlands and the UK, and functoned well as a structurng devce for the comparatve analyss of urban development projects n both countres. Also, we explaned that we are not prmarly nterested n testng hypotheses, but am at developng conceptual knowledge for scence and drawng lessons for practtoners. Nonetheless, here we dscuss some reflectons concernng prvate sector-led projects. 364 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Frst, our Dutch and UK cases at least show that the theoretcal plannng versus markets dchotomy s stll present n practce. Despte the fact that publc-prvate mutual dependency and nteracton prevals n all our cases, tensons between publc and prvate atttudes reman. It seems that actors can hardly escape ther perceved vews on each other s prncple development nterest and purpose, whch can result n a stuaton of dstrust and we-aganstthem relatons n prvate sector-led cases. Nonetheless, we see that prvate sector-led urban development projects need a lot of nformal dalogue, cooperaton, negotaton and jont decson-makng, especally n the pre-development stages. Moreover, plannng and development processes as dervatves of publc and prvate domans, are problematc to be nterconnected as they run parallel and have ther own logc and speed, for whch coordnaton seems to be needed. Nonetheless, the perspectve of planners as market actors and related publc plannng tools proved to be a valuable concept to dentfy management measures for publc actors n a market-drven development context. Second, our Dutch and UK cases show that the theoretcal prncples of the often competng concepts of New Publc Management and Governance can also be dstngushed n prvate sector-led urban development projects. But, both prncples of organzatonal herarchcal clent-contractor relatons (NPM) and manageral horzontal stakeholder nteractons (Governance) also co-exst n prvate sector-led practce. Also, occasonally both relatons and nteractons can result n conflctng stuatons once predefned formally dvded publc-prvate roles n contracts sometmes conflct wth the need for nformal publc-prvate dalogue and cooperaton. Nonetheless, both structured rules as well as room for nteracton seem to be condtonal ngredents for effectve and effcent prvate sector-led urban development processes. Management remans a crucal and mportant condton to acheve successful project results but cannot functon wthout any form of organzatonal arrangement whch provde certanty and reduces development rsks. Thus, our emprcal fndngs strengthen our choce for not choosng ether one of these theoretcal perspectves to analyze emprcal cases. The choce for a more comprehensve management vew avods bas of research results as t generates a broader contextual understandng of the mutually dependent nature of project organzaton and management. Thrd, a reflecton on our used methods seems to be n place, as our choce for case studes, cross-comparsons and lesson-drawng proved to be a methodologcal challenge. The challenges refer to the dfferences between the Dutch and UK cases n terms of scope and depth purposes and the project s complexty and scale. One can argue that such dfferences undermne the valdty and comparablty of the research fndngs. Nonetheless, the cross-case analyss of both the Dutch and UK projects n a context-dependent and nternally consstent manner provded opportuntes to at least draw vald conclusons for and emprcal lessons from each country separately. In addton, we confronted characterstcs of the urban development practces from both countres to ndcate the broader condtons under whch lessons can transferred from one context to another. Such approach strengthens the relatvty of the lessons beng drawn by carefully examnng and apprecatng context-specfc condtons. Therefore, we also provded some nspratonal lessons from the complex large-scale UK cases for future drectons of the Dutch urban development practce. The usefulness and applcablty of such nspraton remans the terran of practtoners. 365 Concluson

9.3 Recommendatons for Further Research In retrospect, based on our experences wth and lmtatons of ths research, we can formulate some recommendatons for followng researchers n conductng further subject-related research, whch nclude: More attenton towards algnng theory wth practce. Ths research provded valuable nsghts nto how publc and prvate actors collaborate and manage urban development projects. However, n general t proved to be dffcult to fnd a theory that coherently reflected actor relatons and nteractons n practce and whch are also valuable to practtoners. We have tred to contrbute to close a persstent theory-practce gap by provdng an subject-specfc conceptual understandng of urban development projects that can both be used for further academc research and appled n practce. Hence, that more practce-based or acton-research s needed to mprove the relevance of academc research. As such, the researcher ams to transfer the conceptual and practcal knowledge obtaned n ths research towards development practce n the form of both publc and prvate organzatons, by confrontng the research fndngs wth the emprcal ways of workng; More attenton towards nternatonal comparatve urban studes. Our personal experence s that by studyng other urban development contexts researchers can obtan a better understandng and apprecaton of ther own context. In partcular, nternatonal comparatve urban research contanng studes of relatvely smlar development practces, provdes opportuntes to draw valuable lessons for smlar ssues n the recpent country. In an ever more globalzng and growng urban world t seems obvous to us to conduct qualtatve comparatve urban studes to assst n tacklng the complex and sustanable challenges ctes nowadays face. Moreover, as research has a role to play n educaton t seems that nternatonal-orented fndngs can stmulate students to obtan a rcher knowledge and general percepton of ther professonal feld. Ths can contrbute mmensely to ther future professon, thereby openng excellent opportuntes to work abroad; More attenton towards market and prvate actor perspectves. Ths research started wth the changng role of governments n Dutch urban plannng. However, such a trend cannot be seen n solaton, as urban development also consst of other (prvate) actors whose role nfluences the way publc actors operate n projects. Therefore, we delberately choose for a change of perspectve by usng the ttle prvate sector-led urban development projects. Our cases have shown that plannng and development s not prmarly a government matter (nor s t a sole prvate matter). It seems that market perspectves and prvate actor decson-makng consderatons are of greater mportance to understand how urban development projects come about, all the more gven the current consequences of the current economc downturn. Notce that our reference lst contans a relatvely low amount of useful academc publcatons on ths matter. Despte the dffculty of obtanng sold data on markets and market actor, n our opnon, ths should be a more promnent pont of attenton n future urban research agendas. 366 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Our fnal chapter contans an Eplogue on ssues that cannot drectly be attrbuted to the research carred out here. There we take the academc freedom to reflect on two remanng broader and remanng mportant ssues related to our research. The frst ssue nvolves the dffcult connecton of the perceved conflctng objectves of plannng and markets, respectvely based on the prncple of soldarty and proftablty. Ths cumulates nto a dscusson about how actors can safeguard publc nterests n prvate sector-led development projects. The second ssue elaborates on alternatve prvate fnancng nstruments, as current economc crcumstances show that developers have dffcultes to fnance development projects based on bank loans. Ths stuaton n partcular requres explorng dfferent fnancal sources and nvestment strateges for prvate sector-led urban development projects. 367 Concluson

368 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

10 Eplogue In ths Eplogue we take the freedom to reflect upon ths research n a more general manner. Ths we do by usng theoretcal and practcal nsghts obtaned whle conductng ths research. Hence, these nsghts were not ncluded ntegrally n the research due to the course of tme. In that sense, they cannot be regarded as beng an ntegral part of ths doctoral thess. Rather, ths chapter contans an addtonal exploraton of mportant ssues related to our research subject. These nsghts mght be very valuable for understandng bgger and deeper academc and practcal ssues n relaton to market-drven plannng and prvate sector-led urban development projects. Ths eplogue subsequently contans the researchrelated topcs safeguardng publc nterests (Secton 10.1) and alternatve (prvate) fnancng nstruments (Secton 10.2). Herenafter, each of these topcs s ntroduced, startng wth a fundamental queston. 10.1 Safeguardng Publc Interests At frst sght, safeguardng the publc nterest n prvate sector-led urban development projects comes under pressure once developers take over several responsbltes and tasks normally takng care of by local authortes. Ths secton s structured around three man questons: How can we defne publc nterests, n general and n urban development? What mechansms and strateges are there to safeguard publc nterests n general, and n urban development? How can local authortes safeguard publc nterests n prvate sector-led urban development projects n specfc? These questons have been on our mnds durng the research process. Hence, n Chapter 1 we ntroduced the fgure (see also Fgure 10.1) of the value and power shft as a contextual Dutch development whch also materalzes n urban development practce. Therefore, one of the man general questons from the begnnng of ths research was: What knd of world are we enterng once we ntroduce prvate sector-led urban development projects? Do we end up wth unequal, ndvdualzed and selectve accessble urban areas once the market takes over control? These fundamental questons are not only hard to answer n a sngle drecton; they also extended the boundares of ths PhD research. Therefore, after havng ganed nsght nto the man characterstcs and mechansms of prvate sector-led urban development projects themselves, here, after 4 years of ntensve thnkng, n retrospect, we thought t was tme to reflect on ths ssue and to make some theoretcal and practcal sense of t. We do so by dscussng some key Dutch lterature that has been publshed n recent years about safeguardng publc nterests. 369 Eplogue

The State Collectvsm Collectve Servce Access Equalty socetal values Indvdualsm Selectve Servce Access Inequalty power The Market Fgure 10.1 Value & power shft n context of Dutch urban development (based on De Jonge, 2007) 10.1.1 Defnng Publc Interests What s the publc nterest n general? And how can we best secure t? Who should gude t? Bascally, here the more drect queston s: How can we optmally construct our socety? Ths s a bg and almost unanswerable queston as t has no boundares, foremost t s a normatve and subjectve one, as t lacks a conceptual perspectve. Let us explore some of nsghts about publc nterests from lterature to construct such a perspectve. The Dutch Academc Councl for Publc Polces (Dutch: Wetenschappeljke Raad voor het Regerngsbeled), the WRR (2000) argues that there s a dstncton between publc nterests (Dutch: publeke belangen) and cvc nterests (Dutch: maatschappeljke belangen). Ther defnton of publc nterest s as follows: A publc nterest exsts once a government beleves t s crucal to secure a cvc nterest as ths nterest otherwse would not be secured (WRR, 2000: 20). Ths s a defnton that n the frst place, s almost ncomprehensble. Moreover, t mplctly consders the fact that the government has the autonomy to decde what the publc nterest s. Hence, Van Damme & Schnkel (2009: 6) argue that the WRR s dstncton s not relevant and the WRR s defnton s ncorrect as well. They state that t s nadequate as t represents a lack of acknowledgng that governments n current tmes share power and postons n our socety wth prvate and cvc organzatons. Nevertheless, by consttutonal law governments are stll enttled to make legtmzed decsons on behalf of the publc, and ths wll reman so n a democratc system. But, furthermore, determnng the publc nterest has become more problematc as there s not one publc anymore, there are many publcs. So, n our pluralstc socety, one authorty cannot defne the publc nterest n general for dfferent groups of 370 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

publcs. Also, the WRR (2000: 139) tself argues that n practce one can seldom defne the publc nterest; t s often a complex of publc nterests. Moreover, these nterests also exst on dfferent scales, on local, regonal, and natonal levels. And, also these publc nterests are subject to contnuous change over tme. Thus, n concluson, determnng the publc nterest s an ncredble complex manner for any nsttuton. Ths brngs us to defne publc nterests as follows: Publc nterests are values that are vewed by a substantal group of dfferent people and organzatons as beng fundamentally mportant to be safeguarded at a determned scale and a gven pont n tme. So, why do we talk about the publc nterests wth regard to ths research? Hence, Djstelbloem & Holtslag (2010) argue that several basc tasks and responsbltes of Dutch publc admnstraton snce the 1990s gradually have been placed at admnstratve dstance. They further menton that nsttutonal dfferentaton, Europeanzaton, nternatonalzaton, and lberalzaton, and prvatzaton operatons have resulted n the natonal government that almost can be consdered as a regulatory state (Majone, 1996). As the Dutch government (sem-)prvatzed several markets formerly under drect publc control the energy market, publc transport, and health care beng the most promnent ones doubts arose about the accuracy of the shft of responsbltes towards the prvate doman as stated by the WRR (2000: 22). Jørgensen & Bozeman (2002: 65) for example argue that prvatzaton and contractng out often have the effect of erodng publc values. In debates, even today, economc and socal crses were blamed on lberalzaton (see De Brujn & Dcke, 2006). However, n our vew, t represents the dffcult struggle of governments to safeguard publc nterests and to determne what the prncple role of the government s wthn the marketeconomy and pluralstc socety of our tmes. Rghtly so, the WRR (2000: 4) argues that the dchotomy between state and market s too smplstc, too deologcal and too lmted. They argue that safeguardng publc nterest can be reached n several dfferent manners wthn both publc and prvate domans, whch we wll explore later on. Ths s an mportant noton wth regard to our research, as we study urban projects that manly consst wthn a prvate doman and market envronment. Thus, the WRR as a government nsttuton acknowledges that not only publc organzatons, but also prvate ones and we would lke to add cvc actors are able and also enttled to secure publc nterests. But does ths not move too far away from the prncple role of government, who are accountable for makng legtmzed decsons on behalf of ther voters, the publc? Ths s an answer not easy to answer, so let us delberate on ths a bt further by postonng the state and the market. Hence, the WRR noton can be consdered as a shft from state versus market towards state and market thnkng. Indeed, accordng to Van Damme & Schnkel (2009: 7) the state and the market are created nsttutons by people. They argue that both state and market are two dfferent welfare economc control mechansms. Nether of them can be consdered as achevng an optmal economy and/or socety; one needs to have the rght mx of both. Therefore, the noton from the WRR (2000) that both domans can secure publc nterests s 371 Eplogue

remarkable. It moves away from the phlosophy that publc nterests can best be served and supervsed by publc actors alone. Nonetheless paradoxcally, the WRR (2000) stll ndcates recommendatons that pont nto the drecton of the publc sector to decde what the publc nterest s. Ths stll has everythng to do wth the noton that the market s not perfect and that market falure may occur, and that regulaton by government s needed. Yes ndeed, markets can fal to take the responsblty to serve the publc good most effcently as possble. But t s the government s role to secure that ths market works optmally. Accordng to Van Damme & Schnkel (2009: 7), the role of government n a state-ánd market-relatonshp from the welfare economc perspectve s to: Be responsble for creatng the constrants for the market to work wth; Correct market falure; Correct unwanted ncome dfferences. Once ths does not happen, we can also speak of government falure to regulate the market and to shape socety n an optmal manner. In dscussons about the prvatzaton of publc tasks, the sometmes occurrng nablty of governments to regulate markets effectvely s pushed to the background. The focus les on market falure to produce what people need at reasonable costs. But, ths s too smplstc. It s precsely both the state and the market whch are connected n a regulatve and productve economc system. Therefore, market and government falure go hand n hand. Thus, we persst that we should move away from state versus market thnkng, and to embrace that these two domans are nterdependent. But how to avod that market and government falure occurs? In other words, what safeguardng possbltes exst? In the followng secton we explore dfferent safeguardng mechansms and approaches. 10.1.2 Theoretcal Safeguardng Mechansms & Approaches Wth ths lne of reasonng, what are the possbltes to safeguard publc nterests? How can publc nterest be secured n general? The WRR (2000) argues that securng publc nterests can best be dvded amongst publc and prvate actors. Although the end responsblty can be traced back to governmental nsttutons t s possble to gve prvate actors operatonal responsbltes to secure publc nterests through (WRR, 2010: 10): Competton amongst prvate organzatons steered by government; Prvate actors who take charge of publc nterests; Professonal prvate organzatons; Safeguardng under drect mnsteral responsblty; Independent publc admnstratons. Hence, they state that dogmas about securng the publc nterest must be avoded. The WRR (2000: 10) argues: Nether as prvate organzatons always functon more effcently 372 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

than publc organzatons, nor s safeguardng publc nterests per se more democratc or more careful than prvate safeguardng. Nether from prvate organzatons, nor from publc organzatons, can be expected that they exclusvely serve the publc good and publc nterest. Here, the WRR acknowledges that government and market can fal to secure nterests. Therefore, t s necessary to dscplne organzatons. The WRR argues that safeguardng publc nterests can be acheved by four possbltes (WRR, 2000: 10): Rules wthn laws and contracts; Competton between market actors for concessons; Herarchcal steerng from a poltcan towards hs employees; Strengthenng nsttutonal values and norms of organzatons. Behold that n every specfc market t s necessary to fnd the most effectve use of these safeguardng possbltes. Accordng to Van Damme & Schnkel (2009: 16), n the energy market for nstance, because of the poltcal nterests of energy the danger exst, governments are relatvely nclned to ntervene drectly and actvely wth several neffcences as a result. Better, or more effcent, would be to take more advantage of market mechansms and to use market ncentves to stmulate the safeguardng publc nterest. In ths case the accessblty to energy and a far energy prce. Remarkably, the WRR does not hghlght how one could dscplne governments to secure publc nterests most effcently. What professonal atttude does ths requre from publc nsttutons to regulate or to stmulate market actors to safeguard publc nterests? In essence, every market regulaton by governments requres a custom-made mechansm (see Van Damme & Schnkel, 2009: 19). Often, market over-regulaton unavodably resolves n government falure. Baarsma & Theeuwes (2009: 39) argue that governments, despte ther good ntentons often over-regulate or under-regulate markets. The reason for ths s that they often are faced wth an nformaton gap towards the market or organzaton they are regulatng. Thus, by regulatng only, n our vew governments always reman postoned outsde the market system, never achevng an equal role and access to nformaton as market actors. Therefore, rules or regulaton s not the only tool to tame markets or to secure publc nterests. Competton among prvate actors, and from our pont of vew, especally strengthenng the nsttutonal values and norms of prvate and cvc organzatons are strong addtonal ways to safeguard publc nterests that are equally mportant. These two possbltes to secure publc nterests are more closely related to mechansms and prncples of good markets. Therefore, publc admnstraton academcs (De Brujn & Dcke, 2006 and Charles et al., 2007 amongst others) have extended safeguardng possbltes by recognzng and emphaszng that lberalzaton and prvatzaton have made producton, dstrbuton and supply the responsblty of several publc and prvate actors (De Brujn & Dcke, 2006: 718). These strateges are worth explorng n the lght of ths research, as they depart from pluralstc perspectves. De Brujn & Dcke (2006: 722) dentfed three strateges for safeguardng publc nterests: Herarchcal mechansms: mposng publc values by usng regulaton; Network mechansms: nteractng about publc values; Market mechansms: competng on publc values. 373 Eplogue

Interestngly, Charles et al. (2007) argue that these mechansms also are accompaned by three theoretcal perspectves to vew the safeguardng of publc values: Unversalstc approach: publc value vewed as abstract non-trade-off matter; Stakeholder approach: publc values vewed as part of poltcal process; Insttutonal approach: publc values dfferences n tme and place matter. We advocate explorng these dfferent mechansms and approaches as they algn wth the ncreased pluralstc and dynamc nature and safeguardng of publc nterests n a market context. It s n lne wth the argument made by De Brujn & Dcke (2006). They argue that for some centures protectng publc values, n the context of the ncreased lberalzaton and prvatzaton has been based on tght regulatons and strct control. They argue that ths mechansm can cause adverse effects, such as ncreasng transacton costs. Also, publc values are nherently relatve (De Brujn & Dcke, 2006: 722), t s mpossble to defne them unambguously. Furthermore, they dffer accordng to place and tme, so trade-offs between them are requred. Wth regard to tght government control and detaled norms De Brujn & Dcke (2007: 723) explan that these knd of approaches assume a stuaton n whch there s a herarchcal relaton between the government and the suppler. In our vew too, herarchcal safeguardng mechansms do not algn completely wth an ncreasng pluralstc network socety and maturng market economy. Also, ntroducng herarchcal rules for publc values are based on the assumpton that they can steer operatonal executon, whch tends not be the case n utlty sectors for nstance (see De Brujn & Dcke, 2006). Also, they spark off varous forms of strategc behavor by people at operatonal levels, such as nterpretng rules for ther own benefts. Thus, herarchcal safeguardng mechansms have lmtatons. Ths s supported by Charles et al. (2007) who state that the choce of safeguardng nstruments cannot be based on generc deas, as they change over tme, are not statc, and block nnovaton. Charles et al. (2007: 9) argue that the nsttutonal perspectve agrees wth the stakeholder perspectve n that publc values are not unversal. Yet, accordng to ths perspectve, publc values do not emerge concdently as a result of nteracton between a set of stakeholders. Actors are embedded n an nsttutonal envronment, whle ther behavors and ratonaltes are constraned and shaped by the structural and cultural characterstcs of these envronments. we support ths approach as t algns wth the state-market nterrelatons mentoned earler. Nonetheless, De Brujn & Dcke (2006: 724) also argue that the herarchcal mechansms of safeguardng publc nterests are needed to regulate markets. They jurdfy the relaton between government and other actors. But, mportantly, herarchcal mechansms can: Create a common frame of reference; Consttute a legal bass for acton; Play an mportant role n socetal debate; Afford an mportant opton to ntervene when necessary. Nevertheless, De Brujn & Dcke (2006) descrbe that governments n searchng for ways to secure publc nterests should explore the opportuntes of network and market mechansms. They argue that combnatons of the three mechansms provde the rght bass for effectvely and effcently safeguardng publc values than solely relyng on herarchcal top-down mechansms. 374 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

In terms of network mechansms, De Brujn & Dcke (2006: 725) state that publc values can be safeguarded n a process of consultaton and negotaton. Therefore, they argue that governments must create the rght condtons whch can be establshed by facltatng an nsttutonal structure for the negotated envronment, by ether encouragng cvc actors to organze themselves and by desgnng procedures or rules of the game. Thus, publc nterests can be safeguarded by engagng stakeholders n nteractve decson-makng processes structured by government nsttutons. In terms of market mechansms, De Brujn & Dcke (2006: 725-726) argue that market arrangements can be put n place to protect publc values. Ths can be done by lettng prvate companes compete on publc values. Here, they can dfferentate themselves from ther compettors n the way, and to the extent at whch, they safeguard publc nterests. From a market perspectve, hereby, governments use market forces to protect publc values rather than opposng and tryng to mtgate such forces (De Brujn & Dcke, 2006: 725). An example of ths strategy s a prvate actor s ablty to dfferentate n offerng sustanable energy. Than prvatzaton goes hand n hand wth market transparency for nstance. The authors ndcate a range of possbltes for publc actors to actvate competton on publc values (De Brujn & Dcke, 2006: 726): Usng tenders: layng down condtons (such as qualty, affordablty, nnovaton); Usng market transparency: stpulatng condtons (such as relablty, sustanablty); Subsdzng companes: stmulatng companes who propagate publc values. Importantly, De Brujn & Dcke (2006) argue that the objectons of herarchcal mechansms, namely settng publc values, statc nature, falng to reach operatonal levels, do ether not apply or they apply to a lesser extent, once publc values are safeguarded by negotaton and/ or competton. They propose a combnaton of mechansms, n whch herarchy s blended n wth network and herarchy mechansms. Frst, a combnaton of network and herarchy for nstance are flexble legal rules mposed by a (publc) authorty as an ncentve to start publcprvate negotatons resultng n trade-offs about what s consdered as a publc nterest and how they can be safeguarded and montored. Ths combnaton creates a sense of urgency for both actors to negotate and reach consensus. Second, a combnaton of market and herarchy can be establshed by a regulatng nsttuton that assesses key performance ndcators for delverng publc nterest translated nto a market competton amongst prvate bdders. The standardzaton of publc values also enables regulatng bodes to montor the performance, thereby creatng market transparency. Thus, competton between prvate actors and unlateral regulaton creates condtons for safeguardng publc nterests n a market-drven context. In our vew, these fundamental notons about combnng dvergng possbltes, approaches, and mechansms manly found n academc lterature focused on prvatzed utlty sectors can be used as publc nterest safeguardng strateges n urban development practce as well. 375 Eplogue

10.1.3 Publc Interests n Urban Plannng & Development Let us contnue ths dscusson towards what ths means for safeguardng publc nterests n urban development. Wth regard to the above, s t possble to determne what publc nterests are n urban development? Defnng publc nterests n urban plannng & development In our vew, publc nterests n urban development are very much related to spatal qualty. Therefore, for nstance, n our research we also studed ths specfc effect of prvate sector-led urban development projects. Hence, Van den Hof (2006) for nstance, publshed a dssertaton n whch he researched the safeguardng of spatal qualty n dfferent Publc-Prvate Partnershp models n the Netherlands. Also, Verbart (2004) makes a connecton between publc nterests and spatal qualty n hs dssertaton about the management of spatal qualty. Verbart (2004: 49) argues that one can speak of hgh spatal qualty f the spatal nterventons are postvely valued by the ones who have to use them. Here, a combnaton s made between spatal qualty and what (dfferent) people value. Therefore, t seems nterestng to determne how dfferent people may value the publc nterest n urban development. Moreover, these values change over tme, for whch Hoojmejer et al. (2004) created the dstncton between user value, experence value, and future value as operatonal spatal qualty categores. Hence, than spatal qualty becomes related to what s sustanable for dfferent users over tme. As such we must nterpret spatal qualty as a means to acheve economc, socal and envronmental objectves on a local area level. But, objectves can also be consdered as normatve and thus are valued dfferently. Ths s precsely why t s dffcult to determne n specfc what s consdered as a publc nterest n urban development projects. Nevertheless, there are some aspects of publc nterest, whch are n everyone s nterest and whch can be consdered as beng sustanable. However, here we have to take a normatve theoretcal perspectve to vew such nterests. We choose a welfare economc perspectve n order to operatonalze publc nterest on the scale of urban development. Ths brngs me to defne publc nterests n urban development as follows: Publc nterests n urban development are those specfc spatal nterventons that serve economc, socal and envronmental values. Then, n our opnon, economc publc nterests n urban development are related to the value of property. Hence, real estate can ether be owned by publc or prvate actors. It s n the economc nterest of prvate and publc owners to beneft from ncreased property values. They may at a certan pont sell ther estates wth a certan proft whch can be renvested n other prvate or publc assets or expendtures. Moreover, t s n the general publc nterest to have ncreasng property values as ths generates more property tax revenues for government nsttutons. Agan, these revenues can be renvested n publc assets. Moreover, a devaluaton of economc property values lmts the wllngness of actors to spend money. However, at 376 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

second thought ths s not that smple. For nstance, lower property values mght ncentvze other actors to buy property whch mght be accompaned by nvestment n that property. Ths agan mght resolve n hgher property tax revenues for muncpaltes n the long term. Nonetheless, from a general welfare economc perspectve, economc publc nterests n urban development reman a stable rse of property values (at least at the same rate as economc prce nflaton). To put t very smple, ths means makng decsons about spatal nterventons whch are n economc demand. Socal publc nterests n urban development are related to the local collectve welfare. It s n the nterest of most actors that people are satsfed wth ther bult envronment. However, t remans hghly subjectve to determne how satsfacton s valued by dfferent resdents. Often, government nsttutons am at creatng mxed-ncome communtes wth spatal nterventon whch nclude a combnaton of affordable socal housng and prvate owned housng. But, the resdents themselves mght value communtes dfferently. In a search for a home they mght look at the exstence of communtes wth a smlar lfe pattern, household composton, equal ncome level, or wllngness to care for the neghborhood, to name a few examples. Thus, people value socal envronments dfferently. However, once welfare levels of dfferent resdents n one area become too unequal ths mght also resolve n socal excluson. Ths on ts turn s counter-effectve to creatng socal coheson n neghborhoods. Possble spatal nterventons than could nclude creatng safe and accessble spaces and places n whch local resdents can nteract. Therefore, from a welfare economc perspectve, t s n the general publc nterest to lmt socal excluson n areas by makng decsons about spatal nterventons that could support socal coheson and ndvdual freedom to access space. In envronmental terms, t s less dffcult to determne what s n the publc nterest. Here, spatal qualty s related to publc health. Clearly, for nstance nose reducton, fresh ar, access to drnkng water and electrcty, and well-functonng sewers are condtons to mantan or mprove the level of publc health n urban areas. Addtonally, t s n the publc nterest to develop the use of sustanable energy resources. These measures create opportuntes for long-term envronmental conscousness and reducton of emssons. Therefore, from a welfare economc perspectve, t s n the general publc nterest to make decsons about spatal nterventons that make areas envronmentally frendly n that t mproves or mantans the publc health of ts users. Ths elaboraton shows t s dffcult to determne what publc nterests are n a specfc area. There s always a need for an operatonalzaton of general publc nterests by usng specfc spatal nterventons. But, from the welfare economc perspectve, safeguardng general publc nterests n urban development, requres spatal nterventons whch: Increase the economc value of propertes and assets Increase the socal coheson of people and communtes Increase the publc health of people and communtes 377 Eplogue

Publc nterests n market-orented plannng & development Why s t mportant to safeguard publc nterests n market-orented urban plannng contexts? Therefore, we turn towards the 1980s, n whch USA s and UK s neolberal plannng polces consttuted of downszng the role of local plannng authortes by ntroducng prvate development companes amed at stmulatng market nvestment n urban development. These polces provded the foundatons for prvate sector-led urban development projects as studed n ths research. Despte the fact that neolberal development models landed n several Western countres snce the 1980s, also we saw that the emphass on economc objectves had some downsdes. Property-led urban developments of ths perod for nstance show that to a certan extent socal and ecologcal aspects of development were gnored or handled nsuffcently. As a result, for nstance, 1990s Thrd Way poltcs and polces n the UK, and USA to a smaller degree, sought to overcome these ssues n order to create more sustanable urban development projects. Wth t, the vew of plannng versus markets changed nto plannng and markets, or even plannng wthn markets (see Adams & Tesdell, 2010). Publc and prvate actors sought to cooperate more pragmatcally rather than opposng to each other s sometmes conflctng nterests. These developments mark the end of pure entrepreneural market-drven plannng n Western countres. Thus, apparently, the sharp edges of market-drven urban development n the Western world have somewhat eased. However, tme must tell whether ths change s applcable to a global scale. For nstance, nterestng enough, we see that n rapdly growng countres such as Chna, Inda and Brazl and others, market-drven urban development models preval. Hulshof & Roggeveen (2011) for example, ndcate that governments n these countres manly focus on creatng the rght condtons for economc development, n whch property developers play a powerful role, and cvc actors appear to be consumers only. Thereby, they adopt Amercan and European market-drven models of the prevous century, and reconstruct them to ft the local nsttutonal contexts n whch they are appled. Ctes n these countres, especally n Chna, are rapdly expandng and densfyng at an unparalleled pace n hstory, at ther own logc, wth lmted nterests n the ecologcal consequences. So t remans hard to generalze about the prevalng economc-poltcal models on a global level. Ths ndcates that the turn towards collaboratve plannng as descrbed by Healey (2006) mght be a sensble plannng concept n the Western world. But, so far, t seems to lack substantal support and followers n plannng practces n the emergng developng countres. But who then could or should safeguard the publc nterests n market-drven practces? In our vew, ths depends completely on tme and place, there s not one soluton. Moreover, the queston could be rephrased. In our vew, t s not a queston of who does t, as long as t s done, be t by publc or prvate actors, or n an nteracton process between both actors. Ths dscusson relates to the ncreasng exchangeable operatonal roles of publc and prvate actors n urban development. Hence, n the Netherlands for nstance, state-market relatons and the prncple roles of publc and prvate actors n urban plannng have become somewhat defused as well. Both nsttutonal fragmentaton and lberalzaton have created a publc admnstratve paradox. On the one hand, nsttutonal fragmentaton has created sem-publc nsttutons and organzatons (such as housng assocatons) through whch local plannng authortes delegate and share powers and responsbltes. On the other hand, the lberalzaton 378 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

development has created (sem-) prvate bodes (such as Publc-Prvate Partnershps) n whch local plannng authortes take part. As a result at the local level, the role of muncpaltes n urban development became somewhat hybrd and fragmented as well. It s not entrely clear f local authortes always serve the publc good, as they also usually have a fnancal development stake and therefore also act entrepreneural and more busness-lke. Moreover, n ths perod, developers further entered nto the publc doman, takng over tasks and responsbltes that formerly were carred out by local authortes. The Dutch concesson model, as studed n ths research, can be seen as an example of the forward ntegraton of market partes n urban development projects. Also, the rse of other forms of Publc-Prvate Partnershps n nfrastructure and urban development must be seen n ths lght. These are prvate enttes functonng under prvate law. Here, local authortes combne ther regulatve plannng functon and wth entrepreneural (lberal) market actvty. In our vew, ths hybrd plannng and entrepreneural role poses a challenge for governments to safeguard publc nterests. In ths ambguous (more market-orented) stuaton t s hard to determne how governments can secure publc nterests effectvely and effcently, as trval objectves are present wthn the organzatons. Also, government ncreasngly has become part of the pluralstc socety rather than beng postoned as a herarchcal nsttuton n socety. Ths development favors to vew the role of plannng authortes to safeguard publc nterests by usng a combnaton of herarchcal, network and market mechansms as mentoned by De Brujn & Dcke (2006). We beleve that the role of publc nsttutons s to secure publc nterests by usng both legtmate plannng tools and accountable plannng actvtes. These tools and actvtes are related to what Adams & Tesdell (2010) referred to as shapng, regulatng, stmulatng, and capacty buldng tools for market actvty. These tools and actvtes can be used nterchangeably for specfc urban development projects. For nstance, t could be the role of local publc actors to nclude communty objectves frst hand by buldng cvc capacty for urban projects. Also plannng nstruments such as land use plans and envronmental laws can be used as regulatng tools for market actors to respond to. More generally speakng, as Van Damme & Schnkel (2009: 18) argue, t s also a publc nterest to have a good functonng market. In ths case ths consttutes the land and property market. Hence, too much nterventon and overregulaton wll create market neffcences, and moreover plannng falure to respond to local socal, economc, ecologcal demand wth physcal supply. But also, too less nterventon and deregulaton wll create market neffcences, where socal and ecologcal plannng objectves mght not be acheved. So, publc organzatons have a balancng act on ther hands. But, the acceptance of a more market-orented role for government, and the adopton of market-orented safeguardng mechansms, s very dfferent from place to place. For nstance, n the UK and USA, the prvate and cvc atttude towards governments as publc actors who ntervene too extensvely n urban plannng, culturally s less accepted than n the Netherlands. In the Anglo-Saxon countres, the belef prevals that development rsks should be left to the market, adopted by prvate companes. Governments are there to regulate markets and get ther democratc legtmacy from beng transparent and sncere about the decsons they make wth regard to the publc good. Nevertheless, ths s done by usng dfferent safeguardng mechansms, at least n the UK. Here, a combnaton of herarchcal (regulatve), market and 379 Eplogue

negotaton mechansms are used as mentoned by De Brujn & Dcke (2006), whle n the Netherlands the herarchcal mechansm prevals. In our vew, ths stuaton ndcates that Dutch publc nsttutons wsh to hold control over urban plannng s based on the unversal perspectve as ndcated by Charles et al. (2007). Nonetheless, Dutch natonal government for some years now propagates engagng the market n plannng decsons. But, the queston remans whether Dutch muncpaltes wsh to engage other prvate and cvc stakeholders to explore the defnton and trade-off of publc nterests n specfc urban projects. Hence, the queston whether prvate or cvc actors themselves could secure publc nterests also dffers per country. There s a huge dfference between operatng n pure market-drven plannng contexts wth a prvate sector-led land and property market such as n the UK and USA, and state-drven plannng contexts wth publc sector-led land and property market such as Sngapore for nstance. Hence, also the role of local authortes n land and property development n the Netherlands fundamentally dffers from these Anglo-Saxon counterparts. Whereas the role of local plannng bodes n the UK and USA, roughly speakng, s restrcted to a regulatng land use as an admnstratve functon, ts Dutch counterparts both regulate land use and develop land. In the Netherlands, local authortes on a large scale conducted an actve land development polcy. Durng ths research, somethng notable has become clear. Ths actve developmental atttude of Dutch local authortes has created more dependency of Dutch developers on fnancal publc contrbutons to project defcts. Therefore, nnovaton and thnkng about commttng oneself sustanably to projects has been lower than n the USA or UK. To put t nto other words, the prvate hang towards local authortes, has underdeveloped the socetal commtment of developers n projects. They have not ntrnscally learned to effectvely take care of publc nterests n ther projects. For nstance, prvate ownershp of publc space n the UK and USA at least has put developers wth ther nose on the tangble ssues nvolved wth what s the publc good and how t can best be made accessble and manageable. So, n our opnon t would not only be socally-coherent to engage prvate and cvc actors n safeguardng publc nterests, but even a socal necessty. It enables other actors to become responsble for ther own bult envronment, and t creates ncentves to realze nnovatve urban development concepts. Nonetheless, safeguardng publc nterests always goes hand n hand wth market regulaton. But, ths regulaton should be based on non-negotable general plannng standards (whch provde the basc needs of cvlans), and negotable development condtons (whch provde flexbltes for developers to respond too). Furthermore, n our vew, by combnng herarchcal, network and market mechansms, more ef fcent and effectve publc safeguardng mechansms for urban plannng are put nto place. 10.1.4 Safeguardng Strateges n Prvate Sector-led Urban Development So, n relaton to the complex dscusson above, what possbltes do publc actors have to secure publc nterests n prvate sector-led urban development projects? For some drecton, we return towards the strateges for safeguardng publc nterests as mentoned by the WRR (2000), De Brujn & Dcke (2006) and Charles et al. (2007). Table 10.1 shows the dfferent 380 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

categores of strateges based on the fndngs from these authors. For each of these strategy categores we formulate some operatonal safeguardng suggestons wthn prvate sector-led urban development projects. WRR (2000) De Brujn & Dcke (2006) Charles et al. (2007) Rules wthn laws & contracts Herarchcal mechansms Unversalstc approach Strengthenng nsttutonal values Network mechansms Stakeholder approach Market actor competton Market mechansms Insttutonalst approach Table 10.1 Strateges for safeguardng publc nterests Herarchcal strateges: Usng exstng rules wthn laws & contracts Frst, the smplest strategy to safeguard publc nterests s the use of herarchcal rules. These rules can both be made under publc or prvate law. In Dutch publc law already several optons for herarchcally safeguardng publc nterests exst. Some of the legal publc plannng nstruments nclude land use plans (Dutch: bestemmngsplannen), pre-empton rghts (Dutch: Wet Voorkeursrecht Gemeenten) and expropraton (Dutch: ontegenng). These publc nstruments gve muncpaltes substantal powers to lmt the development of land. Here, some clarfcaton of Dutch property rghts must be gven. As Hobma & Schutte-Postma (2011) argue n the Netherlands, the rght to develop the land s lnked to ownershp of the land. The owner of the land s the one who has the rght to realze buldng plans for that land. Nevertheless, local authortes by means of publc law can lmt the possbltes to develop one s own land: The rght of the owner to develop the land only exsts wthn the publc law lmtatons of the muncpal land use plan (Hobma & Schutte-Postma, 2011). Thus, land use plans restrct (prvate) property rghts; land can only be developed once t s n accordance wth muncpal plannng polces usually presented n land use plans. Moreover, another herarchcal mechansm form s the use of the pre-empton rght. Accordng to Hobma & Schutte-Postma (2011), muncpaltes can establsh ths rght on a pece of land (pror to development) f they beleve t s mportant enough to be developed for future purposes. Thus, f landowners am at sellng ths land they frst have to offer t to local authortes and not to nterested market actors. Another more rgorous form of herarchcal plannng nstrument s the expropraton. Other than usng land use plans, expropraton takes away the property of the owners. Expropraton may be used as an nstrument f the government needs absolute use of real property for the general nterest and no agreement wth the owner can be reached (Hobma & Schutte-Postma, 2011). Thus, t can be used as an nstrument to safeguard publc nterests as well. Expropraton fnds Anglo-Saxon equvalent n UK s compulsory purchase orders and USA s emnent doman. Nevertheless, we consder expropraton as a herarchcal safeguardng nstrument of last resort. It may threaten the relatonshp between publc and prvate actors. 381 Eplogue

Nonetheless, these herarchcal nstruments also provde opportuntes to compensate or reward prvate developers. For nstance, plannng permsson s gven to developers as a reward or rght to develop projects. Ths permsson s ssued once developers have handed n plannng applcatons whch are n lne wth the land use plan. Moreover, under Dutch law fnancal compensaton has to be gven to a (prvate) owner whose land or property has been taken away by usng expropraton. Thus, local authortes can at least rely on usng some herarchcal mechansms to safeguard publc nterest. In our opnon, prvate law provdes more room to lnk herarchcal mechansms wth network and market mechansms n safeguardng publc nterests. Area-specfc spatal qualty plans (Dutch: beeldkwaltetsplannen) and development brefs are such examples. In these nstruments, fundamental questons about what s consdered as publc nterests must be answered. Hence, these plans should ncorporate the non-negotable (publc) plannng standards for prvate actors to work wth. These standards could be represented n a publc bref for a tender, n whch local authortes formulate spatal requrements. In our opnon, t s the role of plannng authortes to ndcate the mnmum condtons for developng urban projects. An effectve way to determne these nterests s to look at them from a spatal sustanable pont of vew, thus ncorporatng and nterlnkng socal, economc, and envronmental objectves. These non-negotable standards can be establshed solely wthn ntra- and ntergovernmental plannng processes. However, n order to avod overregulaton by governments and the nablty to algn these plannng objectves wth market demand, project specfc operatonalzaton of objectves must be encouraged. Therefore, we turn towards contractual arrangements between publc and prvate actors n prvate sector-led urban development projects. Ths nvolves determnng negotable development condtons by local authortes, and allowng room for enhancng objectves of both prvate and cvc actors n a negotaton process. Here, n order to serve the publc good at a certan place at a certan pont of tme, development contracts prncpally need to be constructed wth the nvolvement of these actors rather than mposed on them. Why otherwse would we poston these contracts under prvate law n the frst place? In publcprvate negotaton processes to reach development consensus, actors than are able to explore and defne what the publc nterests of the project nvolves and decde how ths best could be delvered under what condtons. Englsh Secton 106 agreements as developer contrbutons for nstance are prme examples of nstruments that serve the publc nterest of a place. Interestngly here herarchcal mechansms are combned wth network mechansms as De Brujn & Dcke (2006) lke to call t. Network strateges: Strengthenng nsttutonal values of actors Second, we strongly support the vew of the WRR to strengthen the nsttutonal values and norms of an organzaton takng care of the publc nterest. But, a crucal condton here s that ths requres local authortes to gve room to prvate developers to develop these nsttutonal values as well. Here, t s necessary for local authortes to accept and to see that prvate organzatons ncreasngly become aware of ther socetal task. But ths task s not completely carred out on the bass of deology, but on the smple market logc of makng a proft. Wthout producng sustanable developments they wll prce themselves out of the market ; other prvate compettors who respond to such sustanable requrements most lkely wll be granted projects more often. 382 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

The strengthenng of these nsttutonal values n prvate sector-led urban development projects can be supported by local authortes by ntroducng fnancal or development ncentves for developers for nstance. Hence, once developers realze or am to realze (more) functons that are wthn the publc nterest, publc actors can do somethng n return. For nstance, n the Seattle South Lake Unon case n the USA (see Appendx III), the plannng authorty decded on an up-zonng for the area, as the developers wshed to create more publc space at ground level. Actually, establshed zonng codes for the area set by the plannng authorty, as a result of ther rgd nature constraned the developer to create room for such publc parks and plazas n the frst place. By usng the publc zonng nstrument, both the developer could get a better fnancal return, and the local authorty could beneft from the prvate nvestment and delvery of new publc realm. Thus, by redefnng ther rgd herarchcal zonng condtons, thereby algnng them wth what the market demanded, the local authorty could safeguard publc nterests. So, here t s the actve nteracton between both actors that can strengthen the nsttutonal values and norms of the actor that s takng care of the publc nterests. Also, the publc ncentves can be accompaned by performance ndcators who measure to what extend developers delver on these publc nterests. For nstance, Socetal Cost Beneft Analyses (Dutch: Maatschappeljke Kosten Baten Analyse: MKBA) can be seen as examples of these performance ndcators. Actually they also can be consdered as development condtons. They requre prvate actors to become responsble for delverng publc functons, they are judged on ther performance. However, t remans crucal that both actors durng negotatons decde on these performance ndcators. Then, these ndcators could create the necessary market transparency as well. Local authortes could demand these performance ndcators to be publshed. Furthermore, these ndcators enable local authortes to ssue (fnancal) clams once developers do not delver accordng to agreed condtons. However, these should be used as last resort, n order to establsh or mantan a trustworthy publc-prvate relatonshp. Hence, here a combnaton of both network and herarchcal mechansms could result n safeguardng publc nterests. Market strateges: Creatng competton between market actors Thrd, there has been an nterestng new legal construct that mght be benefcal for the competton between prvate actors. Ths s the compettve dalogue (Dutch: concurrentegerchte daloog). It s a tender procedure made under publc law whch mght result n a contract between publc and prvate actors. Ths contract mght eventually result n a concesson agreement n whch local authortes gve plannng permsson to a selected developer. In a compettve dalogue a local authorty nvtes dfferent prvate developers, or prvate consorta through a tender procedure, to enter nto a publc-prvate dalogue about the common ntentons to develop the area. By arrangng a competton between dfferent prvate actors, and by combnng ths wth a publc-prvate negotaton process, t s possble to determne what plan could serve the publc nterest best. Furthermore, here developers ntrnscally become aware of ther socetal tasks, as the plan that wll be chosen by the local authorty often s the one that ncorporates the best publc nterests as well as fnancal returns for local authortes. 383 Eplogue

Despte the fact that competng prvate developers put n fnance upfront wthout the certanty of beng granted the concesson, we do thnk ths compettve dalogue s a very welcome nstrument to safeguard publc nterests. Moreover, a compettve dalogue s bult upon the market competton mechansm combned wth both network and herarchcal mechansms. Frst, t actvely supports the whole purpose of competton as a market mechansm to create the optmal spatal product. Second, ths s done n a project-orented negotaton process n whch publc and prvate actors by jontly collaboratng can delberate about and defne the publc nterests for the ste, thereby nsttutonalzng publc values n prvate organzatons. And thrd, t mght eventually result n a (herarchcally ssued) plannng permsson for the actor whose plan proposal meets the publc nterest requrements best. Hence, ths nstrument could well be applcable n the tender stage of prvate sector-led urban development projects. Especally when the ste s characterzed by publc land ownershp, often present n nner-cty development projects. Also, n our opnon, a very effectve safeguardng mechansm s to ntroduce prvate and cvc ownershp of land or property. Ths creates a commtment of actors to ther own bult envronment, whch s the ultmate form of nsttutonalzaton of publc values. The condtons under whch ownershp s transferred from publc to prvate or cvc actors are negotated wthn contractual agreements. Here, actors can reach consensus about the level and frequency of mantenance of publc space for nstance. Hence, as mentoned n Secton 8.3.2 ths s easer sad than done n the Netherlands. However, local plannng authortes n our opnon should relax ther controllng atttude on publc spaces once developers or ctzens have the ambton to mantan these places themselves, as they always have to opportunty to pose publc condtons n contracts. Thus, by lettng prvate and cvc actors become responsble for mantanng and operatng publc space, local authortes can also nsttutonalze publc values. 10.1.5 Safeguardng Instruments for Prvate Sector-led Urban Development To make these elaboratons more usable for local authortes, we constructed Fgure 10.2 whch shows nstruments publc actors can use to safeguard publc nterests n prvate sectorled urban development projects. Hence, nsght nto already exstng safeguardng nstruments from a publc actor perspectve seems of great mportance. Some local authortes seem not to be aware of these exstng possbltes wthn prvate sector-led urban development projects. In our opnon, the assumed lack of publc control (Dutch: rege) or publc steerng (Dutch: sturng) on publc objectves and safeguardng publc nterests s a msconcepton. For nstance, legal land use plans always functon as safeguardng mechansms. Nonetheless, n lne wth the arguments n ths secton, socal responsbltes adopted or nsttutonalzed by prvate actors seem crucal for the successful safeguardng of publc nterest as well. 384 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Operaton stage Intatve stage Tender: Spatal requrements (negotable & non-negotable) Prvate/cvl ownershp (negotable) Contractual condtons (negotable) Land-use plan (non-negotable) Fnancal clams (non-negotable) Performance ndcators (negotable) Development ncentves (negotable) Spatal qualty plan (negotable) Compulsory purchase (non-negotable) Plannng permsson (non-negotable) Compettve dalogue (negotable) Developer contrbutons (negotable) Realzaton stage Desgn stage Fgure 10.2 Instruments for safeguardng publc nterests n prvate sector-led urban development Negotable & non-negotable nstruments Importantly, Fgure 10.2 shows that each urban development stage (ntatve, desgn, realzaton and operaton) has dfferent opportuntes. It shows that local authortes n collaboraton wth others can use a wde varety of safeguardng mechansms n dfferent stages. Hence, for each nstrument we ndcated whether these are non-negotable or negotable nstruments. In essence, non-negotable nstruments are tools made under publc law, relatng to herarchcal mechansms (e.g. land use plans, plannng permsson). Negotable nstruments are subject to market nvolvement and negotaton processes made under prvate law, relatng to market and network mechansms. Ths nvolves negotatons between actors, and asks professonal negotaton sklls of publc actors. Thus, n our opnon, there are many possbltes to safeguard publc nterests n prvate sector-led urban development projects. What s left s the queston whether the wde varety of possbltes s gong to be recognzed and used conscously by local plannng authortes, and ntrnscally adopted by project developers, n the future Dutch urban development practce. 385 Eplogue

10.2 Alternatve Fnancng Instruments It s wdely acknowledged that, n many development practces around the globe that property nvestment n urban development has changed radcally as a result of the nternatonal credt crss and economc downturn (see Parknson et al., 2009, PwC & ULI, 2012). Hence, the current economc clmate and lqudty poston of developers puts the fnancng of prvate sector-led urban development projects n an entre new spot lght. It can be doubted f such an approach remans feasble n current development practces, especally n the Netherlands. Although several arguments pont n the drecton of a more sustaned poston of developers as prme nvestors n urban developments (see Chapter 1), current realty challenges ths vew. Therefore, central to ths secton s the queston: What f the prvate sector s unable to secure nvestment for prvate sector-led urban development projects? Are there any promsng alternatve fnancng nstruments avalable that are n lne wth prvate sector-led urban development prncples? 10.2.1 Current Economc & Fnancal Realty As mentoned n ths dssertaton by some professonals, prvate sector-led urban development approaches wth substantal upfront nvestments seems to be condtoned by favorable market crcumstances. Favorable crcumstances lower development rsks for prvate developers and nvestors. To put t nto other words; prvate nvestment and fnance only commences and can be secured for urban projects once there s enough demand for housng, offces, retal etc. At the moment, ths s not the case. Moreover, the current crss on the of fce market (over supply and vacances) and housng market (decreased transactons) make matters worse and are a cause of decreasng development demand. Hence, the mmedate result of such decreasng demand s that several urban development projects n the Netherlands started before the crss face fnancal feasblty df fcultes. Projected future revenues from both publc actors (land revenues) and prvate actors (real estate revenues) n a lot of cases wll not be obtaned. In a nutshell, both publc and prvate actors n ther tradtonal land and real estate development calculatons have over-valued ther future revenue projectons. A lot of vacant land wll not be developed (yet) and the completon of real estate wll take place at a slower pace f completed at all. Ths has resulted n severe fnancal lqudty df fcultes for both publc and prvate organzatons. For muncpaltes, Delotte (2011a; 2011b) has carred out studes whch pont towards the possble bankruptces of Dutch muncpaltes. Ths s a result of ncreased land rent costs and delays n land sale revenues of the publc land development agences often based on actve land development polces. For some muncpaltes such as Apeldoorn (see Van den Berge et al., 2012) the fnancal stuaton s ndeed worrsome. As a result of land speculaton for future development, the muncpalty faces a 200 mllon defct. Therefore, publc actors 386 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

mght become more reluctant to partcpate fnancally n urban projects on pre-crss levels, as they could be legally restraned to partcpate n such rsk-barng projects by fnancal and legal supervsors. Because of the current status of Dutch muncpaltes and the nature of ths research, ths secton manly focuses on the role of prvate developers and possble alternatve prvate fnancng nstruments n lne wth the prncples of prvate sector-led urban development projects. Here, prvate actors provde the development fnance and take on subsequent rsks, and local authortes facltate such constructons. However, at the moment the fnancal poston of project developers s less dfferent from muncpaltes. Although no hard statstcs are avalable about the fnancal poston of Dutch project developers, n practce several sgnals can be dstlled about ther fnancal poston. For nstance, several developers already have gone bankrupt, and frm mergers can be notced. Moreover, developers n the Netherlands that avoded bankruptces have made sgnfcant cutbacks, n both development assets (land & property) and personnel. Also, accordng to research carred out by Delotte (see Lujten, 2011b: 52) Dutch developers nowadays have less shareholder captal or prvate equty (Dutch: egen vermogen) and lght balance sheets (Dutch: balans). Otherwse, they would have to generate more turnover and returns, whch s a serous task n the current economc clmate. Thus, also shrnkng avalablty of prvate equty from developers certanly dangers the fnancng of prvate urban development projects, at least at the moment. Moreover, especally snce the economc recesson started n 2008, t has been dffcult for project developers to obtan the necessary nvestment from banks n terms of credt captal (Dutch: vreemd vermogen). Bank loans are not provded easly by nvestment banks as ther rsk management has ncreased. In ths regard, the unpredctable real estate sales n urban development projects are seen as serous rsks. For nstance, n the 2011 Urban Investment Network Summt organzed by Urban Land Insttute Europe, European Project s Drectorate Marana Ruz Alvarado from the European Investment Bank unmstakably assured the audence contanng prvate developers and nvestors that bank loans as development nvestment wll contnue to be wthheld: We are a bank and we want our money back, and ths stuaton wll contnue. Therefore, at the moment, and probably durng the contnung recesson, bank loans as credt captal for urban development projects (and developers) wll not reach pre-crss heghts. In more general respect, urban development nvestment models wth short-term return horzons (that s amng at returns upon project delvery) that have been used for decades, have become under pressure under these economc crcumstances. Joe Montgomery (CEO ULI Europe) at the 2011 Urban Investment Network Summt argued that large amounts of upfront prvate nvestment at the moment n the UK for nstance have had ther tme. Secton 106 agreements, as such attached to development agreements n urban projects, n whch local plannng authortes requre large amounts of fnancal development contrbutons for publc functons, are no longer seen as realstc: These types of fnance optons are dryng out, and ths s contnuous. Thus, ths puts not even the fnance of prvate development projects under pressure; t also affects achevng publc plannng polcy objectves; publc authortes are faced wth both serous publc cutbacks and less prvate contrbutons, leavng them wth fewer opportuntes to nvest n publc works. Notce that n the Netherlands, gudance for alternatve nvestment models n urban development also has been publshed by the Mnstry of Infrastructure and Envronment (Peek & Van Remmen, 2012). 387 Eplogue

In short, the current prvate nvestment dead-lock requres rethnkng whch alternatve fnancng nstruments are sutable to fnance prvate sector-led urban development projects. Completely understandable, at the moment, the appette from Dutch developers for fnancally rsk-bearng prvate concesson projects has ht rock-bottom (De Zeeuw n Lujten, 2011c: 31). Thus, can we forget about the concesson model as prvate sector-led urban development model? We do not thnk so. We belef there s a challenge to fnd other fnancal sources and busness models whch do not oppose the prncples of ths type of development projects on the one hand, and whch can be seen as welcome addtonal and strengthenng optons on the other hand. Here, we explore some of exstng and promsng alternatve fnancng nstruments for prvate sector-led urban development projects. 10.2.2 Promsng Alternatve Fnancng Instruments New fnancng nstruments for urban development projects n the Netherlands have the attenton of several practtoners (e.g. Van Rooy, 2011a; Agentschap NL, 2012) and academcs (e.g. Muñoz Gelen, 2010; Van der Krabben, 2011a). Most profoundly, n current Dutch urban development practce, one notces an ncreased nterest n demand-drven development strateges (see Secton 4.1.4), whch ncludes: Bottom-up development ntatves; Value-orented development strateges; Development phasng through partal plans. Investment Strateges Fnancng Mechansms Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Councl fundng Event hostng PPP Temporary nvestment grants State fundng Cty nvestment facltatng body Mxed/cluster, nfrastructure development Prvate (property) developer EIB / EU fundng Investment strategy / portfolo Cty development strategy Commercal loan Venture captal Value capture Tax / fscal ncentves Table 10.2 Investment strateges & fnancng mechansms for urban development (based on Clark & Huxley, 2009) Congeston / toll chargng Bond / bullet fnance Lottery funds Buld operate transfer Moreover, others have even proposed to fundamentally reorganze the Dutch land market by uncouplng land ownershp from development rghts and rethnkng land valuaton (see Steeg & Hutten, 2011). Some strateges may be feasble rsk controllng solutons for current of development projects (development phasng). Others focus on structural fnancal reorentaton (value-orented strateges) or nsttutonal reformaton (land market). But, ths 388 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

remans to be seen, and such fundamental reorentatons and reformatons extend the scope of ths research. Therefore, here we look at alternatve fnancng mechansms for prvate sectorled urban development projects currently avalable and used n practce. In our opnon, Clark & Huxley (2009) n an Urban Land Insttute report about the nvestment gap n European ctes have contrbuted nterestng nsghts for nvestment alternatves for development projects. They developed nvestment strateges, whch moreover are dvded nto three levels of acton contanng dfferent fnancng mechansms (see Table 10.2). Table 10.2, constructed on the bass of Clark & Huxley s work, shows the nvestment strateges levels of acton whch we consder to be most relevant and useful as addtonal fnancal mechansms for prvate sector-led urban development projects. Table 10.2 shows that especally level three nvestment strateges provde possble fnancng alternatves for the level two prvate developer nvestment strateges. Hence, accordng to Clark & Huxley (2009: 31) level three sees the prvate sector takng a stronger leadershp role. Thus, ths s perfectly n lne wth the prvate sector-led approach; these strateges are less based on prvate equty and bank loans but on other nvestment forms. Especally tax/fscal ncentves, temporary nvestment grants, lottery funds, and buld operate transfer are possble alternatve tools. Moreover, recent trends n urban development practce show ncreased nterest n the crowd fundng or crowd sourcng development projects (see Freund, 2010; Brabham et al., 2009). In our opnon, ths algns wth the current socetal trend towards thnkng about extendng the ownershp and shareholdng of goods wthn nsttutons towards the prvate and cvc doman. We also see possbltes to extend the establshed fnancng methods mentoned by Clark & Huxley, wth urban development trusts n relaton to the ncreased mportance of mantanng our bult envronment (see Peek, 2011). Moreover, Busness Improvement Dstrcts (Dutch: Bedrjven Investerng Zone), and urban reparcellng (Dutch: stedeljke herverkavelng), seem to ft n wth alternatve prvate fnancng methods for urban development areas. Let us clarfy these alternatve fnancng optons for prvate sector led-urban development projects. Tax Increment Fnancng (TIF) Accordng to Clark & Huxley (2009: 31), a tax ncentve s the deducton, excluson or exempton from a tax lablty, offered as an entcement to engage n a specfed urban actvty such as real estate development for a certan perod. A fscal ncentve nvolves the use of government polcy (often fnancal) to reduce the cost and rsk of nvestments n a gven area or for a gven project. Ths reducton of upfront nvestment costs for development projects for property developers mght be an alternatve fnance nstrument for prvate sector-led urban development. For nstance, Tax Increment Fnancng (TIF) s a method to use future tax gans to fnance current development mprovements, whch at least theoretcally wll create the condtons for those future gans. The dea behnd TIF s that an urban development project, once completed, often results n an ncremental ncrease of the value of the surroundng real estate or propertes. Ths ncreased property value can be benefcal for the property tax ncome of local authortes. In essence, muncpaltes can decde to ssue a TIF on a development area, for whch they offer a muncpal bond (Dutch: gemeenteljke lenng) to cover the development fnance gap of prvate developers. Ths bond than s based on future gans expected from extra muncpal 389 Eplogue

property taxes (Dutch: onroerende zaak belastng). Ths ncrease s a result of the development or mprovement of the area over a certan perod of tme. Thus, effectvely TIFs can be regarded as publc subsdes for developers wth a long-term fnancal return for local authortes themselves. However, the muncpal bond often s provded to a developer once they take on the rsk of ths loan. Ths rsk nvolves the possblty that the amount of calculated future taxes wll not be acheved n realty. Hence, property developers on ther turn can nsure these fnancal rsks. As a prncple, TIFs could be alternatve fnancng nstruments for unvable prvate sector-led urban development projects. Accordng to Van der Krabben (2011a) TIFs are used regularly n the USA to fnance urban development projects. And at the moment t s used as an experment n to fnance urban regeneraton n the UK (Hagendjk, 2011; Squres & Lord, 2012). But does ths mean t can be easly used n the Netherlands as well? Hobma & Schutte-Postma (2011) argue that new urban development projects n the Netherlands n whch TIFs have been ssued are very rare. Ths has everythng to do wth the lmted powers of Dutch muncpaltes to levy local taxes. Ths s n contrast to the USA, where muncpaltes often add a muncpal sales tax to State sale taxes (Hobma & Schutte-Postma, 2011). Moreover, Hobma & Schutte-Postma (2011) argue agan contrary to USA practces, new developments n the Netherlands are not made attractve for developers and nvestors by exempton or reducton of local taxes. Therefore, n ths respect, Hobma & Schutte-Postma (2011) conclude that tax s not an nstrument that s used n the Netherlands to promote urban (re)development. Hence, despte the fact that Tax Increment Fnancng manly s a tax ncentve for local authortes on a long-term bass, and not a tax ncentve for developers as they do not receve any tax reducton on a short-term bass, t does provde a drect fnancal ncentve for prvate property developers. Publc fundng wth TIFs mght reduce a prvate fnancng gap of prvate sector-led urban development projects. In that sense, they can be seen as any other publc development subsdy. Moreover, by means of the accountablty of prvate actors to delver mprovements and thereby ncrease the property values n general, prvate ánd publc actors could become more fnancally commtted to urban development projects. Ths partally solves the we aganst them relatonshp ssue mentoned earler n ths research as both actors have a stake to mnmze costs and to am for value ncrease. Then, can TIF be applcable for prvate sector-led urban development projects n specfc? We have to be cautous wth TIFs as an alternatve fnancng method for these knds of projects. There are serous rsks n not achevng the expected future tax ncrease under current economc crcumstances, as property values not necessarly always ncrease. Furthermore, Hagendjk (2011) argues that the effects of area-targeted TIFs on surroundng areas are a pont of nterest, at least for muncpaltes. Also, Hagendjk (2011) argues that TIFs are only usable n areas wth evdent market demand. Moreover, TIF opponents (see Clark & Huxley, 2009) argue that capturng tax ncrement and drectng t to repay the muncpal bonds mght obstruct the ncreased need for fnancng the future provson of publc servces n the TIF area. However, ths last argument fals n prvate sector-led urban development projects. Here, t s prvate actors who can provde these publc servces, and fnance has to be sought for ths from prvate resources. Nonetheless, future examples of TIFs n the Netherlands have to reveal f t really s an alternatve fnancng nstrument. 390 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Temporary Investment/Development Grants Clark & Huxley (2009: 31) argue that ths nvolves the ssue of a fnancal award to a deservng applcant for the delvery of a development project. These nvestment or development grants can be seen as dscretonary grants whch can be used by central government or local authortes to promote and realze certan plannng polcy objectves. For nstance, ths can nvolve the government fundng for development projects and programs whch am at revtalzng derelct neghborhoods, buldng sustanable urban areas, creatng jobs for the communty, renvestng n underused cty center locatons, and so on. Thus, n general, crtera apply for project developers to obtan these publc nvestment grants. In essence, these polcyorented development condtons provde opportuntes for publc actors to realze plannng ambtons on the one hand, and provde project developers wth temporary addtonal fnancng opportuntes for the project at hand. Moreover, these nvestment grants provde opportuntes to algn varous publc and prvate nterests. Although local authortes n the current economc clmate have dffcultes to provde such grants, they should consder ssung these grants to developers who am at developng publcly prortzed urban areas. However, n the lght of the upfront nvestment gap, I consder t crucal to pay an agreed amount of the fnancal award for developers at the outset of the development, whch forms a development ncentve. Otherwse, ths addtonal fnancng opton wll fal to reach the am of kck-startng such developments. Upon completon of the project, when results are montored by publc organzatons, developers may receve the remanng porton of the nvestment grant, accordng to the extent at whch they contrbuted towards delverng the ams as stated. Lottery Funds Accordng to Clark & Huxley (2009: 31) ths nvolves fundng from the purchase of lottery tckets by the general publc s utlzed to delver benefcal development projects. The general publc are ncentvzed by cash przes. Hence that Tallon (2009: 75) argues that a lot of 1990s regeneraton schemes n the UK have been funded by Natonal Lottery funds. Importantly, and n contrast to nvestment grants, these lottery funds are provded by cvc nsttutons prmarly whch have lnks to both publc and prvate organzatons. Therefore, they provde opportuntes to cross-fnance both cvc and publc or prvate development ambtons. For nstance, Hall (2001) noted that n the UK around 10,000 mllennum projects were funded by a combnaton of Natonal Lottery and prvate sector fundng across the areas of hertage, culture, arts, sports, the envronment and communty regeneraton (n Tallon, 2009: 75). An example of ths type of addtonal fnancng s gven n Chapter 6 wth the extensve descrpton of Brstol Harboursde case. In essence, lottery funds thus provde opportuntes to delver publc functons to be used by the general publc, and smultaneously they serve as addtonal nvestment gap brdgng mechansms for project developers as well. On the longer run, once these publc functons are realzed, they mght even result n a mxed-use development scheme. Such an ntegrated scheme on ts turn mght beneft the prvate real estate values of commercal offces and retal. Ths ncreases the long-term nvestment returns for developers, once they become the owners of real estate assets after project delvery. In our vew, therefore, lottery funds are a very 391 Eplogue

welcome mult-goal-orented fnancng mechansm for prvate sector-led urban development projects. Furthermore, local authortes can be nvolved to secure these funds, whle no publc fundng on the decreasng publc plannng budgets has to be made. DBFM / Concesson Lght Clark & Huxley (2009: 31) argue that Buld Operate Transfer (BOT) s a type of arrangement n whch the prvate sector bulds an nfrastructure [or urban development] project, operates t and eventually transfers ownershp of the project to the government. Tmescales are agreed by both partes and usually allow for the prvate sector operator to realze a reasonable return on ts ntal nvestment. As such, n our opnon the BOT does not classfy as an addtonal fnancng opportunty for prvate sector-led urban development projects. It rather can be seen as a varant of ths type of urban development projects (wthout prvate Desgn ) whch stll s based on large amounts of upfront prvate nvestment. Therefore, I propose to look more closely at related prvate sector-led models used n nfrastructure provsons such as Desgn Buld Fnance Mantan Lght (DBFM Lght), whch does not requre upfront prvate nvestment. Van Hejst et al. (2011: 2) n a report from Twynstra Gudde argue that ths nnovatve contractual arrangement can ease fnancal pressures n all knds of projects. DBFM Lght refers to a lghter verson of the commonly used DBFM contracts. Accordng to Van Hejst et al. (2011), one of the most mportant condtons for usng DBFMs for projects s that they requre a substantal amount of fnancal nvestment. For nstance, n general, DBFMs are not consdered as nvestment optons once the nfrastructure project s fnancal sum becomes lower than the so-called threshold sum (Dutch: drempelbedrag) of 60 mllon. However, on the contrary, Van Hejst et al. (2011) argue that examples n practce show that also for smaller development projects DBFMs can be used once they are based on fnancal ncentves. Moreover, takng nto consderaton the tendency towards a decreasng scale and ncreasng phasng of urban development projects wth the am of lowerng fnancal rsks, such a DBFM Lght approach mght be worthwhle to consder as an alternatve for urban concesson projects. But what actually s a DBFM Lght, how does t work? Van Hejst et al. (2011: 4) argue that the dfference between DBFM and DBFM Lght s the extent to whch prvate fnance s necessary. In essence, here the amount of prvate fnance s lmted; publc actors pay prvate actors an upfront total nvestment costs percentage (often 20%) and perodcal mantenance costs (every quarter of the year). Moreover, n the DBFM Lght prvate fnance not only s lmted, prvate actors work on the bass of the fnancal ncentve of publc actors payng the greater part or remanng total nvestment costs (often 80%) once the project s delvered. Nevertheless, n fact the remanng total nvestment costs stll requre a prvate upfront nvestment (wth prvate equty and/or credt captal), but they have been reduced to for nstance 80% as governments pay the remanng 20%. Therefore, both actors create fnancal nterdependences and project commtment. On the one hand, prvate developers n the frst place face less nvestment costs, and second rely on the remanng nvestment costs payment at project delvery. On the other hand, frst DBFM Lght functons as a guarantee for publc actors that the project s delvered under the condtons and performance ndcators agreed upon contractually by both actors, and second t creates publc project commtment as publc money s nvolved as well. Hence, mportant to notce 392 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

s that DBFM Lght requres the prvate actor to carry out mantenance work up tll the perod of project delvery. In urban development concessons that would nclude managng publc spaces and delverng nfrastructure. To cover the perodcal mantenance costs for the publc realm publc actors pay prvate actors an avalablty fee (Dutch: beschkbaarhedsvergoedng). Moreover, ths can solve the reoccurrng ssue n the studed concesson model cases n ths dssertaton; the delay of delverng publc realm functons n the same tme frame of the (fnshed) real estate or housng development. Here, developers get a fnancal ncentve to cover these costs once they delver accordng to the performance ndcators. Therefore, they probably become more wllng to carry out ths (non-proftable) work. Also, an addtonal reason mght be that prvate actors can nternally decde to use parts of these perodcal mantenance fees as fnance for delverng ther real estate. In concluson, Van Hejst et al. (2011: 10) argue that DBFM Lght has some advantages: Increase n publc and prvate project management/control; Prvate fnance optmzaton and project chan ntegraton; Perodcal fnancal ncentves for prvate actors to delver publc functons; Decrease of transacton costs; Smplfed organzatonal structures; Compact, recognzable, smplfed contractual agreements. In our vew, however, these advantages can only be acheved once the concesson projects are relatvely small scale. For these urban development projects, ths could nvolve gvng partal concessons to dfferent developers for gven areas wthn the entre development. Moreover, DBFM/Concesson Lght stll requres prvate nvestment, whch as we debated s lmted n ths perod. But credt captal for developers could well be provded more easly by banks once publc actors to some degree guarantee ther nvolvement n DBFM/Concesson Lght projects as well. Ths requres publc and prvate to fully understand the mportance of reachng agreement on (parts of) projects that are manageable and relatvely small scale. Also, t requres fnancal guarantees from local authortes. Once ths s the case, we consder DBFM/Concesson Lght to be a welcome fnancal nvestment alternatve for prvate sector-led urban development projects. Crowd Sourcng/Fundng Wth regard to the lmted prvate and publc fnancng optons, and the ncreased commtment of cvc organzatons and ndvduals to ther bult envronment, t can be consdered a logcal opton to nclude addtonal cvc fundng. Crowd sourcng or crowd fundng are such nstruments currently used for some small-scale development projects worldwde. Accordng to Howe (2008), crowd sourcng s a new web-based busness model that harnesses the creatve solutons of a dstrbuted network of ndvduals through what amounts to an open call for proposals. Crowd fundng than s consdered as an ntegratve part of crowd sourcng, n whch cvc actors fnancally contrbute to a development and thereby become shareholders of the project as well. Thus, be ntroducng the shareholder ncentve prvate actors mght attract addtonal fundng. Moreover, as Brabham (2009) and Freund (2010) argue, crowd sourcng or fundng can be seen as an actve publc partcpaton process whch stmulates nnovaton n development projects. Accordng to Brabham (2009), publc nvolvement wth the bult envronment can 393 Eplogue

be ncreased effectvely by usng crowd sourcng. The collecton of the publc nterests through an open source medum enables publc planners and prvate project leaders to harness collectve ntellect among a populaton Brabham (2009: 242). Crowd sourcng can be seen as an effectve dstrbuted problem solvng and producton model for busness, whch smultaneously can be seen as an approprate model for enablng the ctzen partcpaton process n (publc) plannng projects. Furthermore, Freund (2010) argues that crowd sourcng as an nstrument can brdge the barrers between economy and socology. They become nterrelated elements for development projects rather than opposng elements constantly under consderaton for trade-offs. However, crowd fundng as part of prvate sector-led urban development projects requres a more open character of the busness model and network-lke nteractons between multple partes n the process of nnovaton (Freund, 2010: 106). In ths regard, Straub (2012) argues that crowd fundng s merely a co-creaton technque that can be used to steer upon more fundamental value-creatng frm-consumer (or prvate-cvc) relatons n specfc demanddrven development contexts. Straub (2012) dentfes that throughout a development process not only stakeholder partcpaton but engagement s necessary to effectvely apply co-creaton. Straub (2012) ndcates that several success factors for constructve prvate-cvc co-creaton relatons and processes have to be taken nto account. For nstance, ths requres developers to rethnk ther often closed development models, becomng more transparent n ther actons. Moreover, cvc actors as shareholder become owners of parts of the development as well. Ths mght nclude publc functons or elements such as brdges, parks, streets and the lke. For local authortes n concesson projects ths nvolves provdng flexble gudelnes for cvc organzatons to mantan such publc functons. Therefore, n our vew, at least crowd fundng can be used wthn small scale prvate sectorled urban development projects n neghborhoods and brownfeld stes. It can be questoned whether crowd fundng rases substantal nvestment to fnance large urban development projects. Also, one can queston fundamentally f crowd sourcng as a cvc-orented development concept can actually be part of prvate sector-led urban development projects. Nevertheless, the only man dfference would be that the publc sector, after t has become the owner of publc space upon (prvate) project delvery, would transfer the mantenance of publc functons to a cvc crowd organzaton through a mantenance contract. Thereby, cvc actors can effectvely ncrease the economc ánd socal value of ther homes, workplace and surroundngs. Moreover, prvate actors are released from some of the upfront nvestment dffcultes for prvate sector-led urban development projects. And publc actors are released from some of the mantenance costs for the publc realm. Thus, by usng crowd sourcng as a publc partcpaton and engagement tool and crowd fundng as addtonal fnancal nvestment for urban development projects, prvate organzatons can develop more nnovatve products (urban areas), become more nnovatve organzatons, and use cvc credt captal nstead of bank credt captal to fnance projects. 394 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Urban Development Trusts Another nterestng example of prvate sector fnancng s the urban development trust (Dutch: gebedsfonds). Accordng to Peek (2011), urban development trusts are fnance models whch algn wth the ncreasng urban development emphass towards redevelopng, nvestng, managng and operatng the exstng real estate stock n a more comprehensve manner. As a concept, urban development trusts can be seen as a vehcle whch collects fnance from dfferent sources and uses them as for certan purposes. Peek (2011: 24) argues that wth urban development trusts, land and property development and the followng real estate operaton are lnked to the development and operaton of publc utlty functons [lke energy and water] and [prvate] park-management servces. Thus, urban development trusts combne a short-term fnance of urban development projects wth a long-term nvestment perspectve. Addtonal prvate fnance from nvestors for nstance than could be used to fnance prvate sector-led urban development projects. Moreover, these prvate nvestors could also be attracted from other sectors, such as the energy, water and health care sector. Thereby prvate fnance can be extended beyond tradtonal prvate developers and nvestors. A great advantage of ths approach s that also large scale prvate sector-led urban development projects could be started. Hence, the busness and nvestment models of prvate energy and utlty companes requre a substantal development mass and functon mx n order for urban projects to become feasble busness cases (Van der Post, 2011). Therefore, only large scale urban development projects seem to beneft from urban development trusts wth energy and utlty companes. Note that, n essence, n our vew urban development trusts embrace the changng emphass towards more demand-drven developments n whch prvate users and nvestors fnancally commt themselves to an urban area under development for a longer perod. Note, already n the Lverpool One case (Secton 7.3), and n the nspratonal lessons learned from the UK (Secton 8.3.1), we concluded that development nvestors rather than constructon developers have opportuntes to overcome the harsh proft return margns as a result of large amounts of prvate upfront nvestment. Hence, n urban development trusts, ths upfront nvestment s beng shared by several prvate companes whch releases the fnancal burden of each ndvdual trust holder, whle prvate ownershp of dfferent goods are dvded amongst the dfferent stakeholders. Therefore, n our vew, ths model potentally could be seen as a prvate fnancng nstrument. However, also some dsadvantages of the urban development trust potentally exst. Peek (2011: 24) for nstance argues that on the one hand ths busness model mght well result n less sales rsks and more ntegrated qualty through the wdenng of the busness model. But, on the other hand, urban development trusts requre partes from dfferent sectors who hardly are famlar wth each other to collaborate wth one another. Supposedly, ths s the bggest challenge for the cooperatng prvate stakeholders n prvate sector-led urban development projects. Hobma (2011) for nstance ndcated that effectve and effcent collaboraton and all ts related soft factors can be seen as thé success factor n urban development projects. Therefore, t requres a mentalty shft n the development sector and substantal transton tme for organzatons and postve cooperaton experences for the urban development trust to become a mature prvate fnancng mechansm. It remans to be seen whether ths wll take root n the current economc clmate, n whch most prvate banks and developers seem to avod nnovatve but rsk-laden development strateges. 395 Eplogue

Busness Improvement Dstrcts Busness Improvement Dstrcts (BIDs) are areas that receve government assstance for prvate nvestment n local busness envronments. As explaned n Secton 6.3.2, wthn BIDs essentally the prvate sector provdes publc goods n the cty center, and takes over some of the functons formerly provded by the state. Tallon (2009: 99) explans that street cleanng, street furnture and securty are provded through a supplemental tax (Dutch: OZBtoelage) pad by the prvate sector busness n the BID whch they mpose on, admnster and spend themselves. Hence, the overall am s to boost the BID s local economy. These BIDs are predomnantly found n retal spaces, offce parks, and busness areas (Dutch: bedrjventerrenen). Here busnesses have an nterest n mprovng the appearance and safety of an area (Tallon, 2009: 99). Thus, BIDs are n lne wth the prncples of prvate sector-led urban development projects. Moreover, n specfc, BIDs form opportuntes to fnance the redevelopment of exstng urban areas based on local busnesses and prvate entrepreneurs. Moreover, Agentschap NL (2012) ndcates that BIDs (Dutch: Bedrjven Investerng Zone, BIZ) are used already as fnancng constructons for urban development n the Netherlands (Hengelo, Bergen op Zoom, Rotterdam). Furthermore, the Dutch natonal government s wllng to experment wth BIDs as they ssued an Expermentenwet Bedrjven Investerng Zones. Ths law enables local busnesses to co-fnance the mprovement of clean, safe and qualty publc spaces through a busness trust (Dutch: ondernemersfonds). Local authortes assst local busnesses n establshng such busness trust. Publc and prvate actors need to reach agreement on the heght of the supplemental tax that s collected by the local authorty and drected towards the busness trust. Then, local busnesses realze the mprovement plans themselves based upon a commonly agreed upon mantenance plan. Despte the fact that prvate entrepreneurs and busnesses stand at the base of the fnance of area mprovements, BIDs are a lmted alternatve for fnancng prvate sector-led urban development projects. Hence, BIDs most often deal wth mprovng exstng areas, focused on mantanng publc areas. Ths lmts the possbltes for usng BIDs to (re)develop new urban areas. Moreover, BIDs often nvolve specfc mono-functonal objects such as retal and busness parks, whch mght lmt the applcablty for mxed-use developments. Nonetheless, the ncentve of mprovng urban areas, thereby beng able to attract consumers and tenants, ncreases the establshment of stable cash flows for busnesses. Moreover, for muncpaltes, BIDs reman cost neutral and mght even reduce overall publc servce costs, and smultaneously provde opportuntes to mprove areas under publc condtons. Urban Reparcellng An nterestng alternatve fnancng nstrument, or rather legal land use nstrument, n lne wth prvate sector-led urban development projects s urban reparcellng (Dutch: stedeljke herverkavelng). Here, property owners of a specfc area vrtually hand n ther propertes, wthout the use of muncpal expropraton (Dutch: ontegenng), and later receve a pece of land of equal value elsewhere n the area. The prncple of urban reparcellng centers around brngng exstng owned property and parcels n lne wth ntended development plans. Owners have the rght to obtan newly owned parcel after the government s legal parcellng revsonng. 396 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Ths process s guded by an ndependent commsson, and s based on fnancal settlements of cost and beneft systems amongst the owners. Especally, ths nstrument can be useful for complex nner-cty developments, but also for small urban frnge and greenfeld developments, and n specfc for retal areas. Accordng to the Praktjkleerstoel Gebedsontwkkelng TU Delft (2012a;b), urban reparcellng has the followng advantages: Handlng fragmented ownershp stuatons wthout usng expropraton nstruments; Amcable arrangements ncrease support among nvolved owners; Acceleraton, cost reductons, decreased poltcal rsks n development process; Decreased prvate fnancng burden due to late land and property acquston; Decouplng of land development and other publc-prvate arrangements. Accordng to the Praktjkleerstoel Gebedsontwkkelng TU Delft (PLG) (2012a;b) ths nstrument can stmulate prvate nvestments n ctes. Moreover, t fts wth the change from the actve to facltatng land development polces of Dutch muncpaltes. In essence, urban reparcellng s an nstrument that can smplfy development projects n a stuaton of fragmented land and property ownershp, wth less government nterference (Putten et al., 2004). Urban reparcellng has ts orgns n Germany (Umlegung) and France (Assocaton Fonçère Urbane), but also some early exploratons for future Dutch applcatons exst (see Putten et al., 2004). Currently, a Dutch expermental program for urban reparcellng has been announced (see PLG, 2012b). The program carres out expermental research on several Dutch development projects n order to recommend possbltes for ntroducng a regulaton by law (Dutch: wetteljke regelng) for urban reparcellng. Tme must tell whether such nstrument can reach aforementoned advantages. In prncple though, urban reparcellng can be a supportve legal nstrument to fnancally de-rsk prvate sector-led urban development projects, and therefore could be vewed as an alternatve fnancng nstrument. 10.2.3 Fnancng Instruments for Prvate Sector-led Urban Development In concluson, Table 10.3 shows eght dfferent alternatve fnancng nstruments for prvate sector-led urban development projects. Notce that the table ndcates the nvestment source, the type of development ncentve applcable, the organzatonal requrements needed to let these strateges become effectuated, and the object requrements of urban areas. Despte the seemngly smplcty of these nstruments, tme, experments and experences must tell whether these fnancng nstruments become successful and mature optons to (addtonally) fnance and de-rsk prvate sector-led urban development. Hence, our contrbuton to alternatve fnancng nstruments must be vewed as an addton to, and n lne wth, recommendatons for new nvestment and collaboraton strateges n urban development publshed by the Mnstry of Infrastructure and Envronment (Peek & Van Remmen, 2012). 397 Eplogue

Fnancng Instrument Tax Increment Fnancng (TIF) Temporary Investment Grants Lottery Funds DBFM / Concesson Lght Crowd Sourcng / Fundng Urban Development Trusts Busness Improvement Dstrcts Urban Reparcellng Investment Source Development Incentve Publc Fnancal / fscal ncentves Publc Plannng polcy Fnancal award Cvc / Publc Publc / Prvate Cvc / Prvate Prvate Prvate Prvate Cvc functons Real estate values Fnancal commtment Shareholder ownershp Shared nvestment Long-term operaton Shared nvestment Securng cash-flow Rsk reducton Prvate ownershp Table 10.3 Alternatve fnancng nstruments for prvate sector-led urban development Prvate Actor Requrements Lablty nsurance for value decrease Incorporatng publc objectves none Effectve management Area Requrements Redevelopment areas Problem areas Publc areas Small scale areas Publc partcpaton Small scale areas / publc areas Collaboraton wth other prvates Collaboraton wth other owners Collaboraton wth other owners Large scale mxed-use areas Retal, offce, busness areas Fragmented ownershp areas In concluson, we argue that t s worthwhle to experment wth these types of alternatve fnancng nstruments n urban development n the Netherlands. They provde opportuntes to move beyond more tradtonal development nvestment models such as land and real estate development. Nevertheless, they wll not occur n large numbers rght away, and other more promsng optons mght come to the foreground over tme. Moreover, n our opnon Van Haaren & Daamen (2011) rghtly argue that such fnancng nstruments wll not land as mature nvestment alternatves when they are not embedded n strategcally managed development processes, whch consttute new deas that enable the creaton of changed publc-prvate development atttudes. But, at least n our vew, statng that prvate sector-led urban development projects no longer are possble due to prvate fnance dffcultes s too smplstc seen n the lght of the presented optons n ths secton and the current quest n urban development practce. 398 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

399 Eplogue

400 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Summary Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects: Management, Partnershps and Effects n the Netherlands and the UK Erwn Heurkens MSc. Central to ths research lays the concept of prvate sector-led urban development projects (Heurkens, 2010). Such projects nvolve project developers takng a leadng role and local authortes adoptng a facltatng role, n managng the development of an urban area, based on a clear publc-prvate role dvson. Such a development strategy s qute common n Anglo- Saxon urban development practces, but s less known n Contnental European practces. Nonetheless, snce the begnnng of the mllennum such a development strategy also occurred n the Netherlands n the form of concessons. However, remarkably lttle emprcal knowledge s avalable about how publc and prvate actors collaborate on and manage prvate sector-led urban development projects. Moreover, t remans unclear what the effects of such projects are. Ths dssertaton provdes an understandng of the varous characterstcs of prvate sector-led urban development projects by conductng emprcal case study research n the nsttutonal contexts of the Netherlands and the UK. The research provdes an answer to the followng research queston: What can we learn from prvate sector-led urban development projects n the Netherlands and UK n terms of the collaboratve and manageral roles of publc and prvate actors, and the effects of ther (nter)actons? Indcatons for a market-orented Dutch urban development practce Urban development practce n the Netherlands has been subject to changes pontng towards more prvate sector nvolvement n the bult envronment n the past decades. Although the current economc recesson mght ndcate otherwse, there are several motves that ndcate a contnuaton of prvate sector nvolvement and a prvate leadershp role n Dutch urban development projects n the future. Frst, a shft towards more market-orented development practce s the result of an evolutonary process of ncreased neolberalzaton and the adopton of Anglo-Saxon prncples n Dutch socety. Despte ts Rhneland roots wth a focus on welfare provson, n the Netherlands several neolberal prncples (prvatzaton, decentralzaton, deregulaton) have been adopted by government and ncorporated n the management of organzatons (Bakker et al., 2005). Hence, market nsttutonalzaton on the one hand, and rsng cvc emancpaton on the other, n current Western socetes prevents a return towards herarchcal governance. Second, the result of such changes s the emergence of a market-orented type of plannng practce based on the concept of development plannng. Publc-Prvate Partnershps and the forward ntegraton of market partes (De Zeeuw, 2007) enforce the role of market actors. In hstorcal perspectve, Boelens et al. (2006) argue that Dutch spatal plannng always has been characterzed by publc-prvate collaboratons n whch governments facltated prvate and cvc entrepreneurshp. Therefore, post-war publc-led spatal plannng 401 Summary

wth necessary government nterventon was a temporary hccup, an excepton to the rule. Thrd, the European Commsson expresses concerns about the hybrd role of publc actors n Dutch nsttutonalzed PPP jont ventures. EU legslaton opts for formal publc-prvate role dvsons n realzng urban projects based on Anglo-Saxon law that comply wth the legslatve tenderng prncples of competton, transparency, equalty, and publc legtmacy. Fourth, experences wth jont ventures n the Netherlands are less postve as often s advocated. Such nsttutonalzed publc-prvate enttes have seldom generated the assumed added value, caused by msconceptons about the objectves of both partners grounded n ncompatble value systems. Ths results n contra-productve levels of dstrust, tme-consumng partnershp formatons, lack of transparency, and compromsng decson-makng processes (Tesman & Kljn, 2002), provdng a need for other forms of collaboraton. Fnally, current fnancal retrenchments n the publc sector and debates about the possble abundance of Dutch actve land development polces pont towards a lean and mean government that moves away from rsk-bearng partcpaton and nvestment n urban projects and leaves ths to the market. Importantly, Van der Krabben (2011b) argues that the Dutch actve publc land development polces can be consdered as an nternatonal excepton, and advocates for facltatng land development polces. In ths lght, t becomes hghly relevant to study prvate sector-led urban development as a future Dutch urban development strategy. Integratve urban management approach Ths research s rooted n the research school of Urban Area Development wthn the Department of Real Estate & Housng at the Faculty of Archtecture (Delft Unversty of Technology). It s a relatvely young academc doman whch vews urban development most profoundly as a complex management assgnment (Brul et al., 2004; Franzen et al., 2011). Ths academc school uses an ntegratve perspectve wth a strong practce-orentaton and carres out soluton-orented desgn research. Here, the ntegraton nvolves brdgng varous actor nterests, spatal functons, spatal scales, academc domans, knowledge and sklls, development goals, and lnks process wth content aspects. Such a perspectve does justce to complex socetal processes. Therefore t provdes a frutful ground for studyng urban development amed at developng conceptual knowledge and product for scence and practce. In order to create an understandng of the roles of publc and prvate actors n prvate sector-led urban development, ths research takes a management perspectve based on an ntegratve management approach. Ths nvolves vewng management more broadly as any type of drect nfluencng urban development projects, and therefore ams at brdgng often separated management theores (Osborne, 2000a). Hence, an ntegratve management approach asssts n both understandng urban development practces and projects and constructng useful conceptual tools for practtoners and academcs. Integratve approaches attempt to combne a number of dfferent elements nto a more holstc management approach (Black & Porter, 2000). Importantly, t does not vew the management of projects n solaton but n ts entre complexty and dynamcs. Therefore, our management approach combnes two ntegratve management theores; the open systems theory (De Leeuw, 2002) and contngency theory. The former provdes opportuntes to study the management of a project n a structured manner. The latter emphaszes that there s no unversally effectve way of managng and recognzes the mportance of contextual crcumstances. 402 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Hence, an ntegratve management approach favors ncorporatng theores from multple academc domans such as poltcal scence, economcs, law, busness admnstraton, and organzatonal and management concepts. Hence, t moves away from the classcal academc dvson between plannng theory and property theory, and organzaton and management theores. It postons tself n between such academc domans, and ams at brdgng theoretcal vewponts by followng the concept of plannng ánd markets (Alexander, 2001) rather than concepts such as plannng versus markets, publc versus prvate sector, and organzaton versus management. Also, such an ntegratve vew values the complexty and dynamcs of emprcal urban development practces. More specfcally, ths research studes urban development projects as object, as urban areas are the focus pont of spatal nterventon and publc-prvate nteracton (Daamen, 2010), and thus collaboraton and management. Here, publc plannng processes and prvate development processes merge wth each other. Thus, our research contnues to buld upon the mportance of studyng and reflectng on emprcal practces and projects (e.g. Healey, 2006). In addton to these authors, ths research does so by usng meanngful ntegratve concepts that reflect emprcal realtes of urban projects. Thereby, ths research serves to brdge management scences wth management practces (Van Aken, 2004; Mntzberg, 2010) through teratve processes of reflectng on scence and practce. Moreover, the ntegratve management approach appled n ths research asssts n fllng an academc gap, namely the lack of management knowledge about publc-prvate nteracton n urban development projects. Despte the vast amount of lterature on the governance of plannng practces (e.g. DGaetano & Strom, 2003), and Publc-Prvate Partnershps (e.g. Osborne, 2000b), remarkable lttle knowledge exsts about what shftng publc-prvate relatonshps mean for day-to-day management by publc and prvate actors n development projects. Hence, here we follow the man argument made by publc admnstraton scholar Kljn (2008) who clams that t s such drect actor nfluence that brngs about the most sgnfcant change to the bult envronment. An ntegratve urban management model (see Fgure 2.3) based on the open systems approach has been constructed whch forms a conceptual representaton of emprcal prvate sectorled urban development projects. Ths model serves as an analytcal tool to comprehend the complexty of managng such projects. In ths research, several theoretcal nsghts about publcprvate relatons and roles are used to understand dfferent contextual and organzatonal factors that affect the management of prvate sector-led urban development projects. Hence, a project context exsts wthn dfferent often country-specfc nsttutonal envronments (e.g. the Netherlands and UK). In ths research, contextual aspects that to a degree determne the way publc and prvate actors nter-organze urban projects, consst of economcs & poltcs, governance cultures, and plannng systems and polces. Hence, nsttutonal values are deeply rooted n socal welfare models (Nadn & Stead, 2008). For nstance, the dfferences between Anglo-Saxon and Rhneland model prncples also determne publc-prvate relatonshps. However, the process of neolberalzaton (Hackworth, 2007) and subsequent adaptaton of neolberal poltcal deologes (Harvey, 2005) has created qute smlar governance arrangements n Western countres. Nevertheless, nsttutonal rules ncorporated n plannng systems, laws and polces often reman country-specfc. But, market-orented plannng, nvolvng planners as market actors (Adams & Tesdell, 2010) 403 Summary

ntervenng and operatng wthn market systems, have become the most commonly shared feature of contemporary Western urban development practces (Carmona et al., 2009). In ths research, the project organzaton focuses on nsttutonal aspects and nterorganzatonal arrangements that structure Publc-Prvate Partnershps (Bult-Sperng & Dewulf, 2002). It nvolves studyng organzatonal tasks and responsbltes, fnancal rsks and revenues, and legal rules and requrements. Inter-organzatonal arrangements condton the way publc and prvate actors manage projects. Hence, such arrangements can be placed on a publc-prvate spectrum (Börzel & Rsse, 2002) whch ndcates dfferent power relatons n terms of publc and prvate autonomy and domnance (Savtch, 1997) n makng plannng decsons. These publc-prvate power relatons are reflected n dfferent Publc-Prvate Partnershp arrangements (Bennet et al., 2000) n urban development projects. As a result, n some contexts these partnershps arrangements are formalzed nto organzatonal vehcles or legal contracts, n others there s an emphass on nformal partnershps and nteracton. Management Actvtes Project Management Process Management Desgnng Plannng Operatng Negotatng Decsonmakng Intatng Communcatng Shapng Land Regulatng Stmulatng Capacty buldng Knowledge Captal Management Tools Management Instruments Management Resources Fgure SUM.1 Conceptual publc-prvate urban management model 404 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

The lack of management knowledge on prvate sector-led urban development projects, and our vew of management as any type of drect nfluencng, results n constructng a conceptual publc-prvate urban management model (see Fgure SUM.1). Ths model s based on both theoretcal concepts and emprcal reflecton. In ths research, the management of project processes by publc and prvate actors contans applyng both management actvtes and nstruments. Project management (Wjnen et al., 2004) ncludes development stage-orented ntatng, desgnng, plannng, and operatng actvtes. Process management (Tesman, 2003) ncludes nteracton-orented negotatng, decson-makng, and communcatng actvtes. Management tools consst of legal-orented shapng, regulatng, stmulatng, and capacty buldng plannng tools (Adams et al., 2004). And management resources consst of crucal necesstes (Bure, 1978) for realzng urban projects lke land, captal and knowledge. In essence, all these management measures can be appled by publc and prvate actors to nfluence (prvate sector-led) urban development projects. These management measures can be used by actors to reach project effects. In ths research, project effects are perceved as judgment crtera for ndcatng the success of the management of prvate sector-led urban development projects. They consst of cooperaton effectveness, process effcency, and spatal qualty. Effectveness nvolves the degree to whch objectves are acheved and problems are resolved. Effcency s the degree to whch the process s consdered as effcently realzng projects wthn tme and budget. Fnally, spatal qualty s the degree to whch the project contrbutes to respondng to user, experence and future values of nvolved actors (Hoojmejer et al., 2001). Such process and product effects are a crucal addton to understand the results of prvate sector-led urban development projects. Comparatve case study research usng a lesson-drawng method Ths research systematcally analyzes and compares prvate sector-led urban development cases n both the Netherlands and the UK n a specfc methodologcal way. In essence, ths study s an emprcal comparatve case study research usng a lesson-drawng method. Hence, case studes allow for an emprcal nqury that nvestgates a contemporary phenomenon wthn ts real lfe context (Yn, 2003). Such a qualtatve approach s very suted for the purposes of ths research as t enables revealng emprcal collaboratve and manageral mechansms wthn prvate sector-led urban development projects. The reason to nclude studyng the UK les s the fact that t can be consdered as a market-orented development practce, from whch valuable lessons can be drawn for the Netherlands. Thereby, ths research places tself n a longer tradton of Dutch nterests n UK plannng and development (e.g. Hobma et al., 2008). Hence, ths research ams at drawng lessons n the form of nspraton from practces and projects, as opposed to the more far-reachng transplantaton of spatal polces (e.g. Janssen-Jansen et al., 2008). However, n order to draw meanngful emprcal lessons there s a need to ndcate whether they are context-dependent or -ndependent. Ths requres systematcally comparng the nsttutonal plannng practces of both countres by ndcatng dfferences and smlartes between the Netherlands and the UK. Based on these methodologcal prncples ten Dutch and two UK of prvate sector-led urban development cases are selected and studed. The Dutch cases focus on scope over depth amed at sketchng the phenomenon of area concessons n both nner-cty and urban frnge projects. The UK cases focus on depth over scope amed at understandng the applcablty of a prvate sector-led approach n complex large-scale nner-cty projects. As technques the case study research uses document revews, sem-structured ntervews, project vsts, and data mappng. 405 Summary

Comparng Dutch and UK plannng and urban development practces The nsttutonal context of urban development n the Netherlands and the UK shows some structural dfferences, despte the fact that such contexts are often subject to change. For nstance, the Dutch plannng system uses Napoleonc codfed law based on a consttuton wth abstract law prncples as rule, and a lmted role of judcal power. The UK plannng system s based on Brtsh common law lackng a consttuton, and uses law-makng-as-we-go as judges act as law-makers. In terms of spatal plannng, the Netherlands s characterzed by bndng land use plans wthn a lmted-mperatve system based on legal certanty. Dutch spatal plannng can be labelled as permtted plannng based on comprehensve ntegratve model (Dühr et al., 2010) whch nvolves herarchcally coordnated and related publc sector spatal plans. UK spatal plannng has no bndng land use plan, places mportance on materal consderatons based on dscretonary authorty and flexblty. Hstorcally, UK s spatal plannng can be labelled as development-orented plannng based on a land use management model wth a focus on publc sector coordnated plannng polces. Moreover, Dutch and UK urban development also dffer n terms of publc and prvate roles n organzng and managng development (Heurkens, 2009). In the Netherlands, local governments are actve bodes usng spatal plans, actve land development polces and publc nvestment to develop ctes. The prvate sector often operates reactvely and s hstorcally focused on the physcal realzaton of projects. In general, publc-prvate decson-makng processes are based on reachng consensus, development project coordnaton typcally nvolves collaboraton models, and management s focused on process as product outcomes. In the UK, local government uses relatvely less regulatons and nvestment to develop ctes, thereby facltatng market partes. The development ndustry s a mature sector, actvely ntatng and nvestng n projects. Decson-makng s characterzed by negotatons, and the organzaton of projects s often based on a clear formal publc-prvate role dvson. Despte such a generc Dutch-UK comparson beng of crucal mportance to ths research, t does no justce to ncreasng smlartes between European plannng practces. Moreover, such nsttutonal contexts evolve as a result of changng plannng prortes n each country. For nstance, some basc characterstcs of the UK plannng system attracted the attenton of Dutch planners, ncludng comprehensve prncples for project coordnaton, prvate sector nvolvement and negotatons, optons for the settlement of plannng gan, packagng nterests, development-orented plannng, and dscreton for plannng decsons (Spaans, 2005). Hence, such more market-orented plannng prncples have become valuable and sometmes necessary mechansms to effectvely cope wth an ncreasngly less publc-led and more prvate sector-led Dutch urban development practce. Emprcal fndngs from Dutch prvate sector-led urban development cases Urban development practce n the Netherlands snce the year 2000 wtnessed an ncreased use of the concesson model. Hence, ths s the Dutch defnton for prvate sector-led urban development. It can best be characterzed as a contract form between publc and prvate partes whch nvolves the transfer of rsks, revenues, responsbltes for the plan, land and real estate development to prvate developers based on pre-defned set of publc requrements (Gjzen, 2009). In theory (Van Rooy, 2007; Van de Klundert, 2008; Heurkens et al., 2008) ths collaboraton model holds promsng advantages of beng a more effectve, effcent and transparent strategy to acheve a hgh qualty bult envronment. Nonetheless, possble dsadvantages lke the lack of publc steerng, dependency of market actors 406 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

and crcumstances, nflexble contracts, a project management orentaton, and a stern publc-prvate relatonshp also are mentoned. Moreover, condtons for the applcaton of concessons n theory nvolve a manageable project scale and duraton, mnmal poltcal and socetal complexty, and maxmum freedom for prvate actors. Motves for choosng concessons are the lack of publc labor capacty and fnancal development means, rsk transfer to prvate actors, ncreasng prvate ntatves and prvate land ownershp. Hence, n theory publc and prvate roles n the concesson model are consdered as strctly separated. However, there s a lack of structural emprcal understandng and evdence for such theoretcal assumptons. Therefore, emprcal cases n Amsterdam, The Hague, Enschede, Maasslus, Mddelburg, Naaldwjk, Rotterdam, Tlburg, Utrecht, and Velsen (see Table 5.1) are carred out. Ths ncludes studyng prvate sector-led projects n both nner-cty and urban frnge locatons. The man conclusons based on cross-case study fndngs of these ten Dutch projects are hghlghted here. Notce that publc-prvate nteracton and collaboraton remans of vtal mportance n Dutch prvate sector-led urban development projects. Despte the formal contractual separaton of publc and prvate tasks and responsbltes, n practce close nformal cooperaton can be wtnessed, especally n the early development stages. Moreover, publc actors do not reman as rsk free as theory suggests, because unfavorable market crcumstances can cause development delays affectng the lvng envronment of nhabtants. Furthermore, t seems that constructng and usng flexble publc requrements wth some non-negotable rules s an effectve condton for realzng publc objectves durng the process. In terms of management, most projects are hardly consdered as solely prvate sector-led, as they nvolve a substantal amount of publc management nfluence. For nstance, project management actvtes nclude a domnant role of muncpaltes n ntatng and operatng the development. Process management actvtes are carred out by both actors, as they nvolve close publc-prvate nteractons. Management tools are mostly used by publc actors to shape and regulate development wth a lmted conscous usage of stmulatng and capacty buldng tools. Usng the management resources land, captal and knowledge are manly a prvate affar. In terms of effects, the concesson model by actors s consdered as an effectve nstrument, but not necessarly results n effcent processes. The general percepton of publc, prvate and cvc actors about the project s spatal qualty level s postve. In addton, actors were asked about ther cooperaton experences. Often mentoned problems nclude a we aganst them relatonshp, lack of publc role consstency, thn lne between plan judgment and control, publc manager s commtment and competency, communcaton wth local communtes, and lack of publc management opportuntes. Based on the emprcal case studes, most condtons for applyng concessons are confrmed. However, the successful nner-cty development projects n Amsterdam and Enschede ndcate that a prvate sector-led approach can also be appled to more complex urban development projects wthn ctes. Emprcal fndngs from UK s prvate sector-led urban development cases Urban development practce n the UK often s labelled as urban regeneraton. Hstorcally, t s strongly shaped by neolberal poltcal deology of the Conservatve Thatcher government n the 1980s. But t also s nfluenced by New Labour deologes favorng the Thrd Way (Gddens, 1998) amed at algnng economc, socal and envronmental polces. However, as a result of these nsttutonal characterstcs, the UK s strongly shaped by the understandng that most development s undertaken by prvate nterests or by publc bodes actng very much 407 Summary

lke prvate nterests (Nadn et al., 2008). In general, local authortes depend on ntatves and nvestments of property developers and nvestors, because publc fnancal resources and plannng powers to actvely develop land are lmted. As a result, development control of prvate developments s a concept deeply embedded n development practce. Several legal nstruments such as Secton 106 agreements are used to establsh plannng gan by askng developer contrbutons for publc functons. Moreover, urban development n the UK has a strong nformal partnershp culture, and smultaneously bulds upon a strct formal legal publc-prvate role dvson. These UK urban development practce characterstcs provde vald reasons to study prvate sector-led urban development projects n more detal. The emprcal cases of prvate sector-led urban development projects n the UK are Brstol Harboursde and Lverpool One. They represent md-2000s strategc nner-cty developments wth a mxed-use functonal program, and therefore possble hgh complexty. As such, they are relevant urban projects for drawng lessons for the Netherlands. The man conclusons based on cross-case study fndngs of the UK projects are dscussed here. The case contexts show that poltcs and the often changeable nature of plannng polces can have a major nfluence on the organzaton and management of development projects. Hence, strong and effectve poltcal leadershp s consdered as a crucal success factor. Changng polces result n re-establshng development condtons resultng n new publcprvate negotatons. In terms of organzaton, the cases ndeed show that local authortes do not take on development rsks. Moreover, revenue sharng wth prvate actors s absent or lmted to what the actors agree upon n development packages. Furthermore, local authortes encourage all knds of partnershps wth other publc, prvate or cvc stakeholders n order to generate development support and rase funds. In terms of management, local authortes use dfferent management measures to nfluence projects. The cases ndcate that publc actors are able to nfluence prvate sector-led developments and thereby acheve publc plannng objectves. Importantly, publc actors use all knds of managng tools to shape and stmulate development; they do not lmt themselves to regulaton but also buld capacty for development. However, the largest share of managng the project takes place on behalf of project developers. Prvate actors manage projects from ntal desgn towards even publc space operaton (Lverpool). Thereby, they work wth long-term nvestment busness models ncreasng prvate commtment. In terms of effects, the cases show that although the projects are carred out effectvely and acheve hgh qualty levels, the process effcency lacks behnd due to lengthy negotatons. In concluson, the actors experences wth the prvate sector-led urban development projects ndcate some problems ncludng; the fnancal dependency on prvate actors, lack of fnancal ncentves for publc actors, lack of awareness of cvc demands, lack of controllng publc opposton, long negotaton processes, and absence of sklled publc managers. Moreover, the actors ndcate some crucal condtons for a prvate sectorled approach ncludng; flexble general publc gudelnes, nformal partnershps and jont workng, publc and prvate leadershp roles and sklls, professonal atttude and long term commtment of prvate actors, nvolvement of local communtes, separatng publc plannng and development roles, handlng poltcal pressures, and favorable market crcumstances. Emprcal lessons, mprovements and nspraton Some general conclusons from the Dutch and UK case comparson can be drawn (see Table 8.1). The nfluence of the project s context n the UK seems to be hgher than n the 408 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Netherlands, especally poltcal powers and changeable polces nfluence projects. The organzatonal role dvson n UK projects seems to be strcter than n the Dutch projects, where publc requrements sometmes are also formulated n more detal. The actor s management n the Dutch cases s slghtly less prvate sector-led than n the UK, where local authortes and developers are more aware of how to use management measures at ther dsposal. The project effects show qute some resemblance; effectveness and spatal qualty can be acheved, whle effcency remans dffcult to acheve due to the negotaton culture. Here, mportant emprcal lessons learned from cases n both countres are dscussed amed at formulatng possble solutons for perceved Dutch problems. The problematc Dutch we aganst them relatonshp between actors n the UK s handled by a close collaboraton. Developers organze regular nformatve and nteractve desgn meetngs wth local authortes, sharng deas n a jont-up workng atmosphere. The lack of publc role consstency n the UK s resolved by local authortes that develop a clear schedule of spatal requrements whch provdes certanty. Moreover, room for negotatons allows for the flexblty to react on changed crcumstances. The thn lne between judgment and control of plans s not commonly recognzed n the UK cases. Local authortes tend to respect that developers need room to carry out development actvtes on ther own professonal nsghts, and merely control f developers delver product specfcatons n tme and to agreed condtons. The commtment and competences of publc project managers are also mentoned as crucal factors n the UK. It nvolves managers connectng the project to the poltcal and cvc envronment, and leaders commttng themselves to project support through communcaton wth local communtes. The lack of publc management seems to be a Dutch perceved dffculty as UK local authortes do not apply actve land development polces and hard management resources. Therefore, they nfluence development wth both more conscously appled legal tools and soft management sklls such as negotatng. Recommended mprovements mentoned by Dutch practtoners here are mrrored to possble support from the UK cases. The Dutch recommendaton to cooperate n pre-development stages to create publc project support and commtment fnds support n the UK. Hence, despte a formal dvson of publc and prvate responsbltes, n practce a lot of nformal publc-prvate nteracton and collaboraton takes place and seems necessary. Strvng for publc role consstency also s an apprecated value by developers n the UK. Workng on the prncple of agreement s agreement creates certanty for developers, and less resstance and wllngness to cooperate once hghly relevant publc ssues are put on the table. Establshng clear process agreements wth moments of control or dscusson n the UK are handled wth evaluaton moments amed at judgng output, and planned meetngs amed at creatng a dalogue about new nsghts. Connectng plannng and development processes n the UK s handled by a muncpal team consstng of poltcal leaders and project managers that algn development processes wth admnstratve plannng processes. A clear communcaton plan to nvolve local communtes and busnesses n the UK s handled by developers whch nvolve relevant stakeholders n the decson-makng process pror to plannng applcatons for support and process effcency. Fndng publc opportuntes to nfluence development other than land and captal n the UK s handled through the use of several publc plannng tools and publcprvate negotatons. 409 Summary

The UK cases also provded varous nspratonal lessons for the Netherlands. Frst, the constructon and applcaton of a publc management toolbox consstng of varous plannng tools that shape, stmulate, regulate and actvate the market could assst local authortes to vew management more ntegratvely and use exstng nstruments more conscously. Second, choosng a prvate development partner wth professonal expertse, track record and local knowledge, nstead of an economcally lucratve prvate tender offer for prvate sector-led urban development projects, has the advantage of creatng a cooperatve relatonshp. The reason for ths s that flexble development concepts rather than fxed development plans are ndcators of a cooperatve atttude of a developer. Thrd, enablng partnershp agreements between publc, prvate and cvc actors amed at creatng wde support and long-term commtment by expressng development ntentons asssts pullng together development resources from both nvestors and central government. Fourth, prvately-owned publc space based on a land lease agreement contanng publc space condtons creates several fnancal advantages. For local authortes t elmnates publc mantenance costs, and for prvate actors the operaton of the area and mantanng hgh qualty standards can be benefcal for real estate sales and returns. Ffth, the value ncrease-orented nvestment model of a long-term prvate development nvestor rather than a short-term project-orented developer wth a trade-off model between tme, costs and qualty has advantages. Large amounts of upfront nvestment can more easly be fnanced as hgh qualty envronments and propertes ncrease the area s compettve poston and nvestment returns. Sxth, local authortes can establsh partnershps that actvely apply for publc fundng alternatves such as lottery funds. Such funds secure the development of publc functons and create nterest for commercal actors to nvest, whch can result possbltes to negotate development packages whch can results n a plannng gan for publc actors. Seventh, publc and prvate leadershp styles on dfferent organzatonal levels for nner-cty development projects result n more effcent processes. Appontng strategctactcal operatng poltcal leaders and prvate frm drectors and tactcal-operatonal publc and prvate project leaders streamlnes nternal and external communcaton and shared project commtment and support. Fnally, the UK shows that a prvate sector-led approach can successfully be appled to complex nner-cty developments. Despte the complex socal and poltcal character, fragmented land ownershp stuaton, and hgh remedaton costs UK developers can delver such projects succesfully. Condtons seem a professonally sklled and fnancally empowered developer, and actve local authortes that facltate market ntatves. The lkelhood of transfer of the nspratonal UK lessons depends on some Dutch nsttutonal characterstcs (economcs & poltcs, governance culture, plannng system and polces). However, most lessons are context-ndependent and thus can be appled n the Dutch urban development practce. But, Table 8.2 also shows some nsttutonal context-dependent features that lmt the transfer of UK fndngs to the Netherlands. Ths ncludes the general short-term scope of Dutch developers and the general wsh from muncpaltes to hold control over development projects. Reflectons on safeguardng publc nterests & alternatve fnancng nstruments The eplogue contans conceptual reflectons about alternatve ways for safeguardng publc nterests and prvate fnancng nstruments n lne wth the current socal-economc clmate. These reflectons are not based on research fndngs but on an addtonal lterature revew that provdes food for thought for publc and prvate actors n urban development. 410 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Hence, safeguardng publc nterests s an mportant concern for publc actors, especally n market-orented plannng and prvate sector-led urban development projects. In our pluralstc socety t has become mpossble for one actor to determne the publc nterest n all occasons. In lne wth socetal development t would not only be socally-coherent for governments to engage prvate and cvc actors n safeguardng publc nterests, but even a socal necessty. Conscously applyng dfferent publc nterest safeguardng strateges based on both herarchcal, market and network mechansms (De Brujn & Dcke, 2006) provde ths opportunty. By usng a combnaton of legtmzed herarchcal mechansms, compettonorented market mechansms, and nter-acton orented network mechansms, publc values become nsttutonalzed n prvate and cvc sectors. Then, the role of publc plannng nsttutons n safeguardng ncreasng economc values, socal coheson and publc health s to use both legtmate plannng tools and accountable plannng actvtes. It enables other actors to become both more responsble for and nvolved n ther own bult envronment. In market-orented plannng and prvate sector-led urban projects, safeguardng publc nterest nstruments nclude non-negotable general plannng standards whch secure basc needs of cvlans, and negotable development condtons whch create nvolvement of other actors. Non-negotable safeguardng nstruments nclude; publc tender requrements, land use plans, plannng permssons and fnancal clams. Negotable safeguardng nstruments nclude; contractual condtons, compettve dalogues, spatal qualty plans, developer contrbutons, development ncentves, performance ndcators, and ownershp (see Fgure 10.2). The relance of prvate nvestment n prvate sector-led urban development projects asks for explorng alternatve fnancng nstruments for urban projects wth less relance on credt captal. Ths s a crucal subject beng the result of the effect the current economc stuaton has on the land and property market. Hence, t s wdely acknowledged that n many development practces around the globe property nvestment for urban development has changed radcally as a result of the nternatonal credt crss and economc downturn (Parknson et al., 2009). New fnancal models have the attenton of several Dutch practtoners (e.g. Van Rooy, 2011) and academcs (e.g. Van der Krabben, 2011b). In the current Dutch urban development practce, one notces an ncreased nterest n demand-drven development strateges promotng; bottom-up development ntatves, value-orented nvestment strateges, and de-rsked phasng of development, whch potentally ncrease the feasblty of urban projects. A lterature revew ndcates promsng alternatve fnancng nstruments for Dutch urban development practce and prvate sector-led urban development projects, ncludng; Tax Increment Fnancng, Temporary Development/Investment Grants, Lottery Funds, DBFM/ Concesson Lght, Crowd Fundng, Urban Development Trusts, Busness Improvement Dstrcts, and Urban Reparcellng. These nstruments have dfferent features such as nvestment source, development ncentves, organzatonal requrements and object condtons, whch need to be taken nto account by publc and prvate actors once appled (see Table 10.3). 411 Summary

412 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Samenvattng Prvaat-gestuurde Gebedsontwkkelng: Sturng, Samenwerkng en Effecten n Nederland en Engeland Ir. Erwn Heurkens Centraal n dt onderzoek staat het concept van prvaat-gestuurde gebedsontwkkelng (Heurkens, 2010). In zulke projecten nemen projectontwkkelaars een ledende rol en lokale overheden een faclterende rol n het sturen van de ontwkkelng van een gebed gebaseerd op een dudeljke publek-prvate rolverdelng. Zo n ontwkkelstratege s vrj gebrukeljk n Angelsakssche ontwkkelpraktjken maar mnder bekend op het Europese vaste land. Snds de eeuwwsselng zen we deze ontwkkelstratege nettemn ook n Nederland opkomen n de vorm van gebedsconcesses. Er s echter opvallend weng emprsche kenns beschkbaar over de maner waarop publeke en prvate actoren n prvaat-gestuurde gebedsontwkkelng samenwerken en sturen. Bovenden bljft het ondudeljk wat de effecten van zulke projecten zjn. Dt proefschrft verschaft nzcht n de verschedenhed aan karaktersteken van prvaatgestuurde gebedsontwkkelng door mddel van het utvoeren van emprsch case onderzoek n zowel de Nederlandse en Engelse nsttutonele context. Het onderzoek geeft antwoord op de volgende onderzoeksvraag: Wat kunnen we leren van prvaat-gestuurde gebedsontwkkelng n Nederland en Engeland n termen van de samenwerkngs- en managementrollen van publeke en prvate actoren, en de effecten van hun (nter)actes? Indcates voor een Nederlandse marktgerchte gebedsontwkkelngspraktjk In de afgelopen decenna s de Nederlandse gebedsontwkkelngspraktjk onder nvloed van veranderngen de wjzen op meer prvate betrokkenhed n de gebouwde omgevng. Ondanks dat de hudge economsche recesse wellcht anders doet vermoeden, zjn er verschllende moteven de wjzen op een contnuerng van prvate betrokkenhed en lederschapsrol n toekomstge stedeljke projecten n Nederland. Ten eerste, s de tendens naar een marktgerchte gebedsontwkkelngspraktjk te plaatsen n een evolutonar proces van neolberalsate en de overname van Angelsakssche prncpes n de Nederlandse maatschappj. Ondanks de Rjnlandse oorsprong met een focus op welvaartspredng, zjn er n Nederland verschllende neolberale prncpes (prvatserng, decentralsate, deregulate) door overheden doorgevoerd en geland n organsates (Bakker e.a., 2005). Marktnsttutonalserng aan de ene kant en een stjgende burgeremancpate aan de andere kant voorkomen n hudge Westerse samenlevngen n fete een terugkeer naar hërarchsche overhedssturng. Ten tweede, s het gevolg van zulke veranderngen het ontstaan van marktgerchte types van plannng gebaseerd op het ontwkkelngsplanologe concept. Publek-prvate samenwerkng en voorwaartse ntegrate van marktpartjen (De Zeeuw, 2007) versterkt de rol van marktpartjen. Boelens e.a. (2006) betogen dat de Nederlandse rumteljke ordenng n hstorsch perspectef altjd al gekenmerkt werd door publek-prvate samenwerkngen, waarn overheden prvaat een partculer ondernemerschap 413 Samenvattng

faclteerden. Daarom kan de naoorlogse rumteljke overhedssturng eerder gezen worden als noodzakeljke tjdeljke ntervente welke beter beschouwd kan worden als utzonderng dan regel. Ten derde plaats de Europese Commsse vraagtekens bj de hybrde rol van Nederlandse gemeenten n jont ventures. EU wetgevng opteert voor een formele publekprvate rolschedng n rumteljke projecten gebaseerd op Angelsakssche prncpes van compette, transparante, geljkhed en publeke legtmtet. Ten verde, zjn de Nederlandse ervarngen met jont ventures net altjd postef. Zelden hebben zulke publek-prvate partnerschappen de veronderstelde toegevoegde waarde gegenereerd wat veroorzaakt ljkt te worden door onoverbrugbaar verschllende publeke en prvate waardesystemen. Dt resulteert vaak n onproducteve nveaus van wantrouwen, tjd consumerende formates, gebrek aan transparante en comproms beslutvormngsprocessen (Tesman & Kljn, 2002) wat de noodzaak voor de toepassng van andere samenwerkngsvormen groter maakt. Ten slotte wjzen hudge overhedsbezungngen en debatten over het mogeljke afstand nemen van het acteve gemeenteljke grondbeled op een overhed de rscovolle partcpate en rumteljke nvesterngen meer aan marktpartjen overlaat. Van der Krabben (2011b) betoogt dat actef grondbeled nternatonaal gezen een utzonderng s en plet ook voor een faclterend grondbeled. In dt lcht s het hoogst relevant om prvaat-gestuurde gebedsontwkkelng als mogeljke toekomstge Nederlandse ontwkkelstratege te bestuderen. Integrale stedeljke management benaderng Dt onderzoek vndt plaats bnnen de onderzoeksschool Gebedsontwkkelng (Afdelng Real Estate & Housng, Facultet Bouwkunde, TU Delft). Het s een relatef jong academsch domen dat stedeljke ontwkkelng zet als een complexe managementopgave (Brul e.a., 2004; Franzen e.a., 2011). Deze academsche school hanteert een ntegraal perspectef met een sterke praktjkorëntate enmaakt gebruk van ontwerpend oplossngsgercht onderzoek. Integrate betreft her het verbnden van verschllende actorbelangen, ontwkkeldoelen, rumteljke functes en schaalnveaus, wetenschapsdomenen, kenns en kunde, en proces en nhoud. Zo n perspectef doet recht aanhet begrjpen van complexe maatschappeljke processen. Het bedt een goede bass voor het bestuderen van stedeljke ontwkkelng met als doel het ontwerpen van conceptuele kenns en producten voor wetenschap en praktjk. Om nzcht en grp te krjgen op de rollen van publeke en prvate actoren n prvaat-gestuurde gebedsontwkkelng kest dt onderzoek een management perspectef gebaseerd op een ntegrale management benaderng. Hern wordt management breder bekeken en gezen als engerle maner van drect beïnvloeden van gebedsontwkkelngsprojecten met de bedoelng om vaak gescheden managementtheoreën (Osborne, 2000a) te koppelen. Een ntegrale management benaderng asssteert n het tegeljkertjd begrjpen van praktjken en projecten van gebedsontwkkelng en ontwerpen van conceptuele handvaten voor professonals en academc. Integrale benaderngen proberen een aantal verschllende elementen te combneren n een meer holstsche management benaderng (Black & Porter, 2000). Belangrjk herbj s dat de sturng van projecten net n solate maar n zjn volledge complextet en dynamek wordt beschouwd. Daarom combneert onze management benaderng twee ntegrale management theoreën; de open systeem theore (De Leeuw, 2002) en de contngente theore. De eerste bedt mogeljkheden om management van projecten op een structurerende wjze te bestuderen. De laatste benadrukt dat er geen unverseel effecteve maner van managen s en erkent het belang van contextuele omstandgheden. 414 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Een ntegrale management benaderng bevordert het ncorporeren van theoreën ut dverse academsche domenen zoals poltcologe, econome, recht, bestuurskunde en organsate en management studes. Bovenden dstanteert het zch van de klasseke academsche schedng tussen planologe en vastgoed theore en organsate en management theore. Het postoneert zchzelf tussen deze domenen en rcht zch op het verbnden van theoretsche zenswjzen doordat deze benaderng het concept van plannng én markten (Alexander, 2001) volgt, n plaats van planologe versus de markt, de publeke versus prvate sector, en organsate versus management. Ook waardeert de ntegrale benaderng de complextet en dynamek van emprsche gebedsontwkkelngspraktjken. Meer specfek staat n dt onderzoek de bestuderng van gebedsontwkkelngsprojecten als object centraal, omdat gebeden de focus van rumteljke ntervente en publek-prvate samenwerkng zjn (Daamen, 2010). Her komen publeke planprocessen en prvate ontwkkelngsprocessen samen. Dt onderzoek bouwt daarom voort op de relevante van het bestuderen van en reflecteren op emprsche praktjken en projecten (Healey, 2006). In aanvullng op deze auteurs wordt er n dt onderzoek gebruk gemaakt van znvolle ntegrale concepten welke de realtet van projecten reflecteren. Daarbj dent dt onderzoek ook als overbruggng van management als wetenschap en praktjk (Van Aken, 2004; Mntzberg, 2010) door mddel van een teratef proces van theore-praktjk reflectes. Bovenden helpt een toegepaste ntegrale management benaderng n het vullen van een kenns lacune, nameljk het gebrek aan managementkenns over publek-prvate samenwerkng bj gebedsontwkkelng. Ondanks de vele lteratuur over de governance van plannngspraktjken (DGaetano & Strom, 2003) en publek-prvate samenwerkng (Osborne, 2000b), bestaat er opvallend weng kenns over wat een veranderende publek-prvate relate betekent voor de dageljkse publeke en prvate sturng van gebedsontwkkelngsprojecten. Her volgen we een belangrjk argument gemaakt door bestuurskundge Kljn (2008) de beweert dat het zulke drecte actor-nvloeden zjn de de meest sgnfcante veranderng n de gebouwde omgevng tot stand brengen. Een ntegraal stedeljk management model (ze Fguur 2.3) gebaseerd op de open systeembenaderng vormt een conceptuele afbeeldng van emprsche prvaat-gestuurde gebedsontwkkelng. Dt analytsche model s een mddel om de sturngscomplextet van zulke projecten te begrjpen. In dt onderzoek worden dverse theoretsche nzchten over publekprvate relates en rollen gebrukt om de uteenlopende contextuele en organsatorsche factoren, welke het managen van prvaat-gestuurde gebedsontwkkelngsprojecten kunnen beïnvloeden, te begrjpen. De project context bestaat bnnen verschllende vaak land specfeke nsttutonele omgevngen (bjvoorbeeld Nederland en Verengd Konnkrjk). In dt onderzoek bepalen contextuele aspecten tot op zekere hoogte de maner waarop publeke en prvate partjen projecten organseren. Ze bestaan ut econome & poltek, governance culturen en plannng systemen en beled. Insttutonele waarden zjn bovenden geworteld n socale welvaart systemen (Nadn & Stead, 2008). De verschllen tussen Angelsakssche en Rjnlandse model prncpes bjvoorbeeld bepalen publek-prvate relates. Nettemn hebben neolberalserng (Hackworth, 2007) en verankerng van neolberale polteke deologeën (Harvey, 2005) geled tot het bestaan van vergeljkbare Westerse governance arrangementen. Toch bljven nsttutonele regels n plannng systemen, wetgevng en beled vaak land specfek. Nettemn vormt marktgerchte plannng waarn planologen als marktpartjen (Adams & Tesdell, 415 Samenvattng

2010) ntervenëren en handelen bnnen marktsystemen een veel voorkomend en gedeeld kenmerk van hudge plannngspraktjken n Westerse landen (Carmona e.a., 2009). In dt onderzoek rcht de project organsate zch op nsttutonele aspecten en nterorgansatorsche arrangementen welke publek-prvate samenwerkng structureren (Bult-Sperng & Dewulf, 2002). Het bestaat ut en bestudeert organsatorsche taken en verantwoordeljkheden, fnancële rsco s en opbrengsten, en jurdsche regels en condtes. Inter-organsatorsche arrangementen condtoneren de maner waarop publeke en prvate partjen sturen. Zulke arrangementen kunnen geplaatst worden op een publek-prvaat spectrum (Börzel & Rsse, 2002) welke verschllende machtsrelates herbergen. Dt ut zch n de mate van publeke en prvate autonome en domnante (Savtch, 1997) over rumteljke beslutvormng. Deze machtsrelates landen n verschllende publek-prvate samenwerkngsverbanden (Bennet e.a., 2000). Als gevolg hervan wordt samenwerkng gearrangeerd n formele organsates en contracten of vertaald n nformele partnerschappen en nteractes. Management Actvteten Project Management Proces Management Plannen Beheren Onderhandelen Beslssen Ontwerpen Intëren Communceren Vormgeven Grond Reguleren Stmuleren Geld Actveren Kenns Management Tools Management Instrumenten Management Mddelen Fgure SAM.1 Conceptueel publek-prvaat stedeljk sturngsmodel 416 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Het gebrek aan management kenns over prvaat-gestuurde gebedsontwkkelng en onze zenswjze op management als engerle maner van drect beïnvloeden resulteren n een conceptueel publek-prvaat stedeljk sturngsmodel (ze Fguur SAM.1) welke gebaseerd s op theoretsche concepten en emprsche reflecte. In dt onderzoek bestaat het publekprvaat sturen van project processen ut het toepassen van zowel management actvteten als nstrumenten. Project management (Wjnen e.a., 2004) betreft actvteten gerelateerd aan het ontwkkelngsproces zoals ntëren, ontwerpen, plannen en beheren. Proces management (Tesman, 2003) bestaat ut nteracte-actvteten zoals onderhandelen, beslssen en communceren. Management tools bestaan ut markten vormgeven, reguleren, stmuleren en actveren (Adams e.a., 2004). Management mddelen bestaan ut benodgdheden voor de realsate van rumteljke projecten (Bure, 1978) zoals grond, geld en kenns. Al deze sturngsmddelen kunnen ngezet worden door partjen om prvaat-gestuurde gebedsontwkkelng te beïnvloeden. Deze sturngsmddelen worden gebrukt om project effecten te bereken. In dt onderzoek worden effecten beschouwd als beoordelngscrtera voor het succesvol managen van prvaatgestuurde gebedsontwkkelngsprojecten. Ze bestaan ut de effectvtet van samenwerkng, proces effcënte en rumteljke kwaltet. Effectvtet betreft de mate waarn de samenwerkng bjdraagt aan het realseren van doelen en oplossen van problemen. Ef fcënte s de mate waarn het proces bjdraagt aan het realseren van het project bnnen tjd en budget. Rumteljke kwaltet ten slotte s de mate waarn het project bjdraagt aan het realseren van gebruks-, ervarngs- en toekomstwaarden van betrokkenen (Hoojmejer e.a., 2001). Deze proces en product effecten zjn crucaal voor het begrjpen van de resultaten van prvaatgestuurde gebedsontwkkelng. Vergeljkend case stude onderzoek gebrukmakend van de lessen-leren methode Dt onderzoek analyseert en vergeljkt prvaat-gestuurde gebedsontwkkelng cases n zowel Nederland en Engeland op een bepaalde methodologsche wjze. In methodologsche zn s dt een emprsch vergeljkend case stude onderzoek welke gebruk maakt van de methode van lessen trekken. Case studes staan emprsch onderzoek toe dat een hudg fenomeen n zjn werkeljkhed bestudeert (Yn, 2003). Deze kwaltateve benaderng past bj de doelstellngen van dt onderzoek omdat het emprsche mechansmen van samenwerkng en management van prvaat-gestuurde gebedsontwkkelng ontrafeld. De reden om Engeland te bestuderen lgt n het fet dat het beschouwd wordt als een marktgerchte ontwkkelngspraktjk waarut waardevolle lessen voor Nederland te trekken zjn. Hermee plaatst deze stude zch n een langere tradte van Nederlandse nteresse n de Engelse rumteljke plannng (Hobma e.a., 2008). Dt onderzoek formuleert nspratevolle lessen ut de praktjk en projecten n tegenstellng tot verregaande transplantate van rumteljk beled (Janssen-Jansen e.a., 2008). Nettemn, om betekensvolle emprsche lessen te trekken s het noodzakeljk de context (on)afhankeljkhed ervan te bepalen. Dt noodzaakt het systematsch vergeljken van nsttutonele plannngspraktjken van bede landen door verschllen en overeenkomsten tussen bede landen n kaart te brengen. Gebaseerd op deze methodologsche utgangspunten zjn ten Nederlandse en twee Engelse cases geselecteerd en bestudeerd. In de Nederlandse cases s gekozen voor breedte n plaats van depte onderzoek om een beeld te schetsen van gebedsconcesses n zowel bnnenstedeljke als utleglocates. De Engelse cases zjn depte studes bedoeld 417 Samenvattng

om nzcht te krjgen n de toepasbaarhed van prvaat-gestuurde gebedsontwkkelng bj complexe grootschalge bnnenstedeljke locates. Als techneken zjn documentenanalyse, semgestructureerde ntervews, projectbezoeken en data mappng gebrukt. Vergeljkng Nederlandse en Engelse plannng en gebedsontwkkelng De nsttutonele context van gebedsontwkkelng n Nederland en Engeland laat enkele structurele verschllen zen ondanks dat zj ook aan veranderng en onderlnge beïnvloedng onderhevg zjn. Zo s het Nederlandse plannng systeem gebaseerd op Napoleontsche gecodfceerde wetgevng leunend op een grondwet met abstracte prncpes en een gelmteerde rol voor rechters. Het Engelse systeem s gebaseerd op Brtse algemene wetgevng zonder grondwet met rchtnggevende zaakjursprudente. Rumteljke ordenng n Nederland wordt gekenmerkt door bndende bestemmngsplannen n een lmterendgebedend systeem gebaseerd op jurdsche zekerhed. Het wordt gecategorseerd als toelatngsplanologe gebaseerd op een samenhangend model van hërarchsch gecoördneerde publeke planvormng (Dühr e.a., 2010). De Engelse rumteljke ordenng heeft geen bndend planfguur en erkent het belang van materële overwegngen gebaseerd op dscrete autortet en flexbltet. Hstorsch gezen wordt het Engelse model aangedud als ontwkkelngsplanologe gebaseerd op een grondgebruk regulerng model vooral gecoördneerd door samenhangend rumteljk beled. Bovenden verschllen bede praktjken n de nvullng van publeke en prvate rollen bj gebedsontwkkelng (Heurkens, 2009). In Nederland zjn lokale overheden acteve partjen de plannen, actef grondbeled en publeke nvesterngen gebruken voor stedeljke ontwkkelng. De prvate sector s vooral reactef en hstorsch gercht op (pure) bouwproducte. Publekprvate beslutvormngsprocessen zjn gebaseerd op consensusvormng, projectcoördnate vndt plaats door mddel van samenwerkngsmodellen en projectsturng rcht zch op proces en product. In Engeland gebruken gemeenten relatef mnder regelgevng en nvesterngen bj stedeljke ontwkkelng waarmee ze vooral de markt faclteren en actef grondbeled bestaat net. De ontwkkelbranche s een volwassen sector met acteve prvate projectntateven en fnancerng. Beslutvormng wordt gekenmerkt door onderhandelngen, en de organsate van projecten s gebaseerd op een dudeljke formele publek-prvate rolverdelng. Ondanks dat deze generalstsche Nederlandse-Engelse vergeljkng van crucaal belang s voor dt onderzoek doet het geen recht aan de toegenomen geljkenssen tussen Europese plannngspraktjken. Bovenden evolueren nsttutonele contexten als gevolg van veranderende prorteten n landen. Sommge Engelse plannng systeem kenmerken hebben bjvoorbeeld de aandacht opgeëst van Nederlandse planners, zoals de samenhangende projectcoördnate prncpes, prvate betrokkenhed en onderhandelngen, optes voor een plannng wnst regelng, belangen pakketten, ontwkkelngsgercht plannen, en dscrete n beslutvormng (Spaans, 2005). Deze marktgerchte plannng prncpes zjn waardevolle en soms noodzakeljke mechansmen geworden om effectef om te gaan met de toenemend mnder publek- en meer prvaat-gestuurde Nederlandse gebedsontwkkelngspraktjk. Emprsche bevndngen van prvaat-gestuurde cases n Nederland Gebedsontwkkelng n Nederland kende vanaf het jaar 2000 een toenemend gebruk van het concessemodel. Deze Nederlandse vorm voor prvaat-gestuurde gebedsontwkkelng kan het best gekarakterseerd worden als een contractvorm tussen publeke en prvate partjen waarn een transfer van rsco s, opbrengsten en verantwoordeljkheden voor de 418 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

planvormng, grond- en vastgoedontwkkelng naar ontwkkelaars plaatsvndt, gebaseerd op een vooraf opgesteld publek programma van esen en een strkte publek-prvate rolverdelng (Gjzen, 2009). In theore (Van Rooy, 2007; Van de Klundert, 2008; Heurkens e.a., 2008) bedt dt samenwerkngsmodel voordelen als meer effectvtet, effcënte, rumteljke kwaltet en transparante. Genoemde mogeljke nadelen zjn het gebrek aan publeke sturng, afhankeljkhed van marktpartjen en omstandgheden, nflexbele contracten, een projectmanagement benaderng, en een gespannen publek-prvate relate. Genoemde condtes voor de toepassng van concesses n theore zjn een hanteerbare project grootte en doorlooptjd, mnmale polteke en socale complextet, en maxmale vrjhed voor prvate partjen. Moteven voor de keuze voor concesses n theore zjn het gebrek aan arbedscapactet en fnancële ontwkkelcapactet, rsco overdracht naar prvate partjen, en toenemende prvate ntateven en grondegendom. Er s echter een gebrek aan emprsche kenns en bewjs voor zulke theoretsche aannames. Daarom zjn er emprsche cases n Amsterdam, Den Haag, Enschede, Maasslus, Mddelburg, Naaldwjk, Rotterdam, Tlburg, Utrecht en Velsen (ze Tabel 5.1) utgevoerd. Zowel bnnenstedeljke als utleglocates zjn bestudeerd. De belangrjkste concluses ut de Nederlandse emprsche case vergeljkng zjn her genoemd. Betreffende de organsate bljkt dat publek-prvate nteracte en samenwerkng van crucaal belang bljven n concesses. Ondanks de formele contractuele schedng van publeke en prvate taken en verantwoordeljkheden s er n de praktjk sprake van een nauwe nformele samenwerkng, vooral n de ntatef- en ontwerpfase. Bovenden bljven gemeenten net altjd zo rscoloos als dat de theore suggereert, omdat ongunstge marktomstandgheden het ontwkkeltempo en daarmee de staat van de drecte leefomgevng van bewoners nadelg kunnen beïnvloeden. Bovenden bljkt dat het opstellen en naleven van flexbele publeke esen gecombneerd met enkele strkte regels een effecteve condte s voor het realseren van publeke doelen gedurende het proces. In termen van management kunnen de meeste projecten nauweljks aangemerkt worden als alleen prvaat-gestuurd. Projectmanagement actvteten zoals ntëren en beheren worden bjvoorbeeld erg gestuurd door gemeenten. Procesmanagement actvteten worden utgevoerd door bede partjen door mddel van nauwe publek-prvate nteractes. Vormgevende en regulerende management tools worden meestal gebrukt door publeke partjen met een gebrekkg bewust gebruk van meer stmulerende en actverende tools. Het gebruk van managementmddelen zoals grond, geld en kenns bljven vooral een prvate aangelegenhed. In termen van effecten worden concesses over het algemeen getypeerd als een effecteve samenwerkng, maar net altjd als effcënt proces. De algemen percepte van publeke, prvate partjen en bewoners over het rumteljke kwaltetsnveau s postef. In aanvullng herop zjn ervarngen van actoren onderzocht. Veel genoemde problemen zjn de wj tegen zj verhoudng, het gebrek aan publeke rolvasthed, de dunne ljn tussen beoordelng en controle, de betrokkenhed en competente van publeke project managers, de communcate met de lokale gemeenschap, en het gebrek aan publeke sturngsmogeljkheden. De cases bevestgen de meeste concesse toepassngscondtes. Maar succesvolle ontwkkelngen n Amsterdam en Enschede laten dudeljk zen dat een prvaatgestuurde benaderng ook toegepast kan worden n complexe bnnenstedeljke opgaven. 419 Samenvattng

Emprsche bevndngen van prvaat-gestuurde cases n Engeland De Engelse gebedsontwkkelng wordt vaak aangemerkt als urban regeneraton. Hstorsch gezen s deze sterk gevormd door neolberale polteke deologeën van de Conservateve Thatcher overhed mdden jaren 80. Maar het s ook beïnvloed door New Labour s Thrd Way deologe (Gddens, 1998) gercht op het bereken van een balans tussen economsch, socaal en ecologsch beled. Nettemn s Engeland als gevolg van nsttutonele kenmerken sterk gevormd door ontwkkelngen de prvate belangen behartgen of publeke partjen de handelen n het belang van de markt (Nadn e.a., 2008). Over het algemeen zjn lokale overheden afhankeljk van ntateven en nvesterngen van ontwkkelaars en beleggers, omdat het hen ontbreekt aan publeke fnancële mddelen en planologsche autortet om zelf te ontwkkelen. Als gevolg hervan s controle van prvate ontwkkelngen een depgeworteld concept n de praktjk. Verschllende jurdsche nstrumenten zoals de Secton 106 overeenkomst worden gebrukt om een plannng wnst te realseren door prvate partjen een bjdrage te laten leveren aan publeke functes. Bovenden heeft gebedsontwkkelng n Engeland een sterke nformele samenwerkngscultuur, maar tegeljkertjd ook een strkte formele contractuele publek-prvate rolschedng. Deze kenmerken beden genoeg reden om prvaat-gestuurde projecten n meer detal te bestuderen. De emprsche Engelse cases zjn Brstol Harboursde en Lverpool One. Beden zjn strategsche bnnenstedeljke gebedsontwkkelngen met een gemxt functoneel programma en mogeljk hoge complextet. Aldus zjn het relevante stedeljke projecten voor het trekken van lessen voor Nederland. De belangrjkste concluses ut de Engelse emprsche case vergeljkng zjn her genoemd. In termen van context laten de cases zen dat de poltek en de vaak veranderljke natuur van rumteljk beled van grote nvloed zjn op bede projecten. Veranderend beled resulteert vaak n heroverwegen van ontwkkelcondtes ledend tot neuwe publek-prvate onderhandelngen. Sterk en effectef lederschap wordt dan beschouwd als een crucale sturngsfactor. In termen van organsate laten de cases nderdaad zen dat lokale overheden geen ontwkkelrsco op zch nemen. Bovenden s wnstdelng met prvate partjen afwezg of gelmteerd tot wat er n ontwkkelngspakketten wordt afgesproken. Bovenden ondersteunen gemeenten de vormng van allerle partnerschappen tussen publeke, prvate en partculere actoren om steun en fnancerng te verkrjgen. In termen van management passen lokale overheden dverse sturngsmddelen toe om de gebedsontwkkelng te beïnvloeden. Een belangrjke constaterng s dat publeke actoren allerle management tools gebruken om de ontwkkelngen vorm te geven en te stmuleren; ze beperken zch net tot marktregulerng maar actveren ook de markt. Nettemn vndt sturng van het project voornameljk plaats door prvate partjen. Ontwkkelaars managen het project van nteel ontwerp tot mogeljk zelfs het beheer van de openbare rumte (Lverpool). Daarmee werken ze op bass van een lange termjn nvesterngsmodel waarmee ze prvate betrokkenhed vergroten. In termen van effecten worden projecten effectef utgevoerd en wordt er een hoge rumteljke kwaltet gerealseerd. De effcënte van het proces bljft echter achter door langdurge en terugkerende onderhandelngen. Ut ervarngen van actoren n de Engelse prvaat-gestuurde gebedsontwkkelng kan afgeled worden dat er ook problemen voorkomen. Dt betreft de fnancële afhankeljkhed van prvate partjen, het gebrek aan fnancële prkkels bj publeke actoren, het gebrekkge besef van burgerwensen, gebrekkge behandelng van publeke bezwaren, lange onderhandelngsprocessen, en afwezghed van vaardge publeke managers. De actoren 420 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

wjzen bovenden op enkele crucale condtes voor het toepassen van een prvaat-gestuurde benaderng. Dt betreft flexbele algemene publeke rchtljnen, nformele partnerschappen en samenwerkng, publeke en prvate lederschapsrollen en vaardgheden, professonele lange termjn betrokken prvate partjen, betrekken van lokale actoren, scheden van de gemeenteljke planologsche en ontwkkelrol, omgaan met polteke druk, en aanwezghed van gunstge marktomstandgheden. Emprsche lessen, verbeterngen en nsprate Er kunnen een aantal algemene concluses ut de Nederlands-Engelse case vergeljkng getrokken worden (ze Tabel 8.1). De nvloed van de project context n Engeland, vooral de polteke macht en de veranderbaarhed van plannngsbeled, s hoger dan n Nederland. De organsatorsche rolschedng s n Engelse projecten strkter dan n Nederland. Ook worden daar publeke programmatsche esen mnder n detal en n doelen geformuleerd dan n Nederland. Management n de Nederlandse cases s wat mnder prvaat-gestuurd dan n Engeland, waar lokale overheden meer bewust zjn van de verschllende sturngsmddelen de men ter beschkkng heeft. De project effecten laten behoorljk wat geljkens zen. Effectvtet en rumteljke kwaltet kunnen behaald worden, terwjl effcënte lastg te realseren s als gevolg van de onderhandelcultuur. Her worden belangrjke emprsche lessen bedscusseerd met tot doel mogeljke oplossngen voor waargenomen Nederlandse problemen te formuleren. De problematsche Nederlandse wj tegen zj verhoudng tussen actoren wordt n Engeland opgelost door nauwe dageljkse samenwerkng. Ontwkkelaars organseren regelmatg nformateve en nteracteve ontwerpsesses met gemeenten, waar door gedeelde deeën een coöperateve sfeer ontstaat. Het gebrek aan publeke rolvasthed wordt opgelost n Engeland doordat gemeenten een algemeen publek programma van esen formuleren dat zekerhed creëert, waarna onderhandelngen de flexbltet beden om te reageren op veranderende omstandgheden. De dunne ljn tussen beoordelng en controle van plannen komt n Engeland net voor, omdat gemeenten respecteren dat ontwkkelaars de rumte gegeven moet worden om professoneel te ontwkkelen, ook omdat met product specfcates gecontroleerd kan worden of wat geleverd wordt volgens afspraak s. De betrokkenhed en competente van publeke projectmanagers s ook n Engeland crucaal waarbj projectleders de polteke en socale omgevng van het project managen en draagvlak creëren door communcate met de lokale gemeenschap. Het gebrek aan publeke sturngsmogeljkheden (rege) wordt n Engeland mnder ervaren. Omdat men geen actef grondbeled kent stuurt men met plannng tools en onderhandelngen. Her wordt gekeken of aanbevolen verbeterngen van Nederlandse professonals ook n de Engelse cases als mogeljke oplossng gebrukt wordt. De Nederlandse aanbevelng voor samenwerkng n de voorberedngsfase om publek draagvlak en betrokkenhed te creëren wordt n Engeland onderschreven door noodzakeljke nformele samenwerkng tussen actoren, ondanks de strkte formele rolschedng. Het streven naar publeke rolvasthed wordt ook door Engelse ontwkkelaars gewaardeerd, waarbj het prncpe afspraak s afspraak wordt nagestreefd, zodat zekerhed ontstaat en er mnder weerstand en meer samenwerkngsgenegdhed bj ontwkkelaars ontstaat op het moment dat er hoogst relevante publeke belangen aan de orde komen. Het maken van dudeljke procesovereenkomsten met momenten van controle of dscusse wordt n Engeland opgelost door een ondersched 421 Samenvattng

te maken tussen formele evaluatemomenten bedoeld om de output sec te beoordelen, en het organseren van nformele bjeenkomsten bedoeld om rumte te maken voor een publek-prvate daloog en het genereren van neuwe nzchten. Het verbnden van het (publeke) plannngsproces en (prvate) ontwkkelngsproces wordt n Engeland georganseerd door een gemeenteljk duo waarbj polteke leders strategsch beledsmatg opereren en projectmanagers tactsch projectmatg opereren. Een dudeljk communcateplan om de lokale gemeenschap te betrekken bj het project wordt n Engeland vooral georganseerd door ontwkkelaars, welke relevante belanghebbenden bj het ontwerp- en beslutvormngsproces betrekken voorafgaand aan planndenng bj gemeenten, waardoor draagvlak en effcënte wordt berekt. Het zoeken naar publeke sturngsmogeljkheden anders dan grond en geld wordt n Engeland opgelost va dverse bestaande publeke planologsche nstrumenten en publek-prvate onderhandelng. Interessant s dat de Engelse cases ook nspratevolle lessen voor Nederland beden. Ten eerste s het ontwkkelen en toepassen van een publeke management toolbox met dverse nstrumenten welke de markt vormgeeft, stmuleert, reguleert en actveert een maner om sturng breder en meer ntegraal te bekjken en te gebruken. Ten tweede ljkt het kezen van een professonele gecommtteerde prvate ontwkkelpartner met ervarng en lokale kenns, n plaats van de economsch meest voordelge aanbedng bj tenders, een voordeel n prvaatgestuurde gebedsontwkkelng, omdat daardoor er een constructeve samenwerkngsrelate kan ontstaan. De samenwerkngsberedhed van prvate partjen ut zch dan nameljk vaak n flexbele planconcepten n plaats van rgde ontwkkelplannen. Ten derde zjn wervende partnerschap overeenkomsten tussen publeke, prvate en partculere partjen, gercht op het creëren van breed draagvlak en lange termjn betrokkenhed bj het project door mddel van het promoten van ntentes, een goede maner om zowel fnancële mddelen van overheden als marktpartjen aan te trekken. Ten verde kan een prvaat beheerde openbare rumte gebaseerd op een grond erfpacht contract met publeke esen fnancële voordelen voor bede partjen opleveren. Voor lokale overheden vermnderen de beheerkosten en het bedt ontwkkelaars de mogeljkhed om het gebed hoogwaardg n te rchten en te beheren waardoor vastgoedhuren en -waardes op pel bljven of stjgen. Ten vjfde bedt een nvesterngsmodel van ontwkkelende beleggers gercht op lange termjn waardestjgng een goede mogeljkhed om de haalbaarhed van het project te vergroten. Het beslst het klasseke geld-tjd-kwaltet tradeoff model n het voordeel van rumteljk hoogwaardge gebeden, omdat de terugverdentjd van grote voornvesterngen net al bj projectopleverng lgt. Ten zesde kunnen gemeenten zch actef nzetten om publeke subsdes te verwerven zoals loterj fondsen de gebrukt worden om publeke functes te fnanceren en prvate partjen te overtugen om te nvesteren. Daarbj ontstaat ook de mogeljkhed om met een ontwkkelpakket een deel van opbrengst van de commercële prvate ontwkkelng te bestemmen voor publeke functes. Ten zevende beden publeke en prvate lederschapsstjlen op verschllende organsatorsche nveaus effcënte voordelen n bnnenstedeljke ontwkkelngen. Het aanwjzen van strategsch-tactsch opererende polteke leders en prvate drecteuren, en tactsch-operatoneel opererende publeke en prvate projectmanagers, kunnen de externe en nterne communcate bevorderen en betrokkenhed en draagvlak vergroten. Tenslotte laat Engeland zen dat prvaat-gestuurde gebedsontwkkelng succesvol toegepast kan worden n complexe bnnenstedeljke opgaven. Ondanks het complexe polteke en socale karakter, gefragmenteerd grondegendom, en hoge grondontwkkelkosten kunnen Engelse ontwkkelaars zo n opgave succesvol realseren. 422 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

De meest voorname condtes hervoor zjn een professonele en fnanceel daadkrachtge ontwkkelaar en acteve overhed welke marktntateven faclteert. De waarschjnljkhed van overname van de Engelse nsprate hangt af van enkele Nederlandse nsttutonele kenmerken (econome en poltek, sturngscultuur, plannng systeem en beled). De meeste lessen zjn echter context-onafhankeljk en kunnen worden toegepast n de Nederlandse praktjk. Maar Tabel 8.2 laat ook zen dat enkele lessen context-afhankeljk zjn wat de overname bemoeljkt, zoals de algemene korte termjn benaderng van ontwkkelaars en de genereke gemeenteljke wens tot rege voeren. Reflectes op alternateve publeke belang borgng en fnancerngsnstrumenten Als aanvullng op het onderzoek bevat de eploog conceptuele reflectes op alternateve publeke belang behartgng en fnancerngsnstrumenten welke n ljn zjn met het hudge socaaleconomsche klmaat en de prncpes van prvaat-gestuurde gebedsontwkkelng. Deze reflectes zjn net gebaseerd op de onderzoeksbevndngen maar op aanvullende lteratuur en bedt stof tot nadenken voor publeke en prvate gebedsontwkkelaars. Het behartgen van publeke belangen s een belangrjke zaak voor publeke partjen, vooral n marktgerchte plannng en prvaat-gestuurde gebedsontwkkelngsprojecten. In onze pluralstsche samenlevng s het echter onmogeljk geworden voor één partj om het publeke belang te bepalen n alle stuates. In ljn met maatschappeljke ontwkkelngen s het net alleen socaal coherent maar zelfs socaal noodzakeljk dat overheden prvate en partculere partjen betrekken n de behartgng van publeke belangen. Het bewust toepassen van publeke belang behartgng strategeën, gebaseerd op zowel hërarchsche, markt en netwerk mechansmen (De Brujn & Dcke, 2006), bedt deze mogeljkhed. Door het gebruk van gelegtmeerde hërarchsche mechansmen, compettegerchte marktmechansmen en nteractegerchte netwerkmechansmen, worden publeke waarden geïnsttutonalseerd n de prvate en partculere sector. Voor de rol van publeke plannng autorteten betekent dt de behartgng van toenemende economsche waarden, socale cohese en de volksgezondhed, door de nzet van legteme plannngsnstrumenten en toerekenbare plannngsactvteten. Dt stelt prvate en partculere actoren n staat om meer betrokken te worden bj, en verantwoordeljkhed te nemen voor, hun drecte omgevng. In marktgerchte plannng en prvaat-gestuurde gebedsontwkkelng zjn publek belang behartgng nstrumenten dan net-onderhandelbare planologsche standaarden de bassbehoeften velgstellen aan de ene kant, en onderhandelbare ontwkkelcondtes de betrokkenhed van actoren vraagt aan de andere kant. Net-onderhandelbare nstrumenten zjn publeke aanbestedngsesen, bestemmngsplannen en bouwvergunnngen. Onderhandelbare nstrumenten zjn contractuele condtes, competteve dalogen, beeldkwaltetsplannen, ontwkkelaar bjdragen, ontwkkelprkkels, prestate-ndcatoren en egenaarschap (ze Fguur 10.2). De afhankeljkhed van prvate nvesterngen n prvaat-gestuurde gebedsontwkkelng vraagt om het verkennen van alternateve fnancerngsnstrumenten de mnder vertrouwen op vreemd vermogen. Dt s een crucaal onderwerp welke het resultaat s van de effecten van de hudge economsche stuate op de grond- en vastgoedmarkt. Het wordt algemeen erkend n veel nternatonale ontwkkelpraktjken dat vastgoednvesterngen voor gebedsontwkkelng radcaal veranderd zjn als gevolg van de kredetcrss en economsche teruggang (Parknson e.a., 2009). Neuwe fnancerngsnstrumenten voor gebedsontwkkelngs hebben de aandacht 423 Samenvattng

van Nederlandse professonals (Van Rooy, 2011) en wetenschappers (Van der Krabben, 2011b). In de hudge gebedsontwkkelngspraktjk s een groeende nteresse te zen naar vraaggestuurde ontwkkelstrategeën zoals bottom-up ntateven, waardecreate modellen, en rscobeheersng door gebedsfaserng, welke fnanceel haalbare projecten zouden kunnen opleveren. Ut de lteratuur zjn veelbelovende alternateve fnancerngsnstrumenten te vnden zoals Tax Increment Fnancng, Ontwkkelsubsdes, Lotterjfondsen, Concesse Lght, Crowd Fnancerng, Gebedsontwkkelngsfondsen, Bedrjven Investerng Zones, en Stedeljke Herverkavelng. De nstrumenten kennen dverse kenmerken zoals nvesterngsbron, ontwkkelprkkels, organsatorsche veresten en gebedscondtes, welke door publeke en prvate partjen n overwegng genomen denen te worden (ze Tabel 10.3). 424 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

425 Samenvattng

426 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Lst of Tables & Fgures Fgure 1.1 25 Value & power shft n context of Dutch urban development (based on De Jonge, 2007) Table 1.1 32 Publc & prvate sector bas n PPP jont ventures (based on Delotte, 2008a) Table 1.2 36 Yelds, costs & balance of land development wthn Dutch muncpal budgets (n mllons) (based on CBS / Delotte, 2010a) Fgure 1.2 39 Research structure Fgure 2.1 54 Conceptual steerng model (based on De Leeuw, 2002) Fgure 2.2 55 Value & power shft n context of Dutch urban development (based on De Jonge, 2007) Fgure 2.3 59 Comparatve urban management model Fgure 2.4 61 Comparatve urban nsttutonal model Table 2.1 64 Anglo-Saxon & Rhneland prncples of socety & economy (based on Bakker et al., 2005) Table 2.2 66 European welfare state typologes (n Nadn & Stead, 2008; based on Arts & Gelssen, 2002) Table 2.3 68 Anglo-Saxon & Rhneland prncples of organzaton & management (based on Bakker et al., 2005) Table 2.4 69 Anglo-Saxon & Rhneland prncples of spatal plannng (source author; based on Heurkens, 2009) Table 2.5 71 Destructve & creatve moments of neolberalsm (based on Brenner & Theodore, 2002: 17-19) Fgure 2.5 76 Urban governance: State-Market-Cvc relatons Fgure 2.6 78 Conceptual nsttutonal plannng framework (based on Butelaar, 2011) Fgure 2.7 79 Geography of European welfare systems (source: Nadn, 2011) Fgure 2.8 79 Geography of European legal-admnstratve systems (source: Nadn, 2011) Table 2.6 80 Plannng system & spatal plannng: UK-Dutch comparson (based on Butelaar, 2011) Fgure 2.9 81 European spatal plannng models (based on CEC, 1997; Nadn, 2008; Dühr et al., 2010) Table 2.7 87 Plannng tool types & ntended market effect (source: Adams et al., 2005: 64) Fgure 2.10 91 Publc-prvate autonomy spectrum (based on Börzel & Rsse, 2002) Table 2.8 92 Natonal context of Publc-Prvate Partnershps (based on Bult-Sperng & Dewulf, 2006) Fgure 2.11 92 Publc-prvate domnance contnuum (based on Savtch, 1997 n Perre (Ed.), 1997) Fgure 2.12 93 Publc-Prvate Partnershp spectrum (based on Bennett et al., 2000) Fgure 2.13 97 Insttutonal aspects of partnershps under study Fgure 2.14 97 Inter-organzatonal arrangements of partnershps Table 2.9 100 New Publc Management versus Governance (source: Kort, 2011: 51; based on Kljn, 2012) Table 2.10 102 Project management versus process management (sources: Tesman, 2001; Brul et al., 2005) Table 2.11 104 Management measures & management functons Fgure 2.15 105 Conceptual publc-prvate urban management model Table 2.12 109 Spatal qualty: values & crtera Table 3.1 112 Methodologcal framework & dmensons Fgure 3.1 113 Research desgn Fgure 3.2 118 Analytcal case study model Table 3.2 124 Lesson-drawng levels & lkelhood of transfer (based on Janssen-Jansen et al., 2008; Spaans & Louw, 2010) Fgure 4.1 140 Dutch urban governance shfts over tme Table 4.1 149 Publc & prvate roles wthn Dutch PPP models (based on Kennscentrum PPS, 2006) Fgure 4.2 149 Responsbltes & rsk relatonshp n Dutch PPP models (based on Kennscentrum PPS, 2006) 427 Lst of Tables & Fgures

Fgure 4.3 151 Publc & prvate roles n buldng rghts model (based on Van Ophem, 2007 & NLBW, 2010) Fgure 4.4 153 Publc & prvate roles n jont venture model (based on Van Ophem, 2007 & NLBW, 2010) Fgure 4.5 154 Publc & prvate roles n concesson model (based on Van Ophem, 2007 & NLBW, 2010) Table 4.2 158 Theoretcal tasks of publc & prvate actors n concessons (Heurkens et al., 2008) Table 5.1 163 Case study overvew the Netherlands (data from 2009) Table 5.2 165 Tasks of publc & prvate actors n Amsterdam Park de Meer Fgure 5.1 167 Amsterdam Park de Meer, mpresson ( Erwn Heurkens) Table 5.3 169 Tasks of publc & prvate actors n Den Haag Ypenburg Deelplan 20 Fgure 5.2 171 Den Haag Ypenburg Deelplan 20, aeral vew ( ING Real Estate) Table 5.4 174 Tasks of publc & prvate actors n Enschede De Laares Fgure 5.3 176 Enschede De Laares, mpresson ( Erwn Heurkens) Table 5.5 179 Tasks of publc & prvate actors n Maasslus, Het Balkon Fgure 5.4 180 Maasslus Het Balkon, mpresson ( Erwn Heurkens) Table 5.6 183 Tasks of publc & prvate actors n Mddelburg Mortere Fgure 5.5 185 Mddelburg Mortere, mpresson ( Erwn Heurkens) Table 5.7 188 Tasks of publc & prvate actors n Naaldwjk Woerblok Fgure 5.6 190 Naaldwjk Woerdblok, mpresson ( Erwn Heurkens) Table 5.8 193 Tasks of publc & prvate actors n Rotterdam Neuw Crooswjk Fgure 5.7 194 Rotterdam Neuw Crooswjk, mpresson ( Erwn Heurkens) Table 5.9 197 Tasks of publc & prvate actors n Tlburg Wagnerplen Fgure 5.8 199 Tlburg Wagnerplen, aeral vew ( Bouwfonds) Table 5.10 202 Tasks of publc & prvate actors n Utrecht De Woerd Fgure 5.9 203 Utrecht De Woerd, mpresson ( Bouwfonds) Table 5.11 206 Tasks of publc & prvate actors n Velsen Oud- IJmuden Fgure 5.10 208 Velsen Oud-IJmuden, mpresson ( Bouwfonds) Table 5.12 211 Emprcal tasks n Dutch cases Table 5.13 212 Emprcal responsbltes n Dutch cases Table 5.14 213 Emprcal rsks n Dutch cases Table 5.15 213 Emprcal revenues n Dutch cases Table 5.16 215 Emprcal management measures n Dutch cases Table 5.17 219 Emprcal effects of Dutch cases Table 5.18 222 Emprcal spatal qualty n cases based on survey Table 5.19 223 Emprcal motves from publc actors to choose concessons Table 5.20 223 Emprcal experences from actors wth the use concessons Table 6.1 234 Approaches to urban regeneraton (source: Tallon, 2009: 6) Table 6.2 238 Characterstcs of entrepreneural regeneraton n the 1980s (source: author) Table 6.3 241 Characterstcs of New Labour s regeneraton snce the late 1990s (source: author) Table 6.4 247 Publc plannng nstruments n UK urban regeneraton untl 2010 Fgure 7.1 262 Brstol Harboursde, aeral vew ( Edward Cullnan Archtects / Crest Ncholson) Table 7.1 262 Brstol Harboursde, project characterstcs (based on Muñoz Gelen, 2010: 182) (data from 2010) Fgure 7.2 266 Brstol Harboursde, locaton (source: Bassett et al., 2002: 1761) Fgure 7.3 268 Brstol Harboursde, partnershp & fundng mechansm (source: Bassett et al., 2002: 1763) Table 7.2 270 Brstol Harboursde project tmelne, ntatve stage 428 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Fgure 7.4 272 Brstol Harboursde, 2nd scheme, Crest Ncholson (source: Bassett et al., 2002: 1765) Fgure 7.5 272 Brstol Harboursde, alternatve scheme, George Ferguson (source: Bassett et al., 2002: 1765) Table 7.3 274 Brstol Harboursde project tmelne, desgn & feasblty stage Fgure 7.6 275 Brstol Harboursde, masterplan, Edward Cullnan Archtects (source: Bassett et al., 2002: 1765) Table 7.4 276 Brstol Harboursde project tmelne, fnal desgn & feasblty stage Table 7.5 278 Brstol Harboursde project tmelne, realzaton & operaton stage Table 7.6 279 Emprcal tasks & responsbltes n Brstol Harboursde Table 7.7 286 Emprcal management measures n Brstol Harboursde Fgure 7.7 288 Brstol Harboursde, mpresson waterfront resdental buldng ( Erwn Heurkens) Fgure 7.8 291 Lverpool One, aeral vew ( Grosvenor) Table 7.8 291 Lverpool One, project characterstcs (based on Lttlefeld, 2009: 248) (data from 2010) Fgure 7.9 293 Lverpool cty center, spatal strategy ( LCC / Lverpool Vson) Table 7.9 295 Lverpool One project tmelne, ntatve & desgn stage (based on Lttlefeld, 2009: 244) Fgure 7.10 299 Lverpool One, sketch showng dstrcts and connectons ( Grosvenor) Fgure 7.11 300 Lverpool One, masterplan defnng 22 ndvdual stes ( Grosvenor) Table 7.10 303 Lverpool One project tmelne, feasblty & realzaton stage (based on Lttlefeld, 2009: 245) Table 7.11 307 Emprcal tasks & responsbltes n Lverpool One Table 7.12 314 Emprcal management measures n Lverpool One Fgure 7.12 315 Lverpool One, mpresson man retal street ( Erwn Heurkens) Table 7.13 323 Emprcal management measures n UK cases Table 7.14 327 Emprcal effects n UK cases Table 8.1 335 General characterstcs of Dutch & UK prvate sector-led urban development projects Table 8.2 357 Lkelhood of lessons to be adopted wthn the Dutch urban development context Fgure 10.1 370 Value & power shft n context of Dutch urban development (based on De Jonge, 2007) Table 10.1 381 Strateges for safeguardng publc nterests Fgure 10.2 385 Instruments for safeguardng publc nterests n prvate sector-led urban development Table 10.2 388 Investment strateges & fnancng mechansms for urban development (based on Clark & Huxley, 2009) Table 10.3 398 Alternatve fnancng nstruments for prvate sector-led urban development Fgure SUM.1 404 Conceptual publc-prvate urban management model Fgure SAM.1 416 Conceptueel publek-prvaat stedeljk sturngsmodel Fgure AIII.1 465 South Lake Unon, aeral vew ( Vulcan Real Estate) Table AIII.1 466 South Lake Unon project tmelne, ntatve & desgn stage Fgure AIII.2 467 South Lake Unon, overvew of development projects (source: Pryne, 2010; Seattle Tmes) Table AIII.2 469 South Lake Unon project tmelne, development stage 1 Table AIII.3 471 South Lake Unon project tmelne, development stage 2 Fgure AIII.3 473 South Lake Unon, cumulatve nvestment (adapted from Vulcan Real Estate) Table AIII.4 475 Emprcal management measures n South Lake Unon Fgure AIII.4 477 South Lake Unon, mpresson 2200 complex ( Erwn Heurkens) 429 Lst of Tables & Fgures

430 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

References Abram, S., & Cowell, R. (2004). Learnng polcy: The contextual curtan and conceptual barrers. European Plannng Studes, 12, 209-218. Achrol, R.S. (1997). Changes n the theory of nterorganzatonal relatons n marketng: Toward a network paradgm. Journal of the Academy of Marketng Scence, 25(1), 56-71. Ackoff, R.L. (2010). Systems Thnkng for Curous Managers. Axmnster: Trarchy Press. Adar A., Berry, J., McGreal, S., & Qunn, A. (2002). Factors affectng the level and form of prvate sector nvestment n regeneraton, urban regeneraton and property nvestment performance, December 2002 (Onlne). http://www.engj.ulst.ac.uk/rpp/odpm_report.pdf. Adar, A., McGreal, S., & Poon, J. (2003). Benchmarkng urban regeneraton, November 2003 (Onlne). http:// www.engj.ulst.ac.uk/rpp/benchmarkng.pdf. Adams, D. (1994). Urban Plannng and the Development Process. London: UCL Press. Adams, D., Croudace, R., & Tesdell, S. (2012). Explorng the notonal property developer as a polcy construct. Urban Studes, 49(12), 2577-2596. Adams D., & Watkns, C. (2002). Greenfelds, Brownfelds & Housng Development. Oxford: Blackwell. Adams, D., Watkns, C., & Whte, M. (2005). Plannng, Publc Polcy & Property Markets. Oxford: Blackwell. Adams, D., & Tesdell, S. (2010). Planners as market actors: Rethnkng state-market relatons n land and property. Plannng Theory & Practce, 11(2), 187-207. Agentschap NL (2012). Toolbox Fnancerngsconstructes (Conceptverse 1.1). Den Haag: Agentschap NL, Mnstere van Bnnenlandse Zaken en Konnkrjkrelates. Agranoff, R., & McGure, M. (2001). Bg questons n publc network management research. Journal of Publc Admnstraton and Theory, 11(3), 295-326. Agranoff, R., & McGure, M. (2003). Collaboratve Publc Management: New strateges for local governments. Washngton, D.C., Georgetown Unversty Press. Agnger, K., & Guger, A. (2006). The ablty to adapt: Why t dffers between the Scandnavan and contnental European models. Intereconomcs, 14(1), 14-23. Aken, J.E. van (1994). Bedrjfskunde als ontwerpwetenschap. Bedrjfskunde, 66, 16-22. Aken, J.E. van (2004). Management research based on the paradgm of desgn scences: The quest for feldtested and grounded technologcal rules. Journal of Management Studes, 41, 219-246. Aken, T. van, Blokland, K., & Koojman, W. (2007). Fnanceel-economsch versus socaal-economsch. Personeelsbeled, 2, 30-35. Akro Consult (2009). PPS n neuw perspectef: Gebedsconcesses. Akronek, 1, 8. Alber, J. (2006). The European socal model and the Unted States. European Unon Poltcs, 7(3), 393-419. Albert, M. (1993). Captalsm vs. captalsm: How Amerca s obsesson wth ndvdual achevement and shortterm proft has led t to the brnk of collapse. New York, NY: Four Walls Eght Wndows. Albrechts, L. (2001). In pursut of new approaches to strategc plannng: A European perspectve. Internatonal Plannng Studes, 6(3), 293-310. Albrechts, L. (2006). Shfts n strategc spatal plannng? Some evdence from Europe and Australa. Envronment and Plannng A, 38, 1149-1170. Alexander, E.R. (1988). The Netherlands unque plannng system. Rooljn, 21(5), 145-150. Alexander, E.R. (2001). Why plannng vs. markets s an oxymoron: Askng the rght queston. Plannng and Markets, 4(1). Alexander, E.R., & Falud, A. (1990). Plannng doctrne, ts uses and mplcatons (Werkstukken). Amsterdam: Planologsch en Demografsch Insttuut. Allmendnger, P., & Haughton, G. (2007). The flud scales and scope of UK spatal plannng. Envronment and Plannng A, 39, 1478-1496. Alter, C., & Hage, J. (1993). Organzatons Workng Together. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Alterman, R. (1997). The challenge of farmland preservaton: Lessons from a sx-naton comparson. APA- Journal, 63(2), 220-243. Alterman, R. (2009). Can the unearned ncrement n land values be harnessed to supply affordable housng? Warsaw: UN Habtat GLNT Conference, October 2009. Ambrose, P. (1994). Urban Process and Power. London: Routledge. Arbnor, I., & Bjerke, B. (1997). Methodology for Creatng Busness Knowledge. London: Sage. Askew, J. (1996). Case Study: Canons Marsh. In J. Allnson, J. Askew, J. Claydon, L. Daves, J. Tempest & R. Tetlow (Eds.), Implementng Town Plannng: The Role of Town Plannng n the Development Process (pp. 181-191). Essex: Longman Group. 431 References

Arts, W., & Gelssen, J. (2002). Three worlds of welfare or more?: A state-of-the-art report. Journal of European Socal Polcy, 12(2), 137-159. Baarsma, B., & Theeuwes, J. (2009). Publek belang en marktwerkng: Argumenten voor een welvaart economsche aanpak. In E. van Damme & P. Schnkel (Eds.), Marktwerkng en publeke belangen (pp. 23-51). Amsterdam: Konnkljke Verengng voor de Staathushoudkunde, Marktwerkng en Publeke Belangen. Bakker, R. (2011). Gebedsregsseur of acteur n een mprovsatearena?: Afwegngskader voor rolbepalng bj provncale gebedsontwkkelng (Thess). Rotterdam: Master Cty Developer. Bakker, P., Evers, S., Hovens, N., Snelder, H., & Weggeman, M. (2005). Het Rjnlands model als nspratebron. Holland Management Revew, 103, 72-81. Baley, N. (1993). Pckng partners for the 1990s: Specal feature on partnershps n regeneraton. Town and Country Plannng, 62, 136-147. Baley, N. (1994). Towards a research agenda for Publc-Prvate Partnershps n the 1990 s. Local Economy, 8, 292-306. Baley, N., Barker, A., & MacDonald, K. (1995). Partnershp Agences n Brtsh Urban Polcy. London: UCL Press. Ball, M., & Magnn, P.J. (2005). Urban change and conflct: Evaluatng the role of partnershps n urban regeneraton n the UK. Housng Studes, 20(1), 9-28. Banachowcz, B., & Danelewcz, J. (2004). Urban Governance: The New Concept of Urban Management. Chcago, IL, Unversty of Illnos. Barker, K. (2004). Revew of housng supply Delverng stablty: Securng our future housng needs (Fnal report: recommendatons). London: HM Treasury. Bassett, K. (1996). Partnershps, busness éltes and urban poltcs: New forms of governance n an Englsh cty? Urban Studes, 33, 539-555. Bassett, K. (1999). Growth coaltons n Brtan s wanng Sunbelt. In A. Jonas & D. Wlson (Eds.), The Urban Growth Machne (pp. 177-194). Albany, NY: State of Unversty of New York Press. Bassett, K., Grffths, R., & Smth, I. (2002). Testng governance: Partnershps, plannng and conflct n waterfront regeneraton. Urban Studes, 39, 1757-1775. Bennet, E., James, S., & Grohmann, P. (2000). Jont-venture Publc-Prvate Partnershps for Urban Envronment Servces. New York, NY: PPPUE. Bengs, C. (2005). Plannng theory for the nave? European Journal of Spatal Development, July 2005. Berge, H. van den, Kruthof, J.G., Bos, G.L.Y., Sandmann, M.J.P., & Schutte, H.J. (2012). De grond wordt duur betaald: Raadsonderzoek naar het grondbedrjf n de gemeente Apeldoorn. Apeldoorn: Gemeente Apeldoorn. Bjsterveld, K. (2009). Concessemodel alleen geschkt voor eenvoudge gebedsontwkkelng. Buldng Busness, 1, 46-47. Bjsterveld, K., & Laverman, W. (2011). Markt voor tradtonele vastgoedpartjen wordt klener : Ncole Maarsen over de opmars van de ontwkkelende belegger. Buldng Busness, 3, 10-13. Bnnekamp, R. (2010). Preference-based Desgn n Archtecture (Doctoral dssertaton). Delft: IOS Press. Black, J.S., & Porter, L.W. (2000). Management: Meetng New Challenges. Upper Saddle Rver, NJ: Prentce Hall. Bodewes, W. (2010). Pledoo voor een neuwe rumteljke ordenng. Vtale Stad, 13(6), 14-21. Boelens, L. (1990). De planologe en het tjd-rumte-vraagstuk: Crss van de corrgerende tegenbewegng. Archs, 10, 40-45. Boelens, L. (2009). The Urban Connecton: An Actor-relatonal Approach to Urban Plannng. Rotterdam: 010 Publshers. Boelens, L. (2010). Planologe extended: Naar een neuwe toekomst van rumteljk openbaar bestuur. In H. Djstelbloem, P. den Hoed, J.W. Holtslag & S. Schouten (Eds.), Het gezcht van de publeke zaak: Openbaar bestuur onder ogen (pp. 185-204). Den Haag/Amsterdam: WRR/Amsterdam Unversty Press. Boelens, L., Spt, T., & Wssnk, B. (Eds.) (2006). Plannng zonder Overhed: Een Toekomst voor Plannng. Rotterdam: Utgeverj 010. Boer, R. de, & Lurks, M. (2010). Handledng explotateplan. Den Haag: Sdu Utgevers. Bonol, G. (1997). Classfyng welfare states: A two-dmenson approach. Journal of Socal Polcy, 26(3), 351-372. Booth, P. (2003). Plannng by Consent: The Orgns and Nature of Brtsh Development Control. London: Routledge. Börzel, T.A., & Rsse, T. (2002). Publc-Prvate Partnershps: Effectve and legtmate tools of nternatonal governance? In E. Grande & W. Pauly (Eds.), Complex Soveregnty: On the Reconsttuton of Poltcal Authorty n the 21st Century (Unpublshed). Bosboom, M.E. (2012). The coalton of the wllng: Een onderzoek naar procesomkerng als aanpak door de gemeente bj bnnenstedeljke gebedstransformates (Thess). Rotterdam: Master Cty Developer. Bosch, H. (2010). Ontwkkelaar moet langdurg betrokkenhed tonen. In: NAW dosser, De Neuwe Ontwkkelaar. September 2010. Bouwfonds (2008). NAW Dosser: Leren van gebedsontwkkelng n Engeland. Den Haag: Bouwfonds. 432 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Box, R. (1999). Runnng government lke busness: Implcatons for publc admnstraton theory and practce. Amercan Revew of Publc Admnstraton, 29, 19-43. Brabham, D.C. (2009). Crowd sourcng the publc partcpaton process for plannng projects. Plannng Theory, 8(3), 242-262. Bregman, A.G. (1999). Rumteljke Plancoördnate en Projectbeslutvormng: Naar Maatwerk zonder Versnpperng. Deventer: Kluwer. Bregman, A.G. (2010a). Naar een natuurljke rolverdelng tussen overhed en markt bj rumteljke veranderngsprocessen: Overhedsrol bj rumteplannng beperken tot grondexplotate en publek vastgoed (Inaugural address). Amsterdam: Unverstet van Amsterdam, 29 Aprl. Bregman, A.G. (2010b). Goed neuws voor de Nederlandse praktjk gebedsontwkkelng. Cobouw, Aprl 2. http://www.cobouw.nl. Bregman, A.G., & Wn, R.W.J.J. (2005). Publek-Prvate Samenwerkng bj Rumteljke Inrchtng en haar Explotate. Deventer: Kluwer. Brenner, N., & Theodore, N. (2002). Spaces of Neolberalsm: Urban Restructurng n North Amerca and Western Europe. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Brndley, T., Rydn, Y., & Stoker, G. (1996). Remakng Plannng (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Bromley, R.D.F., Tallon, A.R., & Thomas, C.J. (2005). Cty centre regeneraton through resdental development: Contrbutng to sustanablty. Urban Studes, 42, 2407-2429. Bromley, R.D.F., Matthews, D.L., & Thomas, C.J. (2007). Cty centre accessblty for wheelchar users: The consumer perspectve and the plannng mplcatons. Ctes, 24, 229-241. Brouwer, J.J., & Moerman, P. (2005). Angelsaksen versus Rjnlanders: Zoektocht naar Overeenkomsten en Verschllen n Europees en Amerkaans Denken. Antwerpen: Garant-Utgevers. Brownhll, S. (1990). Developng London s Docklands: Another Great Plannng Dsaster? London: Paul Chapman. Brujn, H. de, & Dcke, W. (2006). Strateges for safeguardng publc values n lberalzed utlty sectors. Publc Admnstraton, 84(3), 717-735. Brujn, J.A., & Heuvelhof, E.F. ten (1999). Management n Netwerken. Utrecht: Lemma. Brul, A.W. (2011). Management Thoughts and Practces (Reader). Delft: TU Delft. Brul, A.W., Hobma, F.A.M., Peek, G.J., & Wgmans, G. (Eds.). (2004). Integrale Gebedsontwkkelng: Het Statonsgebed s-hertogenbosch. Amsterdam: SUN. Bryman, A. (2012). Socal Research Methods (4th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford Unversty Press. Butelaar, E. (2007). The Cost of Land Use Decsons: Applyng Transacton Cost Economcs to Plannng & Development (Doctoral dssertaton). Oxford: Blackwell. Butelaar, E. (2010a). Cracks n the myth: Challenges to land polcy n the Netherlands. TESG, 101(3), 49-356. Butelaar, E. (2010b). Grenzen aan gemeenteljk grondbeled: Contnuïtet en veranderng n de rol van gemeenten op de Nederlandse grondmarkt. Rumte & Maatschappj, 2(1), 5-22. Butelaar, E. (2011). Ontwkkelen n het plannersparadjs: Nederlandse gebedsontwkkelng gecontextualseerd (Presentaton Master Cty Developer). Rotterdam, 5 Oktober. Butelaar, E., & Wouden, R. van der (2012). Bnnenstedeljk en organsch: Herdefnërng van onze plannngscultuur. Rumteljke Ontwkkelng Magazne, 30(6), 12-15. Bulkeley, H. (2006). Urban sustanablty: Learnng from best practce? Envronment and Plannng A, 38, 1029-1044. Bult-Sperng, M. (2003). Publek-Prvate Samenwerkng: De Interacte Centraal (Doctoral dssertaton). Utrecht: Lemma. Bult-Sperng, M., & DeWulf, G. (2006). Strategc Issues n Publc-Prvate Partnershps: An Internatonal Perspectve. Oxford: Blackwell. Bunge, M. (1967). Scentfc Research II: The Search for Truth. Berln: Sprnger Verlag. Bure, J.B. (Ed.) (1978). Handboek Bouwen en Wonen. Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus. Commsson for Archtecture and the Bult Envronment [CABE], & Department of Envronment, Transport and the Regons [DETR] (2001). The value of urban desgn. Tonbrdge: Thomas Telford. Campbell, D.T. (1975). Degrees of freedom and the case study. Comparatve Poltcal Studes, 8(1), 178-191. Cammen, H. van der (2007). Gebedsontwkkelng n Nederland: Verkennng van een Neuw Fenomeen. Amsterdam. Cammen, H. van der, & Klerk, L. de (2003). Rumteljke Ordenng: Van Grachtengordel tot Vnex-wjk. Utrecht: Het Spectrum. Carley, M., Chapman, M., Hastngs, A., Krk, K., & Young, R. (2000). Urban Regeneraton through Partnershp: A Study n Nne Regons n England, Scotland and Wales. Brstol: The Polcy Press. Carmona, M. (Ed.) (2003). Globalsaton and Cty ports: The Response of Cty Ports n the Northern Hemsphere. Delft: Delft Unversty Press. Carmona, M. (2009). The Isle of Dogs: Four development waves, fve plannng models, twelve plans, thrty-fve years, and a renassance... of sorts. Progress n Plannng, 71, 87-151. 433 References

Carmona, M., Tesdell, S., Heath, T., & Oc, T. (2010). Publc Places Urban Spaces: The Dmensons of Urban Desgn (2nd ed.). Oxford: Elsever. Castells, M. (1996). The Rse of the Network Socety. Cambrdge, MA: Blackwell Publshng. Chen, Y. (2007). Shangha Pudong: Urban development n an Era of Global-local Interacton (Doctoral dssertaton). Delft: IOS Press. Charles, M.B., Dcke, W., Koppenjan, J., & Ryan, N. (2007). Publc values and safeguardng mechansms n nfrastructure polces: A conceptual and theoretcal exploraton. Introductory Paper of the IRSPM Panel on Publc Values n Infrastructure, Potsdam, Aprl 2-4, 2007. Delft/Brsbane. Chatterton, P., & Bradley, D. (2000). Brngng Brtan together?: The lmtatons of area-based regeneraton polces n addressng deprvaton. Local Economy, 15, 98-111. Clarence, E., & Panter, C. (1998). Publc servces under New Labour: Collaboratve dscourses and local networkng. Publc Polcy and Admnstraton, 13, 8-22. Clark, C., & Huxley, J. (2009). Closng the nvestment gap n Europe s ctes: Launch report Urban Investment Network. London: Urban Land Insttute Europe. Clement, M. (2007). Brstol: Cvlsng the nner cty. Race and Class, 48, 97-105. Clement, M. (2010). Local Notables and the cty councl revsted: The use of partnershps n the regeneraton of Brstol. Socal & Publc Polcy Revew, 4(1), 34-49. Colomb, C. (2007). Unpackng New Labour s urban renassance agenda: Towards a socally sustanable reurbanzaton of Brtsh ctes? Plannng Practce and Research, 22, 1-24. Commsson of the European Communtes [CEC] (1997). The EU Compendum of Spatal Plannng Systems and Polces (Regonal Development Studes). Luxembourg: Offce for Offcal Publcatons of the European Communtes. Commsse Fundamentele Verkennng Bouw [CFVB] (2008). Prvaat wat kan, publek wat moet: Vertrouwen en verantwoordeljkhed n het bouwproces. Den Haag: Mnstere van Volkshusvestng Rumteljke Ordenng en Mleu. Communtes and Local Government [CLG] (2007a). About the Department for Communtes and Local Government, (Onlne). http://www.clg.gov.uk. Communtes and Local Government [CLG] (2007b). Homes of the Future: More Affordable, More Sustanable. London: Statonery Offce. Communtes & Local Government [CLG] (2011). Government moves ahead wth plans to abolsh Regonal Plans and protect the Green Belt, 20 October 2011 (Onlne). http://www.communtes.gov.uk/news. Conjn, J. (2005). Wonngcorporates: Naar een dudeljke taakafbakenng en een heldere sturng. Amsterdam: RIGO Research en Adves bv. Couch, C., Fraser. C., & Percy, S. (2003). Urban Regeneraton n Europe. Oxford: Blackwell. Coupland, A. (Ed.) (1997). Reclamng the Cty: Mxed Use Development. London: E & FN Spon. Cowan, R. (1997). The Connected Cty: A New Approach to Makng Ctes Work. London: Urban Intatves. Cullngworth, B., & Nadn, V. (2006). Town and Country Plannng n the UK (14th ed.). London: Routledge. Cullngworth, B., & Caves, R.W. (2009). Plannng n the USA: Polces, Issues and Processes (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Daamen, T.A. (2005). De kost gaat voor de baat ut: Markt, mddelen en rumteljke kwaltet bj stedeljke gebedsontwkkelng. Amsterdam: SUN Utgeverj. Daamen, T.A. (2010). Strategy as Force: Towards Effectve Strateges for Urban Development Projects The Case of Rotterdam Cty Ports (Doctoral dssertaton). Amsterdam: IOS Press. Daamen, T.A. (2011). Gebedsontwkkelng als een communty of practce. Real Estate Research Quarterly, 10(2), 12-15. Damme, E. van, & P. Schnkel (2009). Marktwerkng en borgng van publeke belangen. In E. van Damme & P. Schnkel (Eds.), Marktwerkng en Publeke Belangen (pp. 1-22). Amsterdam: Konnkljke Verengng voor de Staathushoudkunde, Marktwerkng en Publeke Belangen. Dekker, N.J. (2011). Organseren van sturng op stedeljke gebedsontwkkelng: Organsatorsche aanbevelngen voor een denst stedeljke ontwkkelng vanut een complextetserkennend perspectef (Thess). Rotterdam: Master Cty Developer. Delotte (2008a). Alleen ga je sneller samen kom je verder: De toekomst van publek-prvate samenwerkng bj gebedsontwkkelng. Rotterdam: Veenman Drukkers. Delotte (2008b). Anders maar net beter: Evaluate van gebedsconcesses n vjf Europese landen. Utrecht: Delotte Fnancal Advsory Servces. Delotte (2010a). Fnancële effecten crss bj gemeenteljke grondbedrjven: Onderzoek.o.v. VNG en Mnstere van Infrastructuur en Mleu. Utrecht: Delotte Real Estate Advsory. Delotte (2010b). Schuvende panelen: Een vse op gebedsontwkkelng. Utrecht: Delotte Real Estate Advsory & Praktjkleerstoel Gebedsontwkkelng TU Delft. Delotte (2011a). Fnancële effecten crss bj gemeenteljke grondbedrjven: Update 2011. Utrecht: Delotte Real Estate Advsory. 434 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Delotte (2011b). GREXpert: Verlezen op grondexplotates. Utrecht: Delotte Real Estate Advsory. Delotte, AkroConsult, & Praktjkleerstoel Gebedsontwkkelng TU Delft (2011). Samenwerkng tussen publek en prvaat n een andere realtet: Neuwe modellen n theore en praktjk (Supplement bj de publcate Gebedsontwkkelng n een andere realtet). Delft: Praktjkleerstoel Gebedsontwkkelng TU Delft. Department of the Envronment, Transport and the Regons [DETR] (1998). Modernsng plannng: A statement by the Mnster for Plannng, Regeneraton and the Regons. London: DETR. Department of the Envronment, Transport and the Regons [DETR] (2000). Our towns and ctes: The future Delverng an urban renassance. London: HSMO. Department of the Envronment, Transport and the Regons [DETR], & Commsson for Archtecture & the Buldng Envronment [CABE] (2000). By desgn Urban desgn n the plannng system: Towards better practce. London: DETR & CABE. Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regons [DTLR] (2001). Plannng: Delverng a fundamental change. London: DTLR. Ders, J. (2004). Neghbor Power: Buldng Communty the Seattle Way. Seattle, WA: Unversty of Washngton Press. DGaetano, A., & Strom, E. (2003). Comparatve urban governance: An ntegrated approach. Urban Affars Revew, 38(3), 356-395. DGaetano, A., & Klemansk, J.S. (1993). Urban regmes n comparatve perspectve: The poltcs of urban development n Brtan. Urban Affars Quarterly, 29, 55-83. DGaetano, A., & Klemansk, J.S. (1999). Power and Cty Governance: Comparatve Perspectves on Urban Development. Mnneapols, MN: Unversty of Mnnesota Press. Djk, G. van, Klep, L.F.M., Maden, R. van der, Dut, IJ.G.A., & Boekel, P. van (2002). De Wonngcorporate als Moderne Maatschappeljke Ondernemng. Assen: Konnkljke van Gorcum. Djk, R. van (2010). Buldng bgger, better and bolder?: Learnng from cty development n the Unted States (Thess). Rotterdam: Master Cty Developer. Djk, R. van (2011). Leren van stedeljke ontwkkelng n VS: Groter, beter en gedurfder? Real Estate Magazne, MCD Specal, 36-40. Djken, van K., Korthals, J., & Lup, T. (2011). Handrekng stedeljke herprogrammerng. Den Haag: NICIS Insttute. Djstelbloem, H., Hoed, P. den, Holtslag, J.W., & Schouten, S. (Eds.) (2010). Het gezcht van de publeke zaak: Openbaar bestuur onder ogen. Den Haag/Amsterdam: WRR. Djstelbloem, H., & Holtslag, J.W. (2010). De veranderde archtectuur van het bestuur. In H. Djstelbloem, P. den Hoed, J.W. Holtslag, & S. Schouten (Eds.), Het gezcht van de publeke zaak: Openbaar bestuur onder ogen (pp. 15-54). Den Haag/Amsterdam: WRR. Dxon, T. (2007). The property development ndustry and sustanable urban brownfeld regeneraton n England: An analyss of case studes n Thames Gateway and Greater. Urban Studes, 44, 2379-2400. Dxon, T., Raco, M., Catney, P., & Lerner, D.N. (2007). Sustanable Brownfeld Regeneraton: Lveable Places from Problem Spaces. Oxford: Blackwell. Dolowtz, D.P., & Marsh, D. (1996). Who learns what from whom: A revew of the polcy transfer lterature. Poltcal Studes, 44, 343-357. Dolowtz, D.P., & Marsh, D. (2000). Learnng from abroad: The role of polcy transfer n contemporary polcymakng. Governance: An Internatonal Journal of Polcy and Admnstraton, 13, 5-24. Doz, Y., & Hamel, G. (1998). Allance Advantage: The art of creatng value through partnerng. Boston, MA: Harvard Busness School Press. Dühr, S., Colomb, C., & Nadn, V. (2010). European Spatal Plannng and Terrtoral Cooperaton. London: Routledge. Dunn, J.A., Jr. (1999). Transportaton: Polcy-level partnershps and project-based partnershps. Amercan Behavoral Scence, 43(1), 92-106. Durkhem, E. (1982). The Rules of Socologcal Method and Selected Texts on Socology and ts Method. New York, NY: The Free Press. Edelenbos, J. (2000). Proces n Vorm: Procesbegeledng van nteracteve beledsvormng over lokale rumteljke projecten. Utrecht: Lemma. Elkn, S. (1987). Cty and Regme n the Amercan Republc. Chcago, IL: Unversty of Chcago Press. Englsh Partnershps (2010). Englsh Partnershps (Onlne). http://www.englshpartnershps.co.uk. Eshus, J., Kljn. E.H., & Twst, M. van (2011). Prvaat beheerde woondomenen: Beloftevol of beangstgend fenomeen? Beled en Maatschappj, 38(1), 30-46. Espng-Andersen, G. (1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Captalsm. Oxford: Polty Press. European Commsson (2004), Green Paper (Artcle 60: 20). Brussels: European Commsson. European Spatal Plannng Observaton Network [ESPON] (2007). Governance of Terrtoral and Urban Polces from EU to Local Level (ESPON project 2.3.2). Luxembourg: ESPON. Evans, A.W. (2004). Economcs and Land Use Plannng. Oxford: Blackwell. 435 References

Fansten, N., & Fansten, S. (1983). Regme strateges, communal resstance, and economc forces. In S. Fansten, N. Fansten, R.C. Hll, D. Judd & M.P. Smth (Eds.), Restructurng the Cty: The Poltcal Economy of Urban Redevelopment. New York, NY: Longman. Fansten, N., & Fansten, S. (1985). Is State Plannng Necessary for Captal? The U.S. Case. Internatonal Journal of Urban and Regonal Research, 9(4), 485-507. Falud, A. (2000). The performance of spatal plannng. Plannng Practce and Research, 15, 299-318. Falud, A. (Ed.) (1991). Bult Envronment Specal Issue: Ffty Years of Dutch Natonal Physcal Plannng, 17(1). Falud, A., & Valk, A. van der (1994). Rule and Order: Dutch Plannng Doctrne n the Twenteth Century. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academc Publshers. Feagn, J.R., & Parker, R.E. (2002). Buldng Amercan ctes: The Urban Real Estate Game (2nd ed.). Washngton, DC: Beard Books. Ferrera, M. (1996). The southern model of welfare n socal Europe. Journal of European Socal Polcy, 6(1), 17-37. Fler, K. van der, & Grus, V. (2004). Zn en onzn van samenwerkng tussen corporates en beleggers bj de verbeterng van naoorlogse wjk. Buldng Busness, 10, 34-37. Flnders, M. (2005). The poltcs of Publc-Prvate Partnershps. Brtsh Journal of Poltcs and Internatonal Relatons, 7(2), 215-239. Flnt, A. (2009). Wrestlng wth Moses: How Jane Jacobs took on New York s master bulder and transformed the Amercan cty. New York, NY: Random House. Florda, R. (2010). The Great Reset: How New Ways of Lvng and Workng Drve Post-crash Prosperty. New York, NY: Harper Collns. Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Ratonalty and Power: Democracy n Practce. Chcago, IL: Unversty of Chcago Press. Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Makng Socal Scence Matter: Why Socal Inqury Fals and How t Can Succeed Agan. Cambrdge: Cambrdge Unversty Press. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Fve msunderstandngs about case-study research. Qualtatve Inqury, 12(2), 219-245. Franzen, A., & Zeeuw, W.T.C.F. de (2009). De engel ut granet: Perspectef op gebedsontwkkelng n tjden van crss. Delft: Praktjkleerstoel TU Delft. Franzen, A., Hobma, F.A.M., Jonge, H. de, Wgmans, G. (Eds.) (2011). Management of Urban Development Processes n the Netherlands: Governance, Desgn, Feasblty. Amsterdam: Techne Press. Franzen. A., & Wgmans, G. (Eds.) (2011). Management of spatal qualty. In A. Franzen, F.A.M. Hobma, H. de Jonge & G. Wgmans (Eds.), Management of Urban Development Processes n the Netherlands (pp. 141-158). Amsterdam: TechnePress. Freund, R. (2010). How to overcome the barrers between economy and socology wth open nnovaton, open evaluaton and crowd fundng? Internatonal Journal of Industral Engneerng and Management, 1(3), 105-109. Fukuyama, F. (1989). The End of Hstory? Natonal Interest, 16, 3-18. Fuller, C., & Geddes, M. (2008). Urban governance under neolberalsm: New Labour and the restructurng of state-space. Antpode, 40(2), 252-282. Gaffckn, F. & Warf, B. (1993). Urban polcy and the post-keynesan state n the Unted Kngdom and the Unted States. Internatonal Journal of Urban and Regonal Research, 17, 67-84. Gage, R.W., & Mandell, M.P. (Eds.) (1990). Strateges for Managng Intergovernmental Polces and Networks. New York, NY: Praeger. Geertz, C. (1995). After the Fact: Two Countres, Four Decades, One Anthropologst. Cambrdge, MA: Harvard Unversty Press. Geutng, E. (2011). Marktstructurerng als rumteljke ordenngsnstrument: Verkennng van dre rechtsarrangementen n de wonngbouwmarkt; Samenvattng. Enschede: Ipskamp Drukkers. Gddens, A. (1998). The Thrd Way: The Renewal of Socal Democracy. Cambrdge: Polty Press. Gddens, A. (2000). The Thrd Way and ts Crtcs. Cambrdge: Polty Press. Gjzen, M.H.M. (2009). Zonder loslaten geen concesse: Inzcht n de recente toepassng van deze publekprvate samenwerkngsvorm n de Nederlandse gebedsontwkkelngspraktjk met evdence-based verbetervoorstellen (Thess). Rotterdam: Master Cty Developer. Groux, H. (2004). The Terror of Neolberalsm: Authortaransm and the Eclpse of Democracy. New York, NY: Paradgm. Glaeser, E. (2011). Trumph of the Cty: How our Greatest Inventon Makes us Rcher, Smarter, Greener, Healther, and Happer. New York, NY: Pengun Press. Godjk, R. (2008). Herwaarderng van de Rjnlandse prncpes: Over governance, overleg en engagement. Assen: Konnkljke Van Gorcum. Gooblar, A. (2002). Outsde the walls: Urban gated communtes and ther regulaton wthn the Brtsh plannng system. European Plannng Studes, 10(3), 321-334. Goonewardena, K. (2003). The Future of Plannng and the End of Hstory. Plannng Theory, 2(3), 183-224. Gottdener, M. (1994). The Socal Producton of Urban Space. Austn, TX: Unversty of Texas Press. 436 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Gough, J. (2002). Neolberalsm and socalsaton n the contemporary cty: Oppostes, complements and nstabltes. Antpode, 36(3), 405-426. Graaf, K. de (2009). Kansen voor gebedsconcesses verkent: Komt het ende van de PPS n zcht? Buldng Busness, 5, 44-49. Greed, C. (1996). The Brstol and Avon context. In J. Allnson, J. Askew, J. Claydon, L. Daves, J. Tempest & R. Tetlow, Implementng Town Plannng: The Role of Town Plannng n the Development Process (pp. 124-138). Essex: Longman Group. Grmshaw, D., Vncent, S., & Wllmott, H. (2002). Gong prvately: Partnershp and outsourcng n UK publc servces. Publc Admnstraton, 80(3), 475-502. Groote, G.P., Hugenholtz-Sasse C.J., & Slkker, P. (2002). Projecten leden. Utrecht: Het Spectrum. Groot Jebbnk, S. (2012). Het vraagstuk utnodgngsplanologe: De werkwjze van een gemeente met een utnodgende en faclterende houdng (Thess). Rotterdam: Master Cty Developer. Grosvenor (2002). Lverpool Paradse Street Development Area: Masterplan Background. Lverpool: Grosvenor. Grus, V. (2007). Bedrjfsstjlen van Wonngcorporates. Gouda: Habforum. Guba, E.G., & Lncoln, Y.S. (1994). Competng Paradgms n Qualtatve Research. In N.K. Denzn & Y.S. Lncoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualtatve Research (pp. 105-117). London: Sage. Guy, S., & Henneberry, J. (2002). Development and Developers. Oxford: Blackwell. Guy, S., & Henneberry, J., & Rowley, S. (2002). Development cultures and urban regeneraton. Urban Studes, 39, 1181-1196. Haaren, J. van, & Daamen, T.A. (2011). Het succes van Hamburg: Investeren waar nodg, faclteren waar gewenst. Real Estate Magazne, 14(78), 24-29. Hajer M., & Zonneveld, W. (2000). Spatal plannng n the network socety: Rethnkng the prncples of plannng n the Netherlands. European Plannng Studes, 8(3), 337-355. Hackworth, J. (2007). The Neolberal Cty: Governance, Ideology and Development n Amercan Urbansm. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Unversty Press. Hagendjk, K. (2011). Innovateve fnancerngsvormen ut Engeland: Verslag bjeenkomst fnancerngsconstructes (Onlne). http://www.gebedsontwkkelng.nu. Hall, T. (2001). Urban Geography (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Hall, T. (2006). Urban Geography (3rd ed.). London: Routledge. Hall, T., & Hubbard, P. (Eds.) (1998). The Entrepreneural Cty: Geographes of Poltcs, Regme and Representaton. Chchester: Wley. Hall, P. A., & Soskce, D. (2001). Varetes of Captalsm: The Insttutonal Foundatons of Comparatve Advantage. Oxford: Oxford Unversty Press. Hanf, K.I., & Scharpf, F.W. (Eds.) (1978). Interorganzatonal Polcy Makng: Lmts to coordnaton and central control. London: Sage. Hanson, R., Wolman, H., Connolly, D., Pearson, P., & McManmon, R. (2010). Corporate ctzenshp and urban problem solvng: The changng cvc role of busness leaders n Amercan ctes. Journal of Urban Affars, 32(1), 1-23. Hardng, A. (1990). Publc-Prvate Partnershps n urban regeneraton polcy. In M. Campbell (Ed.), Local Economc Polcy. London: Cassell. Harms, E. (2008). We zjn steeds bezg met het ontwerpen van een maatpak: Veranderende rollen bj gebedsontwkkelng. Real Estate Magazne, MCD Specal, 10-14. Harms, E. (2008). Gebedsontwkkelng kan net zonder problemen: Valkulen gebedsontwkkelng. Real Estate Magazne, 61(12), 14-17. Harvey, D. (1989). From manageralsm to entrepreneuralsm: The transformaton n urban governance n late captalsm. Geografsk Analer, 71B: 3-17. Harvey, D. (2000). Spaces of Hope. Berkeley, CA: Unversty of Calforna Press. Harvey, D. (2005). A Bref Hstory of Neolberalsm. New York, NY: Oxford Unversty Press. Hausner, V.A. (1993). The future of urban development. Royal Socety of Arts Journal, 14(5441), 522-533. Healey, P. (1991). Urban regeneraton and the development ndustry. Regonal Studes, 25(2), 97-110. Healey, P. (1992). Development plans and markets. Plannng Practce and Research, 7, 13-20. Healey, P. (1997/2006). Collaboratve Plannng: Shapng Places n Fragmented Socetes. Houndmlls: Palgrave Macmllan. Healey, P. (2007). Urban Complexty and Spatal Strateges. London: Routledge. Healey, P., Davoud, S., Tavsanoglu, S., O Toole, M., & Usher, D. (Eds.) (1992). Rebuldng the Cty: Property-led Urban Regeneraton. London: E & FN Spon. Hee, M. van der (2011). Bouwclam: terug van weggeweest? (Thess). Delft: Delft Unversty of Technology. Hejst, M. van, Horst, M. van der, & Ochtman, J. (2011). DBFM kan ook lght: DBFM lght, sturen op beschkbaarhed bj projecten met een beperkte fnancële omvang. Amersfoort: Twynstra Gudde. Helleman, G. (2005). Quckscan rol marktpartjen. Rotterdam: KEI-centrum. 437 References

Hellgren, B., & Stenberg, T. (1995). Desgn and mplementaton n major nvestments: a project network approach. Scandnavan Journal of Management, 11(4), 377-394. Henderson, S. (2010). Developer collaboraton n urban land development: Partnershp workng n Paddngton, London. Envronment and Plannng C: Government and Polcy, 28, 165-185. Heurkens, E.W.T.M. (2008). The Anglo-Saxon western wnd: Repostonng the management of urban area development n the Netherlands. BOSS Magazne, 34, 54-58. Heurkens, E.W.T.M. (2009). Changng publc and prvate roles n urban area development n the Netherlands. In J. Rosemann, L. Qu & D. Sepúlveda (Eds.), The NEW Urban Queston: Urbansm Beyond Neo-Lberalsm (pp. 345-355). Rotterdam: Internatonal Forum on Urbansm. Heurkens, E.W.T.M. (2010). Prvate sector-led urban development. Real Estate Research Quarterly, 9(2), 29-34. Heurkens, E.W.T.M. (2011a). A method to study the management of urban development projects. In H. Wamelnk, R. Geraedts & L. Volker (Eds.), Management and nnovaton for a sustanable bult envronment (pp. 1-13). Amsterdam: Delft Unversty of Technology. Heurkens, E.W.T.M. (2011b). Blog Amerka (Onlne). http://www.gebedsontwkkelng.nu. Heurkens, E.W.T.M. (2012). The fall and rse of neolberal Amercan ctes: Towards more sustanable urban development strateges. BOSS Magazne, 43, 19-28. Heurkens, E.W.T.M., Hobma, F.A.M., & Zeeuw, W.T.C.F. de (2008). Gebedsconcesse: een omstreden neuwkomer. Rumteljke Ontwkkelng Magazne, 10, 12-15. Heurkens, E.W.T.M., Hobma, F.A.M., & Zeeuw, W.T.C.F. de (2009). Gebedsconcesse n de praktjk. Rumteljke Ontwkkelng Magazne, 9, 30-33. Heurkens, E.W.T.M., & Louwaars, S.P. (2011). Publc & prvate leadershp n urban development. Real Estate Research Quarterly, 10(2), 37-47. Heurkens, E.W.T.M., & Peek, B. (2010). Effecten van de toepassng van het concessemodel bj gebedsontwkkelng. Real Estate Magazne, 71, 42-45. Hller, J. (2002). Shadows of Power: An Allegory of Prudence n Land use Plannng. London: Routledge. Hobma, F.A.M. (2005). Rsco van rumteljk ontwkkelngsbeled. Openbaar Bestuur, 12, 4-7. Hobma, F.A.M. (2007). Een terugblk op 15 jaar PPS n bouw en nfrastructuur. BOSS Magazne, 9, 52-60. Hobma, F.A.M. (2011). Successful urban area development. In A. Franzen, F.A.M. Hobma, H. de Jonge & G. Wgmans (Eds.), Management of Urban Development Processes n the Netherlands (pp. 219-235). Amsterdam: TechnePress. Hobma, F.A.M., Louw, E., Spaans, M., & Veen, M. van der (2008). Leren van de Engelse gebedsontwkkelngspraktjk. Delft: Facultet Bouwkunde/Onderzoeksnsttuut OTB. Hobma, F.A.M., & Schutte-Postma, E.T. (2011). Plannng and Development Law n the Netherlands: An Introducton. December 2011. Delft: Delft Unversty of Technology. Hobma, F.A.M., & Zeeuw, W.T.C.F. de (2009). De neuwe Engelse wetgevng voor de rumteljke ordenng en haar toepassng bj gebedsontwkkelng. Tjdschrft voor Bouwrecht, 10, 893-900. Hodge, G., & Greve, C. (2005). The Challenge of Publc Prvate Partnershps: Learnng from nternatonal experence. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Hoek, M. van, & Wgmans, G. (2011). Management of urban development. In A. Franzen, F.A.M. Hobma, H. de Jonge & G. Wgmans (Eds.), Management of Urban Development Processes n the Netherlands (pp. 53-76). Amsterdam: TechnePress. Hof, J. van den (2006). PPS n de polder: De betekens van publek-prvate samenwerkng voor de borgng van duurzame rumteljke kwaltet op VINEX-locates (Doctoral dssertaton). Utrecht: Konnkljk Nederlands Aardrjkskundg Genootschap, Coperncus Insttute for Sustanable Development and Innovaton. Holland, R.C. (1984). The new era n Publc-Prvate Partnershps. In P.R. Porter & D.C. Sweet (Eds.), Rebuldng Amerca s Ctes: Roads to Recovery. New Brunswck, NJ: Center for Urban Polcy Research. Hood, C. (1991). A publc management for all reasons. Publc Admnstraton, 69(Sprng), 3-19. Hoojmejer, P., Kroon, H., & Luttk, J. (2001). Kwaltet n meervoud: Conceptualserng en operatonalserng van rumteljke kwaltet voor meervoudg rumtegebruk. Gouda: Habforum. Hoskns, G., & Tallon, A.R. (2004). Promotng the urban dyll : Polces for cty centre lvng. In C. Johnstone & M. Whtehead (Eds.), New Horzons n Brtsh Urban Polcy: Perspectves on New Labour s Urban Renassance (pp. 25-40). Aldershot: Ashgate. Howe, J. (2008). The rse of crowd sourcng. Wred, 14(6). Hulshof, M., & Roggeveen, D. (2011). How the cty moved to Mr Sun: Chna s new megactes. Amsterdam: Sun. Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (1996). Managng nter-organzatonal relatonshps. In S.P. Osborne (Ed.), Managng n the Voluntary Sector (pp. 202-216). London: Internatonal Thomson Busness Press. Interdepartementale Commsse Europees Recht [ICER] (2008). ICER rapport Auroux: De gevolgen van het arrest Auroux voor de gebedsontwkkelng n Nederland. ICER, October. Internatonal Network for Urban Research and Acton (2003). An alternatve urban world s possble: A declaraton for urban research and acton. Internatonal Journal of Urban and Regonal Research, 27(4), 952-955. 438 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Imre R., & Hall, P. (2001). An exploraton of dsablty and the development process. Urban Studes, 38, 333-350. Imre, R., & Raco, M. (2003). Communty and the changng nature of urban polcy. In R. Imre & M. Raco (Eds.), Urban Renassance?: New Labour, Communty and Urban Polcy (pp. 3-31). Brstol: Polcy Press. Imre, R., & Thomas, H. (Eds.) (1999). Brtsh Urban Polcy: An Evaluaton of the Urban Development Corporatons (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Jacobs, B. (2000). Strategy and Partnershp n Ctes and Regons: Economc Development and Urban Regeneraton n Pttsburgh, Brmngham and Rotterdam. London: MacMllan Press Ltd. Jacobs, J. (1962). The Death and Lfe of Great Amercan Ctes. New York, NY: Vntage Books. Janssen-Jansen, L. (2008). Space for space: A transferable development rght ntatve for changng the Dutch landscape. Landscape and Urban Plannng, 87(3), 192-200. Janssen-Jansen, L., Spaans, M., & Veen, M. van der (Eds.) (2008). New Instruments n Spatal Plannng: An Internatonal Perspectve on Non-fnancal Compensaton (Sustanable Urban Areas 23). Amsterdam: IOS Press. Janssen-Jansen, L., Kljn, E.H., & Opdam, P. (2009). Rumteljke kwaltet n gebedsontwkkelng. Gouda: Habforum. Janssen-Jansen, L., & Woltjer, J. (2010). Brtsh dscreton n Dutch plannng: Establshng a comparatve perspectve for regonal plannng and local development n the Netherlands and the Unted Kngdom. Land use Polcy, 27, 906-916. Jessop, B. (2002). Lberalsm, Neolberalsm, and Urban Governance: A State-Theoretcal Perspectve. Antpode, 34(3), 452-472. Jck, T.D. (1979). Mxng qualtatve and quanttatve methods: Trangulaton n acton. Admnstratve Scence Quarterly, 24(4), 602-611. Johnstone, C., & Whtehead, M. (2004). Horzons and barrers n Brtsh urban polcy. In C. Johnstone & M. Whtehead (Eds.), New Horzons n Brtsh Urban Polcy: Perspectves on New Labour s Urban Renassance (pp. 3-21). Aldershot: Ashgate. Jones, P. (2010). Lverpool One: The remakng of a cty centre how the plannng process delvered (Presentaton Master Cty Developer). Lverpool, May 2010. Jones, P., & Evans, J. (2008). Urban Regeneraton n the UK: Theory and Practce. London: Sage Publcatons Ltd. Jong, W.M. de (1999). Insttutonal Transplantaton: How to adopt good transport nfrastructure decsonmakng deas from other countres? Delft: Eburon. Jong, W.M. de (2004). The ptfalls of famly resemblance: Why transferrng plannng nsttutons between smlar-countres s a delcate busness. European Plannng Studes, 12, 1055-1068. Jong, W.M. de, Kalens, K., & Mamadouh, V.M. (Eds.) (2002). The Theory and Practce of Insttutonal Transplantaton: Experences wth the transfer of polcy nsttutons. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Jong, M. de, & Edelenbos, J. (2007). An nsder s look nto polcy transfer n trans-natonal expert networks. European Plannng Studes, 15(5), 687-706. Jonge, H. de (2007). Gebedsontwkkelng voor een kennseconome. Real Estate Magazne, 50, 12-15. Jonge, H. de (2010). Projectontwkkelaar 2.0. Fnanceel Dagblad, October 6. Joolngen, P. van, Kersten, P., & Franzen, A. (2009). Gebedsontwkkelng en de kredetcrss: Een recesse met structurele consequentes. Den Haag: Akro Consult & Praktjkleerstoel Gebedsontwkkelng TU Delft. Jørgensen, T., & Bozeman, B. (2002). Publc values lost: Comparng cases on contractng out from Denmark and the Unted States. Publc Management Revew, 4(1), 63-81. Judd, D., Parknson, M. (Eds.) (1990). Leadershp and Urban Regeneraton: Ctes n North Amerca and Europe. Volume 37 Urban Affars Annual Revews. London: Sage. Kantor, P., & Savtch, H.V. (2005). How to study comparatve urban development poltcs: A research note. Internatonal Journal of Urban and Regonal Research, 29(1), 135-151. Kazem, F., Grus, V., & Zeeuw, W.T.C.F. de (2009). Zj maakt het verschl. Delft: TU Delft. Keatng, M. (1997). Commentary: Publc-Prvate Partnershps n the Unted States from a European perspectve. In J. Perre (Ed.), Partnershps n Urban Governance: European and Amercan Experences (pp. 163-174). London: Macmllan. KEI (2010). Dosser rol marktpartjen. Den Haag: KEI-Centrum. Kelly, A. (1998). The economc, socal and cultural mpact of Harboursde. Brstol: Brstol Cultural Development Partnershp. Kennedy, P. (1993). Preparng for the 21st Century. New York, NY: Random House. Kennscentrum PPS (2004). Samenwerkngsmodellen en de jurdsche vormgevng daarvan bj pps bj gebedsontwkkelng. Den Haag: Mnstere van Fnancën. Kennscentrum PPS (2006). Publek-prvate samenwerkng bj gebedsontwkkelng: wanneer wel en wanneer net? Den Haag: Mnstere van Fnancën. Kckert, W. (1997a). Publc governance n the Netherlands: An alternatve to Anglo-Amercan manageralsm. Publc Admnstraton, 75(4), 731-752. 439 References

Kckert, W. (Ed.) (1997b). Publc Management and Admnstratve Reform n Western Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Kckert, W., Kljn, E.H., & Koppenjan (Eds.) (1997). Managng Complex Polcy Networks. London: Sage. Kljn, E.H. (2008). It s the management, stupd!: Over het belang van management bj complexe beledsvraagstukken (Inaugural address). Den Haag: Lemma. Kljn, E.H. (2012). New Publc Management and Governance: A Comparson. In D. Lev-Faur (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Governance (pp. 201-214). New York, NY: Oxford Unversty Press. Kljn, E.H., Edelenbos, J., Kort M.B., & Twst, M.J.W. van (2006). Management op het Grensvlak van Publek en Prvaat: Hoe managers omgaan met dllema s n complexe rumteljke projecten. Den Haag: Lemma. Kljn, E.H., Edelenbos, J., Kort, M.B., & Twst, M.J.W. van (2008). Facng management choces: An analyss of manageral choces n 18 complex envronmental Publc-Prvate Partnershp projects. Internatonal Revew of Admnstratve Scence, 74(2), 251-278. Kljn, E.H., & Tesman, G.R. (2000). Governng Publc-Prvate Partnershps: Analysng and managng the process and nsttutonal characterstcs of Publc-Prvate Partnershps. In S.P. Osborne, Publc-Prvate Partnershps: Theory and Practce n Internatonal Perspectve (pp. 84-102). London: Routledge. Kljn, E.H., & Tesman, G.R. (2003). Insttutonal and strategc barrers to Publc-Prvate Partnershp: An analyss of Dutch cases. Publc Money & Management, 23(3), 137-146. Kljn, E.H., & Twst, M.J.W. van (2007). Publek-prvate samenwerkng n Nederland: Overzcht van theore en praktjk. M&O, 61, 156-170. Klundert, A.F. van de (2008). Rumte tussen Overhed en Markt: Met concesses naar transparante en effectvtet. Rjswjk: Habforum. Koenen, I. (2009). Gebedsconcesses bj vastgelopen locates. Cobouw, June 29. Korp, W., & Palme, J. (1998). The paradox of redstrbuton and strateges of equalty: Welfare state nsttutons, nequalty and poverty n the Western countres. Amercan Socologcal Revew, 63(5), 661-687. Kort, M.B. (2011). Perspectef op herstructurerng: Een onderzoek naar het belang van organsate en management van de wjkontwkkelngsmaatschappj (Doctoral dssertaton). Den Haag: Boom Lemma. Korthals Altes, W.K. (2006). Towards regonal development plannng n the Netherlands. Plannng Practce and Research, 21(3), 309-321. Korthals Altes, W.K. (2008). Actef grondbeled betaalt zch terug. Property Research Quarterly, 1, 22-27. Korthals Altes, W.K. (2009). Taxng land for urban contanment: Reflectons on a Dutch debate. Land Use Polcy, 26, 233-241. Koppenjan, J., & Kljn, E.H. (2004). Managng Uncertantes n Networks. London: Routledge. Kotter, J.P. (1990). What leaders really do. Harvard Busness Revew, 68(3), 103-111. Kotter, J.P. (1996). Leadng Change. Boston, MA: Harvard Busness Revew Press. Krabben, E. van der (2011a). Gebedsontwkkelng n zorgeljke tjden: Kan de Nederlandse rumteljke ordenng zchzelf nog wel bedrupen? (Inaugural address). Njmegen: Radboud Unverstet Njmegen. Krabben, van der E. (2011b). Op de hete blaren van de overmoed: Hoogtjdagen acteve grondpoltek voorbj. Rumteljke Ontwkkelng en Mleu Magazne, 29(9), 8-9. Kreukels, A.M.J. (1995). Schuvende beledsterrenen. PIN-Neuws, 18(6), 59 65. Laglas, K. (2011). Who s n Charge Here? (Inaugural address). Delft: Delft Unversty of Technology. Lane, J.E. (2000). New Publc Management. London: Routledge. Lang, R. (2003). Edgeless Cty. Washngton, DC: Brookngs Insttute Press. Lankelma, J. (2009). Prvate kwaltet n openbare rumte: Hoe het concessemodel kan bjdragen n het streven naar hoogwaardg openbaar gebed (Thess). Delft: TU Delft. Larner, W. (2000). Neo-Lberalsm: Polcy, Ideology, Governmentalty. Studes n Poltcal Economy, 63, 5-25. Larner, W. (2003). Neolberalsm? Envronment and Plannng D: Socety and Space, 21(5), 509-512. Larner, W. (2005). Neolberalsm n (regonal) theory and practce. Geographcal Research: Journal of the Insttute of Australan Geographers, 43, 9-18. Laverman, W. (2010). Toekomst ontwkkelvak: geen eenvoud maar complextet. Buldng Busness, 9, 20-23. Laverman, W. (2012). Als we nu nets doen, zen onze steden er over ten jaar ut zoals n de jaren tachtg. Buldng Busness, 14(1), 10-13. Lees, L. (2003a). Polcy (re)turns: Gentrfcaton research and urban polcy urban polcy and gentrfcaton research. Envronment and Plannng A, 35, 571-574. Lees, L. (2003b). Vsons of urban renassance : The Urban Task Force report and the Urban Whte Paper. In R. Imre & M. Raco (Eds.), Urban Renassance? New Labour, Communty and Urban Polcy (pp. 61-82). Brstol: Polcy Press. Leeuw, A.C.J. de (2002). Bedrjfskundg Management: Prmar Proces, Stratege en Organsate. Assen: Konnkljke van Gorcum. Lefcoe, G. (1977). When governments become land developers: Notes on the publc sector experence n the Netherlands and Calforna. Calforna Law Revew, 51, 165-263. 440 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Lebfred, S. (1992). Towards a European welfare state?: On ntegratng poverty regmes nto the European communty. In Z. Ferge & J. E. Kolberg (Eds.), Socal Polcy n a Changng Europe. Frankfurt am Man: Campus Verlag. Letner, H. (1990). Ctes n Pursut of Economc Growth: The Local State as Entrepreneur. Poltcal Geography Quarterly, 9, 146-170. Lchfeld, N. (2003). Planned development and ts chldren. Plannng Theory and Practce, 4, 48-65. Lnd, H. (2002). Market-orented land use plannng: A conceptual note. Plannng and Markets, 5(1). Lttlefeld, D. (2009). Lverpool One: Remakng a Cty Centre. Chcester: Wley. Local Government Improvement and Development [LGID] (2010). Secton 106 Agreement (Onlne). http:// www.dea.gov.uk. Loftman, P., & Nevn, B. (1995). Prestge projects and urban regeneraton n the 1980s and 1990s: A revew of benefts and lmtatons. Plannng Practce and Research, 10(3-4), 299-316. Lohof, S., & Rejndorp, A. (2006). Prvé-terren: Prvaat beheerde woondomenen n Nederland. Rotterdam: NA Utgevers. Loon, P.P.J. (1999). Interorgansatonal Desgn: A New Approach to Team Desgn n Archtecture and Urban Plannng (Doctoral dssertaton). Delft: Publcatebureau Bouwkunde. Loon, P.P.J. van, Heurkens, E.W.T.M., & Bronkhorst, S. (2008). The Urban Decson Room: An Urban Management Instrument. Amsterdam: IOS Press. Lousberg, L.H.M.J. (2012). Sturen op haalbaarhed en relate: Interventes om dsfunctonele conflcten bj Publek Prvate Samenwerkng n rumteljke ontwkkelngsprojecten te voorkomen (Doctoral dssertaton). Delft: VSSD. Louw, E., Krabben, E. van der, & Premus, H. (2003). Spatal development polcy: Changng roles for local and regonal authortes n the Netherlands. Land use Polcy, 20, 357-366. Louwaars, S. (2011). Publc leadershp styles: How atttude affects the realzaton of strategc projects (Thess). Delft: Delft Unversty of Technology. Loverng, J. (2009). The recesson and the end of plannng as we have known t. Internatonal Plannng Studes, 14(1), 1-6. Lujten, A. (2011a). Alternateven voor een actef grondbeled. (Onlne). http://www.gebedsontwkkelng.nu. Lujten, A. (2011b). Europese top zet n op marktverbredng. Buldng Busness, 9, 50-53. Lujten, A. (2011c). Overhed: Coach of medespeler. Buldng Busness, 9, 28-31. MacLaran, A., & McGurk, P. (2003). Plannng the cty. In A. MacLaran (Ed.), Makng Space: Property Development and Urban Plannng (pp. 63-94). London: Arnold. Madho, A. (2008). De verhoudng tussen prvaat beheerde woondomenen en overheden (Thess). Rotterdam: Erasmus Unverstet Rotterdam. Majone, G. (1996). Regulatng Europe. London: Routledge. Majoor, S. (2008). Dsconnected Innovatons: New Urbanty n Large-scale Urban Development Projects: Zudas Amsterdam, Ørestad Copenhagen and Forum Barcelona. Delft: Eburon. Mandell, M.P. (Ed.) (2001). Gettng Results through Collaboraton: Networks and network structures for publc polcy and management. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Marcuse, P., & Kempen, R. van (2000). Concluson: A changed spatal order. In P. Marcuse & R. van Kempen (Eds.), Globalzng Ctes: A New Spatal Order? Oxford: Blackwell. Martn, R. (1988). Industral captalsm n transton: The contemporary reorgansaton of the Brtsh space economy. In D. Massey & J. Allen (Eds.), Uneven Redevelopment: Ctes and Regons n Transton (pp. 202-231). London: Hodder & Stoughton. Masser, I., & Wllams, R. (Eds.) (1986). Learnng from other Countres: The Cross-natonal Dmenson n Urban Polcy-makng. Norwch: Geo Books. Mastop, H. (1995). Permanent sleutelen aan de nsttutonele structuur. PIN-neuws, 19, 77-84. Mayhew, S. (1997). Dctonary of Geography. Oxford: Oxford Unversty Press. McCarthy, J. (2007). Partnershp, Collaboratve Plannng and Urban Regeneraton. Aldershot: Ashgate. McQuad, R.W. (2000). The theory of partnershps: Why have partnershps? In S.P. Osborne, Publc-Prvate Partnershps: Theory and Practce n Internatonal Perspectve (pp. 9-35). London: Routledge. Meer, K.J., & O Toole, L.J. (2001). Manageral strateges and behavour n networks: A model wth evdence from U.S. publc educaton. Journal of Publc Admnstraton and Theory, 11(3), 271-293. Mles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualtatve Data Analyss: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Mller, J.B. (2000). Prncples of Publc and Prvate Infrastructure Delvery. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academc. Mllngton, A.F. (2007). Property Development. London: EG Books. Mnstere van Volkshusvestng, Rumteljke Ordenng en Mleu [VROM] (1991). Verde Nota Rumteljke Ordenng Extra. Den Haag: VROM. Mnstere van Volkshusvestng, Rumteljke Ordenng en Mleu [VROM] (2006). Nota Rumte: Rumte voor Ontwkkelng. Den Haag: VROM. 441 References

Mnstere van Volkshusvestng, Rumteljke Ordenng en Mleu [VROM] (2008). Neuwe Wet Rumteljke Ordenng. Den Haag: VROM. Mnton, A. (2009). Ground Control: Fear and happness n the twenty-frst century cty. London: Pengun Books. Mntzberg, H. (1975). The manager s job: Folklore and fact. Harvard Busness Revew, 53(4), 49-61. Mntzberg, H. (2010). Managng (Nederlandse vertalng). Amsterdam: Busness Contact. Mouffe, C. (2005). On the Poltcal. New York, NY: Routledge. Moulaert, F. (2005). Globalzaton and Integrated Area Development n European ctes. Oxford: Oxford Unversty Press. Muñoz Gelen, D. (2010). Capturng value ncrease n urban redevelopment: A study of how the economc values ncrease n urban redevelopment can be used to fnance the necessary publc nfrastructure and other facltes (Doctoral dssertaton). Leden: Sdestone Press. Mure, A., & Rowlands, R. (2008). The new poltcs of housng. Envronment and Plannng C: Government and Polcy, 26, 644-659. Nadn, V. (2007). The emergence of the spatal plannng approach n England. Plannng Practce and Research, 22, 43-62. Nadn, V. (2008). Charactersng European plannng systems. Paper presented to the AESOP-ACSP Jont Congress. Chcago, 6-11 July (unpublshed). Nadn, V. (2011). Internatonal comparson of spatal development and plannng: Four models (Presentaton Master Cty Developer). Rotterdam, 9 November. Nadn, V., Short, M., Smth, N., & Askew, J. (2008). Development and plannng processes n England: General paper for learnng from Englsh practces of area development. Delft/Brstol: Delft Unversty of Technology & Unversty of the West of England, 25 February. Nadn, V., & Stead, D. (2008). European spatal plannng systems, socal models and learnng. dsp, 172, 35-47. Needham, B. (1997). Land polcy n the Netherlands. Tjdschrft voor Economsche en Socale Geografe, 88(3), 291-296. Needham, B. (2000). Spatal plannng as a desgn dscplne: A paradgm for Western Europe? Envronment and Plannng B: Plannng and Desgn, 27, 437-453. Needham, B. (2006). Plannng, Law and Economcs: The Rules we Make for Usng Land. New York, NY: Routledge. Needham, B. (2007). Dutch Land use Plannng: Plannng and Managng Land use n the Netherlands, the Prncples and the Practce. The Hague: Sdu Utgevers. Nevn, B., Loftman, P., & Beazley, M. (1997). Ctes n crss: Is growth the answer? Town Plannng Revew, 68, 145-164. Newman, J. (2001). Modernsng Governance: New Labour, Polcy and Socety. London: Sage. Neboer, N., & Grus, V. (2006). Does reduced government nterventon produce market-orented socal landlords?: Impressons from an nternatonal comparatve study. Delft: OTB. Njkamp, P., Burch, M. van der, & Vndgn, G. (2002). A comparatve nsttutonal evaluaton of Publc-Prvate Partnershps n Dutch urban land use and revtalsaton projects. Urban Studes, 39(10), 1865-1880. Nederland Boven Water [NLBW] (2010). Methodek Publek Prvate Samenwerkng (Onlne). https://www. traversenet.nl/nlbwkpeda. Nozeman, E. (2008). Handboek projectontwkkelng: Een veelzjdg vak n een dynamsch omgevng. Voorburg: Neprom. nwro (2008). Neuwe Wet Rumteljke Ordenng (Onlne). http://www.nwro.nl. Oakley, P. (1991). Projects wth People. Geneva: ILO. Oatley, N. (Ed.) (1998). Ctes, Economc Competton and Urban Polcy. London: Paul Chapman. Offce of the Deputy Prme Mnster [OPDM] (2004). Urban Regeneraton Companes: Gudance and qualfcaton crtera. London: HMSO. Offce of the Deputy Prme Mnster [OPDM] (2005). Plannng Polcy Statement 1: Delverng sustanable development. London: TSO. Offce of the Deputy Prme Mnster [OPDM] (2006). The state of the Englsh ctes. London: ODPM. Ontwkkelngsbedrjf Gemeente Amsterdam [OGA] (2008). Analyse Amsterdams grondbeled 2008. Amsterdam: OGA. Ophem, I. van (2007). Samenwerken n vastgoedontwkkelng: Een onderzoek naar gemeenschappeljke vastgoedontwkkelng bnnen een gebedsgerchte PPS (Thess). Rotterdam: Master Cty Developer. Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Re-nventng Government: How the Entrepreneural Sprt s Transformng the Publc Sector. Readng, MA: Addson-Wesley. Osborne, S.P. (1997). Managng the coordnaton of socal servces n the mxed economy of welfare: Competton, cooperaton or common cause? Brtsh Journal of Management, 8, 317-328. Osborne, S.P. (2000a). Introducton: Understandng Publc-Prvate Partnershps n nternatonal perspectve: globally convergent or natonally dvergent phenomena? In S.P. Osborne, Publc-Prvate Partnershps: Theory and Practce n Internatonal Perspectve (pp. 1-5). London: Routledge. 442 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Osborne, S.P. (Ed.) (2000b). Publc-Prvate Partnershps: Theory and Practce n Internatonal Perspectve. London: Routledge. Overmeeren, A.J. van, & Zjlstra, S. (2009). Changng plannng by Dutch housng assocatons: From supply to demand-drven and from customer to area-drven strategc housng management. In J. Rosemann, L. Qu & D. Sepúlveda (Eds.), The NEW Urban Queston: Urbansm Beyond Neo-Lberalsm (pp. 1409-1414). Rotterdam: Internatonal Forum on Urbansm. Pacone, M. (2005). Urban geography: A Global Perspectve (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Parker, A. (2008). Lverpool One: The early days. Lverpool: Cushman & Wakefeld. Parker, C., & Garnell, C. (2006). Regeneraton and retal n Lverpool: A new approach. Journal of Retal and Lesure Property, 5, 292-304. Parknson, M., Ball, M., Blake, N., & Key, T. (2009). The Credt Crunch and Regeneraton: Impact and Implcatons. London: DCLG. Peck, J. (2001). Workfare States. New York, NY: Gulford Press. Peck, J., & Tckell, A. (2002). Neolberalsng space. In N. Brenner & N. Theodore (Eds.), Spaces of Neolberalsm: Urban Restructurng n North Amerca and Western Europe (pp. 33-57). Oxford: Blackwell. Peck, J., & Tckell, A. (2006). Conceptualzng neolberalsm: Thnkng Thatchersm. In H. Letner, J. Peck & E. Sheppard (Eds.) Contestng Neolberalsm: Urban fronters (pp. 26-50). New York, NY: Guldford Press. Peek, B. (2010). The effects of use of the concesson model: Case study regardng fve Dutch urban area development cases (Thess). Delft: Delft Unversty of Technology. Peek. G.J. (2006). Locatesynerge: Een partcpateve start van de herontwkkelng van bnnenstedeljke statonslocates. Delft: Eburon. Peek, G.J. (2011). Van dscplnar raamwerk naar denkraam. Real Estate Research Quarterly, 10(2), 16-26. Peek, G.J., & Van Remmen (2012). Investeren n gebedsontwkkelng neuwe stjl: Handrekngen voor samenwerkng en verdenmodellen. Den Haag: Mnstere van Infrastructuur en Mleu. Peterson, P. (1981). Cty Lmts. Chcago, IL: Chcago Unversty Press. Pckvance, C.G. (2001). Four varetes of comparatve analyss. Journal of Housng and the Bult Envronment, 16, 7-28. Perre, J. (Ed.) (1997). Partnershps n Urban Governance: European and Amercan Experences. London: Macmllan. Perre, J., & Peters, G. (2000). Governance, Poltcs and the State. London: Macmllan. Pnch P., & Munt, I. (2002). Blue belts: an agenda for waterspace plannng n the UK. Plannng Practce and Research, 17, 159-174. Planbureau voor de Leefomgevng [PBL] (2012). Grootschalge of klenschalge verstedeljkng?: Een nsttutonele analyse van de totstandkomng van woonwjken n Nederland, Vlaanderen en Noordrjn- Westfalen. Den Haag: PBL. Pollt, C., Talbot, C., Caulfeld, J., & Smullen, D. (2004). Agences: How governments do thngs through semautonomous organzatons. Houndmlls: Palgrave Macmllan. Post, H. van der (2011). New kd on the block: Lokaal energebedrjf als neuwe speller n gebedsontwkkelng (Thess). Rotterdam: Master Cty Developer. Prem, E. (2008). De ontmaskerng van de concesse: Een onderzoek naar de plaats van het concessemodel n gebedsontwkkelng (Thess). Amsterdam: Amsterdam School of Real Estate. Premus, H. (1996). Physcal plannng and publc expendture n the Netherlands. Netherlands Journal of Housng and the Bult Envronment, 11(2), 151-171. Premus, H. (2001). Socal Housng as a transtonal tenure? Reflectons on the Netherlands new housng memorandum 2000-2010. Housng Studes, 16(2), 243-256. Premus, H. (2002). Combnng spatal nvestments n project envelopes: Current Dutch debates on area development. Plannng Practce and Research, 17(4), 455-464. Punter, J.V. (1992). Desgn control and the regeneraton of docklands: The example of Brstol. Journal of Property Research, 9, 49-78. Punter. J. (Ed.) (2010). Urban Desgn and the Brtsh Urban Renassance. London: Routledge. Purcell, M. (2008). Recapturng Democracy: Neolberalzaton and the Struggle for Alternatve Urban Futures. New York, NY: Routledge. Putman, M. (2010). Een neuwe ontwkkelaar?: Een toekomstperspectef voor de projectontwkkelaar n gebedsontwkkelng (Thess). Rotterdam: Master Cty Developer. Putten, E. van der, Lnt, R. de, & Wolff, H. de (2004). Onderzoek naar de mogeljkheden van een regelng voor stedeljke herverkavelng. Den Haag: Mnstere van VROM, Akro Consult & Onderzoeksnsttuut OTB. PrcewaterhouseCoopers, & Urban Land Insttute (2012). Emergng Trends n Real Estate Europe 2012. London: PwC & ULI. Ragn, C.C. (1992). Casng and the process of socal nqury. In C.C. Ragn & H.S. Becker (Eds.), What s a Case?: Explorng the Foundatons of Socal Inqury (pp. 217-226). Cambrdge: Cambrdge Unversty Press. Randeraat, G. van (2010). De markt s de markt net meer (Onlne). http://www.gebedsontwkkelng.nu. 443 References

Rapoport, A. (1970). The study of spatal qualty. Journal of Aesthetc Educaton, Specal Issue: The Envronment and the Aesthetc Qualty of Lfe, 4(4), 81-95. Rfkn, J. (2004). The European Dream: How Europe s Vson of the Future s Quetly Eclpsng the Amercan Dream. New York, NY: Pengun. Roberts, P. (2000). The evoluton, defnton and purpose of urban regeneraton. In P. Roberts & H. Sykes (Eds.), Urban Renassance: A Handbook (pp. 9-36). London: Sage. Roberts, P., & Sykes, H. (Eds.) (2000). Urban Renassance: A Handbook. London: Sage. Robles-Duran, M. (2011). Prelude to a brand new urban world. Volume, Prvatze! 30(4), 54-57, Archs. Robson, B.T., Bradford, M.G., Deas, I., Hall, E., Harrson, E., Evans, R., Hardng, A., Garsde, P., & Robnson, F. (1994), Assessng the Impact of Urban Polcy. London: HMSO. Rooy, P. van (2007). Grond, geld en gebedsontwkkelng. Real Estate Magazne, 55, 1-4. Rooy, P. van (2009). NederLandBovenWater II: Praktjkboek gebedsontwkkelng. Den Haag: Habforum/Nrov. Rooy, P. van (2011a). Verdenmogeljkheden: Caher gebedsontwkkelng. Gouda: Stchtng NederLandBovenWater. Rooy, P. van (2011b). Utnodgngsplanologe als socaal-cultureel perspectef. Buldng Busness, 13(10). Rooy, P. van, Lujn, A. van, & Dl, E. (2006). NederLandBovenWater: Praktjkboek gebedsontwkkelng. Gouda: Habforum. Rose, R. (1991). What s lesson-drawng? Journal of Publc Polcy, 11, 3-30. Rose, R. (2005). Learnng from Comparatve Publc Polcy: A Practcal Gude. London: Routledge. Rosemann, J., Qu, L., & Sepúlveda, D. (Eds.), The NEW Urban Queston: Urbansm beyond Neo-Lberalsm (IFoU conference proceedngs). Rotterdam: Internatonal Forum on Urbansm. Salet, W., Thornley, A., & Kreukels, A. (2003). Metropoltan Governance and Spatal Plannng: Comparatve Case Studes of European Cty-regons. London: Spon Press. Sapr, A. (2006). Globalzaton and the reform of European socal models. Journal of Common Market Studes, 44(2), 369 390. Sassen, S. (1996). Losng control? Soveregnty n an Age of Globalzaton. New York, NY: Columba Unversty Press. Sassen, S. (2001). The Global Cty: New York, London, Tokyo (2nd ed.). Prnceton, NJ: Prnceton Unversty Press. Sassen, S. (2006). Ctes n a World Economy (3rd ed.). Socology for a New Century Seres. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pne Forge Press. Savtch, H.V. (1997). The ecology of Publc-Prvate Partnershps: Europe. In J. Perre (Ed.), Partnershps n Urban Governance: European and Amercan Experences (pp. 175-186). London: Macmllan. Sanyal, B. (Ed.) (2005). Comparatve Plannng Cultures. London: Routledge. Scharpf, F.W. (1997). Games Real Actors Play: Actor-centred Insttutonalsm n Polcy Research. Oxford: Westvew Press. Scharpf, F.W. (2000). Insttutons n comparatve polcy research. Comparatve Poltcal Studes, 33(6/7), 762-790. Schön, D.A. (1983). The Reflectve Practtoner. London: Temple Smth. Sechrest, L. (1992). Roots: Back to our frst generatons. Evaluaton Practce, 13, 1-8. Senor, M.L., Webster, C.J., & Blank, N.E. (2004). Resdental preferences versus sustanable ctes: Quanttatve and qualtatve evdence from a survey of relocatng owner-occupers. Town Plannng Revew, 75, 337-357. Shaw, D., & Sykes, O. (2007). The management of spatal transformaton n ctes: Early reflectons on the development of Lverpool s local development framework (Draft Paper). Internatonal Conference New Concepts and Approaches for Urban and Regonal Polcy and Plannng?. Leuven, Aprl 2-3. Shaw, D., & Lord, A. (2009). From land use to spatal plannng : Reflectons on the reform of the Englsh plannng system, Town Plannng Revew, 80(4-5), 415-435. Short, M. (2009). Government and governance n the UK (Presentaton). Brstol: Unversty of the West of England, 14 October. Smth, I., Lepne, E., & Taylor, M. (Eds.) (2007). Dsadvantaged by where you lve?: Neghbourhood governance n contemporary urban polcy. Brstol: Polcy Press. Socal Market Foundaton [SMF] (2007). Should the Greenbelt be preserved? (Onlne). http://www.smf.co.uk. Sorrel, S., & Hoth, K. (2007). Approachng regeneraton n partnershp: Models for prvate and publc sector collaboraton. Journal of Urban Regeneraton and Renewal, 1(1), 37-43. Spaans, M. (2005). Een neuwe jas voor het Engelse plannngsstelsel. Nova Terra, 5(2), 32-37. Spaans, M. (2006). Recent changes n the Dutch plannng system: Towards a new governance model? Town Plannng Revew, 77(2), 127-146. Spaans, M., & Louw, E. (2009). Crossng borders wth planners and developers: The lmts of lesson-drawng. Proceedngs from EURA 09: Cty Futures. Madrd: EURA. Spaans, M., Veen, M. van der, & Janssen-Jansen, L. (2010). The concept of non-fnancal compensaton: What s t, whch forms can be dstngushed and what can t mean n spatal terms? Planum - The European Journal of Plannng onlne, January. 444 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Spakman, J. (2011). Insttutes n stedeljke gebedsontwkkelng: Doorbreken van nsttutonele barrères bj stagnerende processen van stedeljke gebedsontwkkelng (Thess). Rotterdam: Master Cty Developer. Squres, G., & Lord, A.D. (2012). The transfer of Tax Increment Fnancng (TIF) as an urban polcy for spatally targeted economc development. Land Use Polcy, 29(4), 817-826. Staff of Real Estate & Housng (2007). Research Portfolo 2005-2010: Development, Management and Polcy of the Bult Envronment. Delft: Sprng. Steeg, R. van, & Hutten, J. (2011). Naar een neuwe grondhoudng? Real Estate Magazne, 14(78), 46-49. Stephenson, M.O. (1991). Whther the Publc-Prvate Partnershps. Urban Affars Quarterly, 27(1), 109-127. Stewart, M. (1996). Too lttle, too late: The poltcs of local complacency. Urban Affars Quarterly, 18, 199-137. Stoker, G. (1997). Publc-Prvate Partnershps and urban governance. In J. Perre (Ed.), Partnershps n Urban Governance: European and Amercan Experences (pp. 34-55). London: Macmllan. Stone, G. (1989). Regme Poltcs: Governng Atlanta, 1946-1988. Lawrence, KS: Unversty of Kansas Press. Straub, S.C. (2012). Co-Creaton n Real-Estate: A framework to steer upon value-creatng frm-consumer relatons n demand-drven development. (Thess). Delft: Delft Unversty of Technology. Stronk, R. (2011). Waardevaste straten. Real Estate Magazne, 14(78), 19-20. Stronk, R. (2012). Rol van de overhed (Onlne). http://www.gebedsontwkkelng.nu. Swyngedouw, E. (1997). Nether Global nor Local: Glocalzaton and the Poltcs of Scale. In K. Cox (Ed.), Spaces of Globalzaton (pp. 137-166). New York, NY: Gulford Press. Swyngedouw, E., Moulaert, F., & Rodrguez, A. (2002). Neolberal urbansaton n Europe: Large-scale urban development projects and the new urban polcy. Antpode, 34, 542-577. Tallon, A.R. (2006). Regeneratng Brstol s Harboursde. Town & Country Plannng, 75, 278-282. Tallon, A.R. (2007). Cty profle: Brstol. Ctes, 24(1), 74-88. Tallon, A.R. (2009). Urban Regeneraton n the UK. London: Routledge. Tallon, A.R., & Bromley, R.D.F. (2004). Explorng the attractons of cty centre lvng: Evdence and polcy mplcatons n Brtsh ctes. Geoforum, 35, 771-787. Taylor, M. (1997). The Best of Both Worlds: The Voluntary Sector and the Government. York: YPS. Tesman, G.R. (1992). Complexe beslutvormng: Een plurcentrsch perspectef op beslutvormng over rumteljke nvesterngen. Den Haag: Vuga. Tesman, G.R. (2001). Beslutvormng en rumteljke procesmanagement. Delft: Eburon. Tesman, G.R. (2005). Publek management op de grens van chaos en orde. Schoonhoven: Academc Servce. Tesman, G.R. (2008). Infrastructure nvestments on the edge of publc and prvate domans. In G. Arts, W. Dcke & L. Hancher (Eds.), New perspectves on nvestment n nfrastructures (pp. 319-346). The Hague/ Amsterdam: WRR/Amsterdam Unversty Press. Tesman, G.R., & Kljn, E.H. (2002). Partnershp arrangements: Governmental rhetorc or governmental schemes? Publc Admnstraton, 62(2), 189-198. Thel, S. van (2001). Quango s: Trends, Causes and Consequences. Aldershot: Ashgate. Thornley, A. (1991). Urban Plannng under Thatchersm: The Challenge of the Market. London: Routledge. Tckell, A., & Peck, J. (2003). Makng Global Rules: Globalsaton or Neolberalsaton? In J. Peck & H. Yeung (Eds.), Remakng the Global Economy: Economc-Geographcal Perspectves (pp. 163-182). London: Sage. Tesdell, S. (2004). Integratng affordable housng wthn market-rate developments: the desgn dmenson. Envronment and Plannng B: Plannng and Desgn, 31, 195-212. Tesdell, S., & Allmendnger, P. (2001). Neghbourhood regeneraton and New Labour s thrd way. Envronment and Plannng C: Government and Polcy, 19, 903-926. Tesdell, S., & Allmendnger, P. (2005), Plannng tools and markets: Towards an extended conceptualsaton. In: D. Adams, C. Watkns & M. Whte (Eds.), Plannng, Publc Polcy and Property Markets (pp. 56-76). Oxford: Blackwell. Tl, R. van (2011). Verlezen nekken grondbedrjven: Overend houden van bouwplannen: optmalsate, effcency en marktgerchthed. Property NL Magazne, 19, 49-51. Trp, Y. (2011). Power to the people: Over het centraal stellen van endgebrukers bj de ontwkkelng van een wjk (Thess). Rotterdam: Master Cty Developer. Turok, I. (1992). Property-led urban regeneraton: Panacea or placebo? Envronment and Plannng A, 24, 361-379. Turok, I. (2005). Urban regeneraton: What can be done and what should be avoded? In Istanbul 2004 Internatonal Urban Regeneraton Symposum: Workshop of Kucukcekmece Dstrct (pp. 57-62). Istanbul: Kucukcekmece Muncpalty Publcaton. Twst, M. van, & Velzen, G. van (Eds.) (2009). Prvaat beheerde woondomenen: Een wereld op zch? Den Haag: Lemma. Twynstra Gudde (2008). Onderzoek naar de toepasbaarhed gebedsconcessemodel n Nederland. Amersfoort: Twynstra Gudde. UCL & Delotte (2007). Shapng and delverng tomorrow s places: Effectve practce n spatal plannng. London: RTPI. 445 References

Un-Habtat (2004). Urban Governance Toolkt Seres. Narob: Un-Habtat. Un-Habtat (2009). Good Urban Governance: Towards an Effectve Prvate Sector Engagement. Narob: Un- Habtat. Urban Task Force (1999). Towards an Urban Renassance. London: E & FN Spon. Urhahn Urban Desgn (2010). The Spontaneous Cty. Amsterdam: BIS Publshers. Valk, A. van der (2002). The Dutch plannng experence. Landscape and Urban Plannng, 58, 201-210. Veen, M. van der (2009). Contractng for better places: A relatonal analyss of development agreements n urban development projects (Doctoral dssertaton). (Sustanable Urban Areas 26). Amsterdam: IOS Press. Verbart, J. (2004). Management van rumteljke kwaltet: De ontwkkelng en verankerng van nrchtngsconcepten n het Utrechtse statonsgebed (Doctoral dssertaton). Delft: Eburon. Verlaat, J. van t (2003). Outlnes of urban area development. Rotterdam: Master Cty Developer. Verlaat, J. van t (2008). Stedeljke gebedsontwkkelng n hoofdljnen. Rotterdam: Master Cty Developer. Vnk, B., & Burg, A. van der (2006). New Dutch spatal plannng polcy creates space for development. dsp, 164(1), 41-49. Vlek, P. (2009). Investeren n vastgoed, grond en gebeden. Vlaardngen: Management Productes. Voogd, H. (2004). Herzenng WRO net fundamenteel genoeg. Stedebouw en Rumteljke Ordenng 85(5), 58 61. VROM-raad (2009). Grond voor kwaltet: Voorstellen voor verbeterng van overhedsrege op (bnnen)stedeljke ontwkkelng. Den Haag: VROM-raad. VROM-raad (2010). Duurzame verstedeljkng. Den Haag: VROM-raad. Wamelnk, J.W.F. (Ed.) (2009). Inledng Bouwmanagement. Delft: VSSD. Webster, C., & La, L.W. (2003). Property Rghts, Plannng and Markets: Managng Spontaneous Ctes. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Weenng, H.M. (2006). Smart Ctes: Omgaan meet onzekerhed (Doctoral dssertaton). Delft: Eburon. Weerd, R. van der (2007). Organsatemodellen voor gebedsontwkkelng: Analyse nvloed op perceptes van betrokken actoren (Thess). Enschede/Amsterdam: Unverstet Twente/Amsterdam School of Real Estate. Weg, E. van de, Veldhuzen, J., Rooy P. van, Kneppers, G., & Mranda F. de (2009). Een wjde blk verrumt het denken: Gebedsontwkkelng n vjf Europese landen en de toekomst van gebedsconcesses n Nederland. Utrecht: Delotte Real Estate Advsory, Habforum, NederLandBovenWater. Wezenberg, R. (2009). Vertrouwen n de gebedsconcesse. Een verkennend onderzoek naar de gebedsconcesse als perspectef bj gebedsontwkkelng (Thess). Rotterdam: Master Cty Developer. Wcherson, J. (2011). Stratege en rolbepalng n stedeljke gebedsontwkkelng: De gemeenteljke organsate (Thess). Rotterdam: Master Cty Developer. Wevorka, M. (1992). Case studes: Hstory or socology? In C.C. Ragn & H.S. Becker (Eds.), What s a Case?: Explorng the Foundatons of Socal Inqury (pp. 159-172). Cambrdge: Cambrdge Unversty Press. Wjnen, G., Renes, W., & Storm, P. (2004). Projectmatg werken. Utrecht: Het Spectrum. Wllams K., & Dar, C. (2003). Fve barrers to sustanable brownfeld development. Town and Country Plannng, 72(11), 344-345. Wnch, G.M. (2002). Managng Constructon Projects. Oxford: Blackwell. Wolfe, T. (1998). A Man n Full. London: Pcador. Wolsnk, M. (2003). Reshapng the Dutch plannng system: A learnng process? Envronment and Plannng A, 35: 705-723. Woltng, B. (2006). PPS en Gebedsontwkkelng. Den Haag: Sdu Utgevers. Woltng, B. (2010). PPS, gebedsontwkkelng en procesmanagement (Presentate Master Cty Developer). Rotterdam, November 2010. Wetenschappeljke Raad voor het Regerngsbeled [WRR] (1998). Rumteljke ontwkkelngspoltek (Rapporten aan de Regerng nr. 53). Den Haag: Sdu Utgevers. Wetenschappeljke Raad voor het Regerngsbeled [WRR] (2000). Het borgen van publek belang: Rapporten aan de regerng 56. Den Haag: Sdu Utgevers. Yescombe, E.R. (2007). Publc-Prvate Partnershps: Prncples of Polcy and Fnance. Amsterdam: Elsever. Yn, R.K. (2003). Applcatons of Case Study Research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yoshno, M.Y., & Rangan, U.S. (1995). Strategc Allances: An Entrepreneural Approach to Globalzaton. Boston, NA: Harvard Busness School Press. Zaleznk, A. (1977). Managers and leaders: Are the dfferent? Harvard Busness Revew, 55(3), 67-78. Zeegers, T. (2006). Spelregels voor Geslaagde Samenwerkng. Utrecht: AT Osborne. Zeeuw, W.T.C.F. de (2007). De engel ut het marmer: Reflectes op gebedsontwkkelng. Delft: Praktjkleerstoel TU Delft. Zeeuw, W.T.C.F. de (2010). Naar een code gebedsontwkkelng. Real Estate Magazne, 64, 21-23. Zeeuw, W.T.C.F. de, & Hobma, F.A.M. (2008). Leren van de Engelse praktjk van Gebedsontwkkelng. Buldng Busness, 4, 16-19. 446 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Zeeuw, W.T.C.F. de (2011a). Bnnenstedeljk ontwkkelen moet op alle fronten anders. Servce Magazne, December 2011, 22-23. Zeeuw, W.T.C.F. de (2011b). Het Zwtserlevengevoel s ook net alles. Real Estate Research Quarterly, 10(2), 4-6. Zeeuw, W.T.C.F., Franzen, A., & Mensnk, J. (2012a). Bulletn bj het congres Gebedsontwkkelng Slm Vlottrekken. Delft: Praktjkleerstoel Gebedsontwkkelng TU Delft. Zeeuw, W.T.C.F., Franzen, A., & Mak, J. (2012b). Gemeenteljke grondbedrjven n een andere realtet: Aanbevelngen voor gebedsontwkkelng. Delft: Praktjkleerstoel Gebedsontwkkelng TU Delft & Krng van Advseurs. Zhang, X.-Q. (2004). Improvng concessonare selecton protocols n publc/prvate partnered nfrastructure projects. Journal of Constructon Engneerng and Management, 130, 670-679. Zjlstra, S. (2011). Klantgestuurd voorraadbeled en empowerment; Over Te Woon en andere ntateven van wonngcorporates. A+BE Archtecture And The Bult Envronment, 1 (1), 312. Zundert, J.W. van (1990). Het Bestemmngsplan: Een jurdsch-bestuurljke nledng n de rumteljke ordenng (6th ed.). Alphen aan den Rjn: Samsom HD TjeenkWllnk. 447 References

Part 4 Appendces 448 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

449 References

450 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

A I Case References Cases the Netherlands Amsterdam Park de Meer Intervews Bolwdt, Andre (23 September 2009). Gemeente Amsterdam Stadsdeel Oost, project manager. Knulst, Marnus (23 September 2009). De Allante, project manager. Survey Spatal Qualty Bolwdt, Andre (29 November 2011). Gemeente Amsterdam Oost, project manager. Documents Gemeente Amsterdam (1998). Park de Meer: Voormalg Ajax terren. Amsterdam. Gemeente Amsterdam Stadsdeel Watergraafsmeer, Park de Meer C.V., & Park de Meer Beheer B.V. (1998). Samenwerkngsovereenkomst Park de Meer. Amsterdam: 26 May 1998. Gemeente Amsterdam Stadsdeel Oost (2004). Evaluate Park de Meer. Amsterdam: March 2004. De Allante (2006). Projectkaart Park de Meer. Amsterdam: De Allante. Gemeente Amsterdam Ontwkkelngsbedrjf (2008). Analyse Amsterdams Grondbeled. Amsterdam: 20 May 2008. Books & Artcles Peek, B. (2010). The effects of use of the concesson model: Case study regardng fve Dutch urban area development cases (Thess). Delft: Delft Unversty of Technology. Heurkens, E.W.T.M., & Peek, B. (2010). Effecten van de toepassng van het concessemodel bj gebedsontwkkelng. Real Estate Magazne, 71, 42-45. Den Haag Ypenburg Deelplan 20 Intervews Brul, Jan (4 May 2009). ING Real Estate, drector of housng. Eygendaal, Wendy (2 June 2009). Gemeente Den Haag, project manager. Survey Spatal Qualty n/a (development dd not commence) Documents ING Real Estate (2007). Handboek Openbare Rumte. Den Haag: 16 February 2007. Gemeente Den Haag (2007). Projectdocument Instemmng Deelplan 20. Den Haag: 27 November 2007. Gemeenten Den Haag, & ING Real Estate (2007). Grondafname- en Realsateovereenkomst nzake Deelplan 20, Ypenburg. Den Haag: 13 December 2007. Books & Artcles Prem, E. (2008). De ontmaskerng van de concesse: Een onderzoek naar de plaats van het concessemodel n gebedsontwkkelng (Thess). Amsterdam: Amsterdam School of Real Estate. Gjzen, M.H.M. (2009). Zonder loslaten geen concesse: Inzcht n de recente toepassng van deze publekprvate samenwerkngsvorm n de Nederlandse gebedsontwkkelngspraktjk met evdence-based verbetervoorstellen (Thess). Rotterdam: Master Cty Developer. Heurkens, E.W.T.M. (2009). Changng publc and prvate roles n urban area development n the Netherlands. In J. Rosemann, L. Qu & D. Sepúlveda (Eds.), The NEW Urban Queston: Urbansm Beyond Neo-Lberalsm (pp. 345-355). Rotterdam: Internatonal Forum on Urbansm. Heurkens, E.W.T.M., Hobma, F.A.M., & Zeeuw, W.T.C.F. de (2009). Gebedsconcesse n de praktjk. Rumteljke Ontwkkelng Magazne, 9, 30-33. Presentatons Brul, J. (2008). Ypenburg Deelplan 20, Den Haag. NA Debat Concessemodel: Naar een constructeve samenwerkng tussen overhed en markt. Rotterdam: 11 December 2008. 451 Case References

Enschede De Laares Intervews Horst, Bert ter (23 June 2009). Gemeente Enschede, project manager. Manschot, Hans (16 September 2009). Wjkontwkkelngsmaatschappj De Laares, drector. Survey Spatal Qualty Horst, Bert ter (10 November 2011). Gemeente Enschede, project manager. Mourk, Jeanet (23 November 2011). Wjkcommsse De Laares, charman. Documents Gemeente Enschede (2002). Beledskader Herstructurerng De Laares. Enschede: Augustus 2002. Gemeente Enschede (2002). Voorstel Gemeenteraad: Herstructurerng De Laares. Enschede: 13 August 2002. Gemeente Enschede, Wonngstchtng Ons Hus, Wonngstchtng Lcht en Lucht, Wonngstchtng Domjn, Njhus/Hegeman, AM Wonen, & Laares CV (2003). Samenwerkngsovereenkomst De Laares. Enschede: 1 December 2003. Books & Artcles Prem, E. (2008). De ontmaskerng van de concesse: Een onderzoek naar de plaats van het concessemodel n gebedsontwkkelng (Thess). Amsterdam: Amsterdam School of Real Estate. Lankelma, J. (2009). Prvate kwaltet n openbare rumte: Hoe het concessemodel kan bjdragen n het streven naar hoogwaardg openbaar gebed (Thess). Delft: TU Delft. Peek, B. (2010). The effects of use of the concesson model: Case study regardng fve Dutch urban area development cases (Thess). Delft: Delft Unversty of Technology. Kort, M.B. (2011). Perspectef op herstructurerng: Een onderzoek naar het belang van organsate en management van de wjkontwkkelngsmaatschappj. Den Haag: Boom Lemma. Maasslus Het Balkon Intervews Vroegop, Sjaak (22 Aprl 2009). Gemeente Maasslus, project manager. Gjzen, Rck (4 June 2009). Bouwfonds Ontwkkelng, locaton manager. Thunssen, Frank (4 June 2009). Bouwfonds Ontwkkelng, advsor. Survey Spatal Qualty Gjzen, Rck (7 November 2011). Bouwfonds Ontwkkelng, locaton manager. Thunssen, Frank (8 November 2011). Bouwfonds Ontwkkelng, advsor. Documents Gemeente Maasslus, Rabo Vastgoed, Maasstede Wonngontwkkelng, & Wonng Stchtng Maasslus (1999). Samenwerkngsovereenkomst Balkon en Haven. Maasslus: 5 February 1999. Gemeente Maasslus, & Ontwkkelngscombnate Balkon (en Haven) CV (2005). Koop- en explotateovereenkomst Balkon. Maasslus: 31 March 2005. Stchtng Maasdelta Groep, & Bouwfonds Ontwkkelng (2007). Samenwerkngsovereenkomst Het Balkon Maasslus. Maasslus: 8 January 2007. Gjzen, M.H.M. (2009). Casusbeschrjvng Balkon Maasslus. Delft: Bouwfonds Ontwkkelng. Books & Artcles Toorn Vrjthoff, W. van der, & Zandee, I. (2005). Partjen de durven: Geslaagde publek/prvate samenwerkng voor duzend wonngen aan Neuwe Waterweg. Vtale stad, 8(6), 25-27. Gjzen, M.H.M. (2009). Zonder loslaten geen concesse: Inzcht n de recente toepassng van deze publekprvate samenwerkngsvorm n de Nederlandse gebedsontwkkelngspraktjk met evdence-based verbetervoorstellen (Thess). Rotterdam: Master Cty Developer. Mddelburg Mortere Intervews Buetng, Robert (14 September 2009). Hejmans, project manager. Kole, Bas (21 September 2009). Gemeente Mddelburg, project manager. Vres, Albert de (21 September 2009). Gemeente Mddelburg, alderman. Survey Spatal Qualty Buetng, Robert (10 November 2011). Hejmans, project manager. Kole, Bas (10 November 2011). Gemeente Mddelburg, project manager. Vres, Albert de (10 November 2011). Gemeente Mddelburg, alderman. 452 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Documents Gemeente Mddelburg, Amstelland Ontwkkelng, Hejmans Vastgoed Realsate, & IBC Vastgoed (2000). Samenwerkngsovereenkomst Mortere Mddelburg. Mddelburg: Houthoff Buruma, 27 November 2000. Gemeente Mddelburg, & Consortum Mortere (2007). ndruk, 10. Mddelburg: July 2007. Wssng stedebouw en rumteljke vormgevng (n opdracht van Consortum & Gemeente Mddelburg) (2008). Mortere Woongebed: Herzene archtectuur paragraaf. Mddelburg: February 2008. Wssng stedebouw en rumteljke vormgevng (n opdracht van Consortum Mortere) (2008). Mortere Bedrjvengebed: Stedenbouwkundg plan. Mddelburg: Aprl 2008. Consortum Mortere (2008). Stedenbouwkundg plan Mortere. Mddelburg: May 2008. Books & Artcles Heurkens, E.W.T.M., Hobma, F.A.M., & Zeeuw, W.T.C.F. de (2008). Gebedsconcesse: een omstreden neuwkomer. Rumteljke Ontwkkelng Magazne, 10, 12-15. Peek, B. (2010). The effects of use of the concesson model: Case study regardng fve Dutch urban area development cases (Thess). Delft: Delft Unversty of Technology. Presentatons Vres, A. de (2008). Samenwerkng Mortere. Expertmeetng Concesse. Delft: 11 December 2008. Naaldwjk Woerdblok Intervews Gjzen, Rck (8 September 2009). Bouwfonds Ontwkkelng, locaton manager. Thunssen, Frank (8 September 2009). Bouwfonds Ontwkkelng, advsor. Haak, Monque van der (10 September 2009). Gemeente Westland, project manager. Survey Spatal Qualty Gjzen, Rck (7 November 2011). Bouwfonds Ontwkkelng, locaton manager. Haak, Monque van der (10 November 2011). Gemeente Westland, project manager. Geeratz, Vatessa (22 November 2011). Woerdblok, resdent. Documents Gemeente Naaldwjk (2001). Masterplan Woerdblok. Rotterdam: RBOI, 11 December 2001. Rabo Vastgoed, Ouwehand Bouw Projecten, Grondvest Westland, & Bouhusen Ontwkkelng (2002). Samenwerkngsovereenkomst Marktpartjen. Naaldwjk: 4 October 2002. Gemeente Naaldwjk, Rabo Vastgoed, & CV Woerdblok Naaldwjk (2003). Explotate-Overeenkomst: Locate Woerdblok. Naaldwjk: 4 December 2003. RBOI (n opdracht van Rabo Vastgoed) (2006). Overzcht Wonngtypen Woerdblok. Rotterdam: 16 October 2002. Books & Artcles Peek, B. (2010). The effects of use of the concesson model: Case study regardng fve Dutch urban area development cases (Thess). Delft: Delft Unversty of Technology. Heurkens, E.W.T.M., & Peek, B. (2010). Effecten van de toepassng van het concessemodel bj gebedsontwkkelng. Real Estate Magazne, 71, 42-45. Rotterdam Neuw Crooswjk Intervews Kooten, Jan van (March 2009). Gemeente Rotterdam, project manager (by Lankelma, 2009). Tabbers, Henrëtte (March 2009). Deelgemeente Kralngen-Crooswjk, advsor (by Lankelma, 2009). Berk, Karel van der (15 Aprl 2009). Ontwkkelcombnate Neuw Crooswjk, drector. Survey Spatal Qualty Berk, Karel van der (11 November 2011). Ontwkkelcombnate Neuw Crooswjk, drector. Documents Ontwkkelngscombnate Neuw Crooswjk (2005). Masterplan Neuw Crooswjk. Rotterdam: 3 February 2005. Gemeente Rotterdam, Ontwkkelngscombnate Neuw Crooswjk, & Stchtng Wonngbedrjf Rotterdam (2005). Samenwerkngsovereenkomst Neuw Crooswjk. Rotterdam: 15 March 2005. Books & Artcles Lankelma, J. (2009). Prvate kwaltet n openbare rumte: Hoe het concessemodel kan bjdragen n het streven naar hoogwaardg openbaar gebed (Thess). Delft: TU Delft. Algemeen Dagblad (2009). Bewoners Neuw-Crooswjk en gemeente tekenen overeenkomst. Rotterdam: 22 Aprl 2009. Cobouw (2009). Plan Neuw Crooswjk vlotgetrokken. Rotterdam: 20 June 2009. Gemeente Rotterdam (2009). Herstructurerng Neuw Crooswjk krjgt een duw n de rug (Onlne). www. rotterdam.nl: 26 November 2009. 453 Case References

Tlburg Wagnerplen Intervews Hoen, Paul (4 May 2009). Bouwfonds Ontwkkelng, drector regon south. Otten, Phra (30 June 2009). Gemeente Tlburg, drector urban area development. Survey Spatal Qualty Hoen, Paul (8 November 2009). Bouwfonds Ontwkkelng, drector regon south. Documents Gemeente Tlburg, VVE Wnkelcentrum Tlburg Noord, Stchtng De Wever, & WonenBreburg (2003). Intenteovereenkomst Wagnerplen. Tlburg: 28 Aprl 2003. Gemeente Tlburg, VVE Wnkelcentrum Tlburg Noord, Stchtng De Wever, & WonenBreburg (2004). Raamovereenkomst Wagnerplen. Tlburg: 6 Aprl 2004. Bouwfonds Ontwkkelng, VVE Wnkelcentrum Tlburg Noord, Stchtng De Wever, & WonenBreburg (2004). Samenwerkngsovereenkomst Wagnerplen. Tlburg: December 2004. Gemeente Tlburg, VVE Wnkelcentrum Wagnerplen, Stchtng De Wever, WonenBreburg, & Bouwfonds Ontwkkelng (2005). Wagnerplen Tlburg: Voorlopge ontwerp stedenbouwkundng plan. Tlburg: December 2005. Gemeente Tlburg, & Bouwfonds Ontwkkelng (2006). Samenwerkngsovereenkomst Wagnerplen. Tlburg: 27 March 2006. Gemeente Tlburg (2006). Structuurplan Wagnerplen. Tlburg: 19 December 2006. Hoen, P. (2008). Samenvattng: Stand van zaken Wagnerplen. Endhoven: November 2008. Books & Artcles Prem, E. (2008). De ontmaskerng van de concesse: Een onderzoek naar de plaats van het concessemodel n gebedsontwkkelng (Thess). Amsterdam: Amsterdam School of Real Estate. Gjzen, M.H.M. (2009). Zonder loslaten geen concesse: Inzcht n de recente toepassng van deze publekprvate samenwerkngsvorm n de Nederlandse gebedsontwkkelngspraktjk met evdence-based verbetervoorstellen (Thess). Rotterdam: Master Cty Developer. Heurkens, E.W.T.M., Hobma, F.A.M., & Zeeuw, W.T.C.F. de (2009). Gebedsconcesse n de praktjk. Rumteljke Ontwkkelng Magazne, 9, 30-33. Presentatons Hammng, J., & Hoen, P. (2008). Intervew concessemodel Tlburg. NA Debat Concessemodel: Naar een constructeve samenwerkng tussen overhed en markt. Rotterdam: 11 December 2008. Utrecht De Woerd Intervews Hendrks, Rob (7 May 2009). Gemeente Utrecht, advseur. Smt, Tjakko (12 May 2009). Bouwfonds Ontwkkelng, project manager. Survey Spatal Qualty Smt, Tjakko (7 November 2011). Bouwfonds Ontwkkelng, project manager. Gjzen, Esther (11 December 2011). De Woerd, resdent. Documents Mulleners + Mulleners Archtecten (n opdracht van Bouwfonds Ontwkkelng) (2003). Concept Stedenbouwkundg Plan van Esen (SPvE). Amsterdam:: January 2003. Gemeente Utrecht, & Bouwfonds Ontwkkelng (2003). Realsateovereenkomst De Woerd. Utrecht: 4 Aprl 2003. Gemeente Utrecht, & Bouwfonds Ontwkkelng (2003). Explotateovereenkomst De Woerd. Utrecht: 4 Aprl 2003. Gemeente Utrecht, Projectbureau Ledsche Rjn (2003). Raadsvoorstel: Planontwkkelng De Woerd. Utrecht: 3 June 2003. Bouwfonds Ontwkkelng (2009). Woonpark de Woerd: Resultaat door ontwkkelng. Utrecht: Bouwfonds Ontwkkelng. Books & Artcles Gjzen, M.H.M. (2009). Zonder loslaten geen concesse: Inzcht n de recente toepassng van deze publekprvate samenwerkngsvorm n de Nederlandse gebedsontwkkelngspraktjk met evdence-based verbetervoorstellen (Thess). Rotterdam: Master Cty Developer. Lankelma, J. (2009). Prvate kwaltet n openbare rumte: Hoe het concessemodel kan bjdragen n het streven naar hoogwaardg openbaar gebed (Thess). Delft: TU Delft. 454 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Velsen Oud-IJmuden Intervews Gouweleeuw, Serge (2 September 2009). Bouwfonds Ontwkkelng, project manager. Overbeek, Ronald (2 September 2009). Bouwfonds Ontwkkelng, project manager. Korf, Annemeke (3 September 2009). Gemeente Velsen, alderman. Martens, Maud (3 September 2009). Gemeente Velsen, project manager. Sloog, Marcus (3 September 2009). Gemeente Velsen, project manager. Survey Spatal Qualty Gouweleeuw, Serge (7 November 2011). Bouwfonds Ontwkkelng, project manager. Sloog, Marcus (7 November 2011). Gemeente Velsen, project manager. Documents Gemeente Velsen (2004). Programma van Esen Oud-IJmuden. Velsen: 25 February 2004. Bouwfonds Ontwkkelng (2004). Haalbaarhedsstude Oud-IJmuden. Haarlem: 1 October 2004. Gemeente Velsen, & Bouwfonds Ontwkkelng (2004). Intenteovereenkomst Oud-IJmuden: Concept. Velsen: 5 October 2004. KAW Archtecten en Advseurs 2 (2004). Stedenbouwkundge Vse Oud-IJmuden. Gronngen: 1 October 2004. Brnk archtectuur & stedenbouw (n opdracht van Gemeente Velsen, Bouwfonds Ontwkkelng) (2006). Stedenbouwkundgplan Oud-IJmuden. Velsen: Augustus 2006. Gemeente Velsen, & Bouwfonds Ontwkkelng (2008). Samenwerkngsovereenkomst Oud-IJmuden: Concept. Velsen: 2 July 2008. Gemeente Velsen (2008). Bestemmngsplan Oud-IJmuden West. Velsen: 13 November 2008. Books & Artcles Heurkens, E.W.T.M., Hobma, F.A.M., & Zeeuw, W.T.C.F. de (2008). Gebedsconcesse: een omstreden neuwkomer. Rumteljke Ontwkkelng Magazne, 10, 12-15. Peek, B. (2010). The effects of use of the concesson model: Case study regardng fve Dutch urban area development cases (Thess). Delft: Delft Unversty of Technology. Presentatons Vos, P. (2008). Oud-IJmuden. Expert meetng Concesse. Delft: 11 December 2008. Cases Unted Kngdom Brstol Harboursde Intervews Lambert, Chrstne (18 October 2009). Unversty of the West of England Brstol, lecturer Plannng. Tallon, Andrew (19 October 2009). Unversty of the West of England Brstol, lecturer Urban Polcy. Grffths, Ron (13 November 2009). Unversty of the West of England Brstol, lecturer Urban Studes. Kershaw, Dana (16 November 2009). Brstol Cty Councl, project leader Harboursde Sponsor Group. Holden, Rchard (23 November 2009). Brstol Cty Councl, head of Plannng. Dyer, Jm (24 November 2009). Crest Ncholson, senor project leader. Walker, Stephen (25 May 2010). Unversty of the West of England Brstol, lecturer Property. Holden, Rchard (26 May 2010). Brstol Cty Councl, head of Plannng. Documents Brstol Cty Councl [BCC] (1998). Plannng bref mplementaton phase for the Harboursde regeneraton. Brstol: 8 July. Brstol Cty Councl [BCC] (2003). Brstol Harboursde Framework Resoluton. Brstol: BCC. Brstol Cty Councl [BCC] (2008). Harboursde Regeneraton Core Lesure Project, Fundng Structure. Brstol: BCC. Brstol Cty Councl [BCC] (2008). Harboursde Regeneraton Project, Plannng Organsatonal Structure. Brstol: BCC. Brstol Cty Councl [BCC] (2009). Brstol Frst: The complete gude to Constructon, Plannng, and Development. Brstol: BCC. CABE (2008). Buldng for lfe standard (enqury/submsson by Crest Ncholson). Brstol: Crest. Crest Ncholson (2008). Canon s Marsh Brstol Harboursde (project overvew). Brstol: Crest. Crest Ncholson (2008). Harboursde Development (aeral mage). Brstol: Crest. Crest Ncholson (2009). Harboursde gets gold for desgn. The Harboursde News, 1. Edward Cullnan Archtects (2008). Brstol Harboursde (ste plan). Brstol: Edward Cullnan Archtects. 455 Case References

Books & Artcles Askew, J. (1996). Case Study: Canons Marsh. In J. Allnson, J. Askew, J. Claydon, L. Daves, J. Tempest & R. Tetlow (Eds.), Implementng Town Plannng: The Role of Town Plannng n the Development Process (pp. 181-191). Essex: Longman Group. Bassett, K. (1996). Partnershps, busness éltes and urban poltcs: New forms of governance n an Englsh cty? Urban Studes, 33, 539-555. Bassett, K. (1999). Growth coaltons n Brtan s wanng Sunbelt. In A. Jonas & D. Wlson (Eds.), The Urban Growth Machne (pp. 177-194). Albany, NY: State of Unversty of New York Press. Bassett, K., Grffths, R., & Smth, I. (2002). Testng governance: Partnershps, plannng and conflct n waterfront regeneraton. Urban Studes, 39, 1757-1775. Boddy, M. (2007), Desgner neghbourhoods: New-buld resdental development n nonmetropoltan UK ctes the case of Brstol. Envronment and Plannng A, 39, 86-105. Butelaar, E. (2007). The Cost of Land Use Decsons: Applyng Transacton Cost Economcs to Plannng & Development (Doctoral dssertaton). Oxford: Blackwell. Clement, M. (2007). Brstol: Cvlsng the nner cty. Race and Class, 48, 97-105. Clement, M. (2010). Local Notables and the cty councl revsted: The use of partnershps n the regeneraton of Brstol. Socal & Publc Polcy Revew, 4(1), 34-49. DGaetano, A., & Klemansk, J.S. (1993). Urban regmes n comparatve perspectve: The poltcs of urban development n Brtan. Urban Affars Quarterly, 29, 55-83. DGaetano, A., & Klemansk, J.S. (1999). Power and Cty Governance: Comparatve Perspectves on Urban Development. Mnneapols, MN: Unversty of Mnnesota Press. Greed, C. (1996). The Brstol and Avon context. In J. Allnson, J. Askew, J. Claydon, L. Daves, J. Tempest & R. Tetlow, Implementng Town Plannng: The Role of Town Plannng n the Development Process (pp. 124-138). Essex: Longman Group. Mller, C. (1999). Partners n regeneraton: Constructng a local regme for urban management? Polcy & Poltcs, 27(3), 343-358. Muñoz Gelen, D. (2010). Capturng value ncrease n urban redevelopment: A study of how the economc values ncrease n urban redevelopment can be used to fnance the necessary publc nfrastructure and other facltes (Doctoral dssertaton). Leden: Sdestone Press. Punter, J.V. (1992). Desgn control and the regeneraton of docklands: The example of Brstol. Journal of Property Research, 9, 49-78. Stewart, M. (1996). Too lttle, too late: The poltcs of local complacency. Urban Affars Quarterly, 18, 199-137. Tallon, A.R. (2006). Regeneratng Brstol s Harboursde. Town & Country Plannng, 75, 278-282. Tallon, A.R. (2007). Cty profle: Brstol. Ctes, 24(1), 74-88. Popular Magaznes, Newspapers & Webstes Anon (2008). Harbour lghts: Brstol Harboursde s an ambtous project, and has been long runnng and often contentous. Green Places, 50, 10-14. Crest Ncholson (2009). Harboursde acheves gold for desgn (Onlne). www.harboursde.co.uk. Danaher, T. (2000). A thorn n the sde. Property Week (Regonal Survey Brstol & Swndon), 25 February 2000, 40-41. Knght, R. (2006). Harboursde Brstol. Regenerate (Toolkt), November 2006, 39. Smth, M., Pollard, J., & Jackson, M. (2000). There s somethng about at-brstol. Landscape Desgn, 296, 21-23. Lverpool One Intervews Lttlefeld, Davd (18 October 2009). Unversty of the West of England Brstol, lecturer Urban Desgn. Burns, Rob (2 November 2009). Lverpool Cty Councl, head of Urban Desgn. Butler, Guy (3 November 2009). Grosvenor, senor project leader. Cocks, Matthew (4 November 2009). Unversty of Lverpool, phd canddate Cvc Desgn. Shaw, Davd (4 November 2009). Unversty of Lverpool, professor Cvc Desgn. Burchnall, Mchael (5 November 2009). Lverpool Cty Councl, head of Plannng. Jones, Peter (5 November 2009). Lverpool Cty Councl, senor project leader. Burns, Rob (21 May 2010). Lverpool Cty Councl, head of Urban Desgn. Documents Drvers Jonas (2001). Paradse Street Development Area Economc Assessment. Lverpool: January 2001. Drvers Jonas (2003). Lverpool PSDA Economc Assessment. Lverpool: Aprl 2003. Grosvenor (2001). Paradse Street Development Area: Masterplan Report. Lverpool: January 2001. Grosvenor (2002). Lverpool Paradse Street Development Area: Masterplan Background. Lverpool: Grosvenor. Grosvenor (2004). Lverpool Paradse Street Development Area: Plannng Applcaton. Lverpool: Grosvenor. Grosvenor (2007). Lverpool One. Rule 7. Thnkng Agan (marketng document). Lverpool: Grosvenor. Grosvenor, & Henderson (1999). Paradse Street Development Area: Submsson. Lverpool: August 1999. 456 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Healey & Baker (2000). PSDA Development Bref. Lverpool: November 2000. Lverpool Cty Councl [LCC] (1998). Duke Street Bold Street Integrated Acton Plan. Lverpool: LCC. Lverpool Cty Councl [LCC], & Grosvenor (2009). BCSC Town Centre Envronment Award Lverpool One: The remakng of a cty centre. Lverpool: LCC. Lverpool Cty Councl [LCC], & Lverpool Vson (2004). Regeneraton and Development n Lverpool Cty Centre 1995 2004. Lverpool: July 2004. Lverpool Land Development Company (2008). One fantastc cty. Lverpool: LLDC. Lverpool Vson (2000). Strategc Regeneraton Framework. Lverpool: 26 July 2000. Lverpool Vson (2008). Resdental Development Update: Cty Centre Lvng. Lverpool: September 2008. Parknson, M. (2008). Make no lttle plans: The regeneraton of Lverpool cty centre 1999-2008. Lverpool: Lverpool Vson. Unversty of Lverpool (2008). Lverpool One The paradse street development area: Summary. Lverpool: Unversty of Lverpool. Books & Artcles Couch, C., Fowles, S., & Karecha, J. (2009). Reurbanzaton and Housng Markets n the Central and Inner Areas of Lverpool. Plannng Practce and Research, 24(3), 321-34. Heurkens, E.W.T.M., & Louwaars, S.P. (2011). Publc & prvate leadershp n urban development. Real Estate Research Quarterly, 10(2), 37-47. Lttlefeld, D. (2009). Lverpool One: Remakng a Cty Centre. Chcester: Wley. Parker, A. (2008). Lverpool One: The early days. Lverpool: Cushman & Wakefeld. Parker, C., & Garnell, C. (2006). Regeneraton and retal n Lverpool: A new approach. Journal of Retal and Lesure Property, 5: 292-304. Mnton, A. (2006). What knd of world are we buldng: The prvatsaton of publc space. London: RICS. Mnton, A. (2009). Ground Control: Fear and happness n the twenty-frst century cty. London: Pengun Books. Peel, D., & Lloyd, G. (2008). Redevelopng paradse?: Scale does matter. Town & Country Plannng, 77(9), 379-380. Popular Magaznes, Newspapers & Webstes Alexander, I. (2009). Lverpool One, mllennum project nl. New Start, 470, 64-65, September 2009. Bounds, A. (2008). Dong busness n Lverpool & the North-West Fnancal Tmes Specal Report, 1-6, 1 October 2008. Jackson, C. (2008). The Next Barcelona: Gray skes and grtty reputaton asde, Lverpool s tryng to remake tself as a hp European destnaton. The Wall Street Journal, 28 March 2008. Grewal, H.K. (2008). Paradse apprased. Regeneraton and Renewal, 16-19, 13 June 2008. MacDonald, R. (2008). Lverpool: European Captal of Culture 2008. Urban Desgn, 107, 20-35.. McEwan, G. (2008). Waterfront renventon. Hortculture Week, 24-26, 21 November 2008. Waddngham, E. (2008). From shppng to shoppng. Local Government News, 10-11, August 2008. Wnspear, J. (2008). The world at one. Propertyweek.com, 35-41, May 2008. Presentatons Lee, N. (2009). Makng Hertage Work (Presentaton UWE Study Trp). Lverpool: November 2009. Jones, P. (2010). Lverpool One: The remakng of a cty centre how the plannng process delvered (Presentaton Master Cty Developer). Lverpool: May 2010. Case Unted States of Amerca Seattle South Lake Unon Intervews Holmes, Jm (10 May 2011). Cty of Seattle (SDPD), land use planner. LaClergue, Davd (10 May 2011). Cty of Seattle (SDPD), land use planner. Coleman, Sharon (12 May 2011). Vulcan Real Estate, real estate development drector. Mason Curran, Lor (12 May 2011). Vulcan Real Estate, real estate nvestment strategy drector. Documents Heartland (2002). Permt revew and moblty plot: South Lake Unon (Progress report by Heartland for Cty of Seattle Strategc Plannng Offce). Aprl 2002, Seattle: Heartland. Seattle Department of Plannng and Development [SDPD] (2003a). South Lake Unon publc realm plan: Polcy ssues and recommendatons. Seattle: 18 February 2003. 457 Case References

Seattle Department of Plannng and Development [SDPD] (2003b). Potental economc and fscal mpacts of South Lake Unon development. Seattle: 2 December 2003. Seattle Department of Plannng and Development [SDPD] (2005a). Cty of Seattle comprehensve plan. Seattle: January 2005. Seattle Department of Plannng and Development [SDPD] (2005b). South Lake Unon desgn gudelnes. Seattle: 26 May 2005. Seattle Department of Plannng and Development (2007). South Lake Unon urban center neghborhood plan. Seattle: September 2007. Seattle Department of Plannng and Development [SDPD] (2010). South Lake Unon urban desgn framework. Seattle: 31 December 2010. Seattle Department of Plannng and Development [SDPD] (2011). Draft envronmental mpact statement: South Lake Unon heght and densty alternatves. Seattle: February 2011. Seattle Department of Plannng and Development [SDPD] (2012). South Lake Unon Zonng Changes: Summary. Seattle: June 2012. Seattle Parks and Recreaton [SPR] (2004). North downtown park plan. Seattle: June 2004. Vulcan Real Estate (2011). Sgnature Project South Lake Unon (Presentaton). Seattle: Vulcan RE. Books & Artcles Heurkens, E.W.T.M. (2011). Blog Amerka (Onlne). http://www.gebedsontwkkelng.nu. Heurkens, E.W.T.M. (2012). The fall and rse of neolberal Amercan ctes: Towards more sustanable urban development strateges. BOSS Magazne, 43, 19-28. Heurkens, E.W.T.M., & Louwaars, S.P. (2011). Publc & prvate leadershp n urban development. Real Estate Research Quarterly, 10(2), 37-47. Purcell, M. (2008). Recapturng Democracy: Neolberalzaton and the Struggle for Alternatve Urban Futures. New York, NY: Routledge. Popular Magaznes, Newspapers & Webstes Becker (2007). Seattle voters reject the Seattle Commons levy on September 19, 1995. (Onlne). http://www. hstorylnk.org. Pryne, E. (2010). Who s bult what n South Lake Unon (Onlne). http://seattletmes.nwsource.com. Seattle Department of Plannng and Development (2011). (Onlne). http://www.seattle.gov/dpd. Vulcan Real Estate (2011). Awards/Recognton (Onlne). http://www.vulcanrealestate.com. 458 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

A II Survey Spatal Qualty Introducte Deze survey wordt utgevoerd n het kader van het promoteonderzoek naar gebedsconcesses van r. Erwn Heurkens, aan de TU Delft (Facultet Bouwkunde, Afdelng Real Estate & Housng, Secte Gebedsontwkkelng). Daarn onderzoekt hj hoe gemeenten en projectontwkkelaars samenwerken n 12 gebedsconcesses. Daarnaast wordt getracht een beeld te schetsen van de effecten van de toepassng van het concessemodel waaronder de varabele rumteljke kwaltet. Aangezen u betrokken bent bj, of belanghebbende bent n, de gebedsontwkkelng de gerealseerd werd, s of wordt op bass van het concessemodel, wordt uw menng over de gerealseerde rumteljke kwaltet zeer op prjs gesteld. In 2009 heeft u wellcht deelgenomen aan een ntervew met de onderzoeker. Deze survey kunt u beschouwen als een aanvullng op het ntervew, waarbj aanvullende data wordt verzameld door de onderzoeker. Onderstaand vnd u eerst een utleg over wat bedoeld wordt met rumteljke kwaltet, en welke varabelen gebrukt worden om het te meten. Dt mondt ut n een vragenljst waarop u scores kunt geven aan verschllende aspecten van rumteljke kwaltet, vanut uw egen perspectef. Het toezenden van deze nformate dent ter voorberedng op een telefoongesprek van een half uur welke de onderzoeker graag met u zou wllen voeren. Voor het nplannen van een telefonsche afspraak wordt u benaderd door de TU Delft secretaresse Laura Bovelander. Het doel hervan s om over het onderwerp van gedachten te wsselen. Als tegenprestate voor de door uw genomen tjd ontvangt u een exemplaar van het proefschrft dat end maart gereed s. Rumteljke kwaltet Rumteljke kwaltet s een lastg te defnëren en te operatonalseren begrp. Hoomejer e.a. (2001) wjzen n dt kader op de subjectvtet de verbonden s aan het begrp. Nettemn s het volgens Daamen (2005) voor een objecteve benaderng noodzakeljk om n eder geval aan te geven wat we met het begrp bedoelen. Volgens Van der Toorn Vrjthoff & Talstra, n Brul e.a. (2004) hangt n eder geval de toevoegng van waarde(s) (gebruk, belevng, toekomst) samen met de rumteljke kwaltet van gebedsontwkkelngen. Daarnaast spelen er verschllende belangen (economsch, socaal, ecologsch, cultureel) mee de gerealseerd kunnen worden door mddel van rumteljke kwaltet. Her kezen we ervoor om een gebedsperspectef te kezen, waarbj de drect belanghebbenden publeke, prvate en partculere partjen zjn. Deze worden gevraagd naar hun menng over de toevoegng van waarde n fyseke zn. Dt mondt ut n de volgende defnte van rumteljke kwaltet: Rumteljke kwaltet s de mate waarn een gebedsontwkkelng (functes, nbeddng, nrchtng, vormgevng, beheer) waarde toevoegt (gebruks-, belevngs-, en toekomstwaarde) voor drect belanghebbenden (publek, prvaat, partculer/gebruker). 459 Survey Spatal Qualty

Gebrukswaarde Gebrukswaarde s de mate waarn het gebed functoneel genoemd kan worden. De vraag de daarbj gesteld kan worden s; In hoeverre s het gebed functoneel? De functonaltet s te meten door de volgende waarde varabelen en zjn als volgt te defnëren: Berekbaarhed: de mate waarn het gebed berekbaar s voor gemotorseerd, ongemotorseerd verkeer en openbaar vervoer; Toegankeljkhed: de mate waarn het gebed toegankeljk s gemaakt om te betreden voor gebrukers en butenstaanders; Nabjhed: de mate waarn het gebed gelegen s nabj dageljkse voorzenngen; Velghed: de mate waarn het gebed ngercht, vormgegeven s als velge plek. Belevngswaarde Belevngswaarde s de mate waarn het gebed aantrekkeljk wordt gevonden. De vraag de daarbj gesteld kan worden s; In hoeverre s het gebed aantrekkeljk? De aantrekkeljkhed s te meten door de volgende waarde varabelen en zjn als volgt te defnëren: Overzchteljkhed: de mate waarn het gebed getugd van een heldere stedenbouwkundge structuur; Zchtbaarhed: de mate waarn het gebed zchtbaar s van buten af; Herkenbaarhed: de mate waarn het gebed herkenbaar s als een plek ten opzchte van andere gebeden; Beeldkwaltet: de mate waarn het gebed voorzen s van esthetsche vormgevende kenmerken; Dverstet: de mate waarn het gebed dverstet aan functes en vormgevng heeft; Dchthed: de mate waarn het gebed een passende dchthed heeft voor de functe waarvoor het bedoeld s. Toekomstwaarde Toekomstwaarde s de mate waarn het gebed toekomstbestendg wordt gevonden. De vraag de daarbj gesteld kan worden s; In hoeverre s het gebed toekomstbestendg? De toekomstbestendghed s te meten door de volgende waarde varabelen en zjn als volgt te defnëren: Aanpasbaarhed: de mate waarn het gebed stedenbouwkundg aanpasbaar/flexbel s voor functeveranderng/herontwkkelng; Inpasbaarhed: de mate waarn het gebed stedenbouwkundg ngepast s en bljft n de hudge en toekomstge wjkstructuur en -ontwkkelng; Duurzaamhed: de mate waarn het gebed ecologsch, socaal, economsch duurzaam s. Meten Het meten rumteljke kwaltet gesched volgens een ordnale schaal. In fete geeft u aan het gebed of een bepaald crterum n het gebed wel (Ja) of net (Nee) goed scoort n het gebed, dan wel dat dat lastg te bepalen s (Weet net), of dat u geen menng herover heeft (Geen menng). Dt doet u vanut uw egen professonele dan wel persoonljke perspectef. Maar wel bnnen de defntes van de waarde varabelen, de ook nog eens boven elke vraag herhaald worden. Daarnaast wordt de mogeljkhed gegeven om aan te geven waarom u een bepaalde score hebt ngevuld. Deze aanvullende kwaltateve nformate wordt ook zeer op prjs gesteld, welke n het telefonsch gesprek aan de orde komen. 460 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Vertrouweljkhed De door u ngevulde survey zal met de uterste zorgvuldghed behandeld worden. De persoonljke ngevulde gegevens worden net openbaar gemaakt, noch wordt er n het proefschrft drect verwezen naar uw opmerkngen en dergeljke. Het onderzoek s bedoeld om een genuanceerd totaalbeeld te schetsen van de rumteljke kwaltet van gebedsconcesses. Daarbj hebben we uw hulp als ervarngsdeskundge nodg. Informate Voor nadere nformate kunt u malen naar e.w.t.m.heurkens@tudelft.nl. Dank alvast zeer voor de door u genomen moete voor het bekjken van de survey. Graag spreek k u nader telefonsch over dt onderwerp. Survey Rumteljke Kwaltet bj Gebedsconcesses (blad 1) Naam Vult u her uw naam n. Gebedsontwkkelng Vult u her n bj welk gebedsconcesse project u betrokken bent (geweest). Organsate & functe Vult u her n bj welke organsate u werkt(e) en welke functe u daarn bekleed (heeft). Organsate & functe Vult u her n bj welke organsate u werkt(e) en welke functe u daarn bekleed (heeft). Soort organsate Naam organsate Functe/rol Publek Prvaat Partculer/gebruker Anders, nl. Fase betrokkenhed Vult u her n bj welke fase(s) van de gebedsontwkkelng u betrokken bent (geweest). Fase gebedsontwkkelng Betrokkenhed Functe/rol Intatef Planvormng & haalbaarhed Realsate Beheer Anders, nl. 461 Survey Spatal Qualty

Survey Rumteljke Kwaltet bj Gebedsconcesses (blad 2) Gebrukswaarde Vndt u dat het gebed goed berekbaar s voor gemotorseerd, ongemotorseerd en collectef vervoer? Berekbaarhed Ja Nee Weet net Geen menng Vndt u dat het gebed goed berekbaar s voor gemotorseerd, ongemotorseerd en collectef vervoer? Opmerkngen Toegankeljkhed Ja Nee Weet net Geen menng Vndt u dat het gebed toegankeljk s gemaakt om te betreden voor gebrukers en butenstaanders? Opmerkngen Nabjhed Ja Nee Weet net Geen menng Vndt u dat het gebed gelegen s nabj dageljkse voorzenngen? Opmerkngen Velghed Ja Nee Weet net Geen menng Vndt u dat het gebed ngercht en vormgegeven s als velge plek? Opmerkngen Survey Rumteljke Kwaltet bj Gebedsconcesses (blad 3) Belevngswaarde Belevngswaarde s de mate waarn het gebed aantrekkeljk wordt gevonden. De vraag de daarbj gesteld kan worden s; In hoeverre s het gebed aantrekkeljk? Overzchteljkhed Ja Nee Weet net Geen menng Vndt u dat het gebed getugd van een heldere stedenbouwkundge structuur? Opmerkngen Zchtbaarhed Ja Nee Weet net Geen menng Vndt u dat het gebed goed zchtbaar s van buten af? Opmerkngen Herkenbaarhed Ja Nee Weet net Geen menng Vndt u dat het gebed herkenbaar s als een plek ten opzchte van andere gebeden? Opmerkngen Beeldkwaltet Ja Nee Weet net Geen menng Vndt u dat het gebed voorzen s van esthetsche vormgevende kenmerken? Opmerkngen Dverstet Ja Nee Weet net Geen menng Vndt u dat het gebed een dverstet aan functes en vormgevng heeft? Opmerkngen Dchthed Ja Nee Weet net Geen menng Vndt u dat het gebed een passende dchthed voor de functe waarvoor het bedoeld s? Opmerkngen 462 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Survey Rumteljke Kwaltet bj Gebedsconcesses (blad 4) Toekomstwaarde Toekomstwaarde s de mate waarn het gebed toekomstbestendg wordt gevonden. De vraag de daarbj gesteld kan worden s; In hoeverre s het gebed toekomstbestendg? Aanpasbaarhed Ja Nee Weet net Geen menng Vndt u dat het gebed stedenbouwkundg aanpasbaar/flexbel s voor functeveranderng / herontwkkelng? Opmerkngen Inpasbaarhed Ja Nee Weet net Geen menng Vndt u dat het gebed stedenbouwkundg ngepast s en bljft n de hudge en toekomstge wjkstructuur en ontwkkelng? Opmerkngen Duurzaamhed Ja Nee Weet net Geen menng Vndt u dat het gebed ecologsch, socaal, economsch duurzaam s. Opmerkngen 463 Survey Spatal Qualty

A III Case USA - Seattle South Lake Unon Introducton In Aprl and May 2011, a vst was made to several ctes n the Unted States of Amerca to study ts urban development practces and projects. The trp ncluded a MCD Alumn Study Trp to Chcago and Detrot, and other US ctes lke Boston, New York Cty, Seattle, Portland and Vancouver (Canada). A US blog and papers were wrtten (Heurkens & Louwaars, 2011; Heurkens, 2012a; b) on US contemporary urban development practces by hghlghtng some urban development strateges and projects n ctes. Intatory, the purpose of ths trp was to expand the PhD research wth one or two US prvate sector-led urban development projects. Frst, possble US cases were amed at explorng some of the remanng problems encountered n the Dutch and UK cases. Moreover, the second objectve was to search for nspratonal lessons that could contrbute to some of the contemporary man ssues urban development faces n the Netherlands. These ncluded searchng for ways of de-rskng development, other forms of fnancal engneerng, and new types of publc-prvate-cvc allances for urban projects. Ths was based on the assumpton that precsely the US, wth ts Anglo-Saxon urban plannng practce, would reveal the frst sgns of new development approaches to handle the consequences of the changed economc realty. The fnal purpose was to explore several urban development contexts n the USA, n order to gan a better understandng of ther dversty, enablng us to nuance ts practce. In the preparaton for the US trp, plannng and property lterature about the US were studed (e.g. Jacobs, 1962; Wolfe, 1998; Brenner & Theodore, 2002; Feagn & Parker, 2002; Cullngworth & Daves, 2006; Hackworth, 2007; Flnt, 2009; Purcell, 2009; Van Djk, 2009, 2010; Florda, 2010; Glaeser, 2011) to understand US urban development practces. Moreover, contacts were made wth US academcs and professonals n the supervsors and researcher s network, nvolved n US urban plannng and development, n order pre-select possble prvate sector-led urban development cases for the research. As a result of ths search, South Lake Unon (SLU) n Seattle was consdered to match all the used crtera for prvate sector-led projects (see Secton 7.1). Moreover, at frst sght t provded possble solutons and nspratonal lessons for the unsolved ssues n the Netherlands and UK. A two-week vst to Seattle amed to collect case study data ncluded ntervews wth publc and prvate actors, document revews and a ste vst. However, due to tme lmts, the decson was made not to nclude the US and South Lake Unon as a full-fledged part of ths PhD research. Therefore, here ths project s treated as an ntroducton case of prvate sector-led urban development project n the Amerca. We descrbe SLU accordng to our analytcal framework, wthout the am of beng complete n our analyss. Moreover, we do not frame SLU wthn the US nsttutonal context as we dd wth the Netherlands and UK. Rather we refer to some mportant contextual ssues wthn the case tself. 464 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Context Seattle s located n the nature-orented North West Pacfc Coast metropoltan regon of 3.3 mllon nhabtants estmated to grow 40% n populaton by 2020. It s a technologydrven cty known for companes lke Mcrosoft, Amazon, Boeng, Costco, Adobe Systems and Starbucks (see Purcell, 2009: 110). Moreover, botechnology and healthcare are upcomng ndustres. Hstorcally, Seattle and Washngton State has a truly neolberal small government, but combnes ths wth sustanable development approaches. Nonetheless, Purcell (2009: 111) argues that the poltcal culture n Seattle also has been characterzed as the Seattle Way. Accordng to Ders (2004) ths poltcal culture places sgnfcant value on grassroots, bottom-up decson-makng, partcpaton and transparent processes. But, Purcell (2009: 112) argues that the SLU s a redevelopment that follows qute closely the narratve of the poltcal economy lterature on neolberalzaton. Fgure AIII.1 South Lake Unon, aeral vew ( Vulcan Real Estate) Wthn ths context, South Lake Unon (SLU) s a large-scale brownfeld urban development project located between Seattle s downtown area and the waterfront of Lake Unon (Fgure AIII.1). It s an on-gong strategc 300 acres mult-bllon dollar mxed-use urban development project. Ths development s manly led by developer Vulcan Real Estate, wth a facltatng role of the Cty of Seattle Department of Plannng and Development (DPD). In hstorcal perspectve, accordng to Becker (2007), the South Lake Unon neghborhood was n the mdst of a panful evolutonary process as ts many commercal laundres, lght manufacturng facltes, sawmlls, and smlar ndustres that had defned the neghborhood character gave 465 Case USA - Seattle South Lake Unon

way to more modern usage. Many commercal structures were drftng nto dsrepar and much of the area s quantly charmng housng stock was agng poorly due to nferor constructon materals and lack of mantenance. The reason for SLU to become a redevelopment project les n the jont acton by Seattle archtect Fred Bassett and Seattle Tmes columnst John Hnterberger, who frst proposed the dea of the Seattle Commons park development n the area n 1991. Desgned as a 61-acre park stretchng from downtown Seattle to Lake Unon, the Seattle Commons has been envsoned as a vast cvc lawn framed by hgh-tech laboratores, condos, restaurants, and urban amentes (Becker, 2007). Herenafter, we descrbe the area s plannng and development process whch effectvely started wth ths Seattle Commons ntatve. Plannng & Development Process Table AIII.1 shows the most relevant actons and documents consderng South Lake Unon s plannng and development process n the ntatve and desgn stage. Date Actvty Actor Date Actvty Actor 1991 1st ntatve Bassett/Hnterberger 1994 Land/property purchase starts Vulcan RE 1995 Loan from Paul Allen to buy land for commons Vulcan RE 1995 1st Vote rejecton Seattle Commons Levy Seattle ctzens 1996 2nd Vote rejecton Seattle Commons Levy Seattle ctzens 1996-2004 Land/property purchase contnues Vulcan RE 2003, February SLU Publc Realm Plan SCC DPD 2004 Economc & Fscal Impact Statement SCC OPM Table AIII.1 South Lake Unon project tmelne, ntatve & desgn stage The frst ntatve for the project started wth the Commons Park proposal. As a result, Paul Allen, former founder of Seattle-based Mcrosoft and now owner of Vulcan Inc. became nterested. He started to buy plots and propertes for the development of the Commons Park n 1994. Then, accordng to Becker (2007), the battle over the Seattle Commons ptted supporters such as Seattle Mayor Norm Rce, bllonare Paul Allen, and a wdely dverse group of supporters aganst small busness owners and Seattle resdents who dd not vew the park and extensve redevelopment n South Lake Unon as a hgh prorty for publc fundng. Supporters rased some $900,000 n cash and n-knd contrbutons. Donors ranged from ndvduals at the $25 level to corporate donors gvng $25,000. Paul Allen had loaned the Commons measure $20 mllon to buy land wthn the proposed park s boundary and promsed late n the campagn that f the levy passed hs loan would be forgven. On September 19, 1995, Seattle voters reject by a narrow 47 to 53 per cent margn a $111 mllon property-tax levy that would have funded the development and constructon of the Seattle Commons. ( ) At the tme of the vote, the levy was projected to cost Seattle homeowners and average of $48 extra n property taxes each 466 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

year over the levy s nne year term. ( ) Seattle Commons supporters, not easly dssuaded, succeeded n placng a second verson of the Seattle Commons on the May 21, 1996 (Becker, 2007). Agan, ths was voted aganst by Seattle voters. Here, one can see the power of ctzens n Seattle to effectvely oppose to urban plannng. Moreover, t shows the lberal culture of the cty, as resdents opposed aganst the ndvdual publc tax rase whch provded the publc fundng for the project. Hence, one of the ntervews mentoned that even for US standards, Washngton State, n whch Seattle s located, s consdered a very lberal State. Fgure AIII.2 South Lake Unon, overvew of development projects (source: Pryne, 2010; Seattle Tmes) Nevertheless, despte the defeat of the Commons, prvate nterest n the area ganed ground. Several developers started to buy land and propertes destned for sngle-use offce and housng development (accordng to the exstng sngle-use zonng ordnance n South Lake Unon). Moreover, the land that had been purchased wth Paul Allen s loan reverted to Vulcan ownershp. So, as Vulcan owned 11 acres of land n 1996, they obtaned a strategc poston n the area. Investment was put together to extend the ownershp of land wth a buyng spree from 1998 on. To date ths resulted n Vulcan ownng about 55 acres of land wthn a total of 340 acres of the South Lake Unon area. See Fgure AIII.2 for Vulcan land and property ownershp. Moreover, a pattern already had developed n whch Vulcan thought strategcally 467 Case USA - Seattle South Lake Unon

about the area. In the years that followed, Vulcan (based on a report by Heartland, 2002) realzed that the area ndeed had the potental to develop towards a strong mxed-use botech-orented communty, as several health-care related facltes already were about to be located n the area. These developments started to attract the nterest from Cty of Seattle and ther Department of Plannng and Development (SDPD) as well. Untl the late 1990s, the SDPD had been rather nvsble n thnkng about the development as a whole. But, n 2003 they publshed a Publc Realm Plan for streets, open spaces, and related land use components, that, accordng to SDPD (2003a): s consstent wth the drecton outlned n the neghborhood plan; establshes a clear drecton for prvate and publc actons n the South Lake Unon neghborhood; wll help to streamlne the approval of actons n the publc rghts-of-way; wll gude future decson-makng about desgn and development of both publc and prvate projects. Effectvely, ths was the frst (new) plannng document from the local authorty, besdes the exstng Land Use Zonng Plan and Neghborhood Plan (1998) for the area. Moreover, as development proceeded, some real estate projects were carred out by other property developers than Vulcan Real Estate. Property owners had begun constructon or announced projects n the South Lake Unon area that totalled more than 3 mllon square feet of new development. In response to growng development pressures, the local authorty ssued an Economc and Fscal Impact Study (EFIS) n 2003. Accordng to SDPD (2003b), ths document assessed the potental benefts to the Cty of Seattle, and other publc enttes n Washngton State, from the development that s underway and proposed for the South Lake Unon area. Ths EFIS was based on a report wrtten by Heartland (2002) for the Cty of Seattle. Heartland s report descrbed a potental net ncrease of 7.2 mllon square feet of commercal space n the area from the baselne year 2000 to 2020, provdng a potental of more than 23,000 new jobs. At the same tme the report estmated that the number of dwellng unts n the area could ncrease by 10,963 n the same perod (ths report uses 10,000). The consultants assumed that new and expandng botech facltes would be the core of the new development, and estmated that 35% of the new square footage would be for that use (SDPD, 2003b). Clearly, large nterests were at stake at South Lake Unon. In Table AIII.2 the most relevant actons and documents consderng South Lake Unon s plannng and development process 1st Development stage are hghlghted. From 2004 on, Vulcan Real Estate started developng ther land wth propertes, the most mportant beng the renovaton of UW Medcne/Phase I development. Some other new propertes were beng constructed as well. In ths perod from 2004-2008, as economc crcumstances were rght, Vulcan focused on creatng the nterest of the market by pre-nvestng and developng real estate useable for several tenants and acqurng land for development from these profts. Development occurred accordng to the zonng code n place, whch only allowed for sngle-use development projects. 468 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Date Actvty Actor 2004-2008 Development Stage I - varous property Vulcan RE 2004, June North Downtown Park Plan SCC SPR 2004 Completon UW Medcne/Phase I Vulcan RE 2005, January Cty of Seattle Comprehensve Plan SCC DPD 2005, May SLU Desgn Gudelnes SCC DPD 2006, February SLU Neghborhood Plan 1st Draft SCC DPD 2007 Completon Streetcar Varous 2007, November SLU Urban Center Neghborhood Plan SCC DPD Table AIII.2 South Lake Unon project tmelne, development stage 1 As the local authorty had recognzed the potental of the area, and t owned a lot of the publc space n the area, the Seattle Parks and Recreaton (SPR) department ssued a North Downtown Park Plan n June 2004. Wth Lake Unon on the north and the Westlake Center/Downtown Core on the south, the dstrct wll provde excellent cvc amentes and a lvely settng for urban lfe. Parks, open spaces, and recreatonal facltes wll be a fundamental part of ths vson, and the Cty must plan a comprehensve and strategc approach to provdng these facltes f the vson s to be fully realzed, the report stated (SPR, 2004) The publc realm vson from SPR, ndcates the most mportant publc spaces, at the waterfront, green streets, barrers, and moreover, an outlne of projected land uses n South Lake Unon. In terms of the Implementaton Strategy of ths publc realm vson, SPR (2004) ndcates that: Achevng the Cty s park, open space, and recreaton faclty goals wll not be easy. Hgh land prces and development actvty complcate ste acquston, and Parks & Recreaton has very lmted funds for constructon. Therefore, the Cty must (SPR, 2004): Identfy specfc prortes for open space and recreatonal facltes wthn the subareas of North Downtown as a gude for prvate and publc development; Optmze use of current park resources; Take advantage of acquston opportuntes as they arse and be creatve n combnng dfferent park actvtes on a sngle ste; Effectvely ntegrate open space nto other publc and prvate developments and combne assets derved from regulatory and bonus programs; Improve streets and trals to lnk parks and to provde open space n ther own rght; Work wth prvate property owners to acheve both publc open space and prvate development goals. Frst, ths passage ndcates the fnancal capacty of the Cty of Seattle for development purposes s very lmted. Therefore, they depend sgnfcantly on prvate and cvc nvestment, and State and County funds and contrbutons to realze ther plannng goals. Ths stuaton was confrmed n an ntervew wth Vulcan n whch the developer mentoned that the Cty could not nvest nto $1 mln. of pavement constructon. However, the publc realm has to be mantaned by the local authorty. Second, the fgure and passage show the mproved comprehensve thnkng about South Lake Unon n terms of land use and connectons. Nevertheless, most of these land uses follow already exstng developments made by prvate developers, or prvate plan proposals under consderaton for buldng permts by the SDPD. 469 Case USA - Seattle South Lake Unon

Nevertheless, ths document has functoned as a step towards ncorporatng the South Lake Unon area more thoroughly n the cty-wde Cty of Seattle Comprehensve Plan (SDPD, 2005a) and South Lake Unon Desgn Gudelnes report (SDPD, 2005b). Moreover, South Lake Unon had become an Urban Center n 2004, one of fve prorty developments at the tme n Seattle supported by State fundng. Ths trggered prvate nvestment and plannng efforts amed at ncreasng densty. A Comprehensve Plan n the US, accordng to Cullngworth & Caves (2009: 126-128), descrbes a vson for the future of a communty. Gudng land use and decsonmakng s a key purpose of a Comprehensve Plan. They are often very generc, flexble n nature so that t can evolve over tme, ncorporate analyses, dagrams, and recommendatons for land use. Moreover, ctzen nvolvement n the development of such a plan s requred by many States, lke n Washngton State. Therefore, developng a vson and mplementaton strategy for ths vson often s a collaboratve process among multple actors. The plannng process towards amendng a Comprehensve Plan often nvolves publc hearngs and commttees. They are formally adopted by local resoluton or ordnance. The mplementaton of Comprehensve Plans happens wth key plannng tools lke Zonng and Neghborhood Plans. In Seattle, for nstance, the 2006 South Lake Unon Neghborhood Plan also followed the Comprehensve Plan recommendatons. In the meantme, as development projects from Vulcan and other developers went along, more and more resdents and tenants settled n the area. Ths resulted n conflctng nterests amongst new and establshed resdents about the densty of the area and the rght to have unobstructed vews from ther apartments on Lake Unon. In ths perod resdents organzed themselves n the cvc group South Lake Unon Frends and Neghbors (SLUFAN), later known as the South Lake Unon Communty Councl (SLUCC), and later n another group called Lake Unon Opportunty Allance (LUOA). Hence, n 2005 the Cty of Seattle started a study wth the Unversty of Washngton and LMM Archtects about desgn ssues and publc realm for South Lake Unon. Ths resulted n Desgn Gudelnes document (SDPD, 2005b) for the area. These Gudelnes are very generc n nature, and ndcate setbacks of buldngs, park and street materals, and publc realm functons. They do not have to be followed by developers. Developers only have to propose plans that are accordng to zonng regulatons, whch ndcates functon, mass, denstes (floor area ratos, FAR) for each plot. Hence, n 2007 the Cty of Seattle publshed the Urban Center Neghborhood Plan (SDPD, 2007). Ths s an updated verson of the 1998 Neghborhood Plan, developed n cooperaton wth the Cty, SLUFAN and other publc departments and cvc actors. From 2005 on, four publc meetngs about key ssues n the neghborhood plannng process were held. These meetngs allowed communty members to shape the plan and ts recommendatons. Between 50 and 75 people attended each of these meetngs (SDPD, 2007). Its man purpose was to update the plans for South Lake Unon as developments from Vulcan and other developer and nvestors had sprung enormously. Also, Vulcan was consulted to gve ther nput on the Neghborhood Plan. Effectvely, wth the Desgn Gudelnes and the Neghborhood Plan n place, t became easer for the Desgn Revew Board to revew prvate plan proposals for the dfferent plot developments n South Lake Unon. Ther approval s needed to obtan buldng permts. In ther development proposals, Vulcan always ncluded the publc before gong for desgn approval at the Desgn Revew Board, n order to ncrease the chance of approval. In ths perod, development had taken a great lft due to economc favorable tmes. Vulcan completed several buldngs, both resdental and commercal. Moreover, as South Lake Unon 470 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

had become an Urban Center t became easer to apply for State fundng on transportaton. Followng the recommendatons from the Comprehensve Plan, the Cty of Seattle ntated the Streetcar project. In Portland, Oregon, the streetcar became part of transt-orented development project called the Pearl Dstrct (see also Heurkens, 2012a;b). The success of ths project urged Seattle publc, prvate and cvc actors to apply for State fundng. They succeeded n brngng the Streetcar to Seattle and South Lake Unon, provdng a sustanable transport lnk from Downtown to Lake Unon s waterfront. The completon of the Streetcar project n 2007 really put the area on the map. Accordng to the ntervewees t was a Publc-Prvate Partnershp n the sense that t pulled nvestment together. Remarkably, n 2011, the frequency of the Streetcar was ncreased n rush hour, ntated and fnanced by local tenants who wanted to mprove the accessblty of ther shops for ther employees and customers. Date Actvty Actor 2008-now Development Phase II - varous property Vulcan RE 2008 Completon 2200 complex Vulcan RE 2010 Completon Lake Unon Park Varous 2010 Completon Amazon/Phase I Vulcan RE 2010 Mxed-use Zonng adopted SCC 2010, December SLU Urban Desgn Framework SCC DPD 2011, February SLU Envronmental Impact Statement SCC DPD 2011, May Completon Amazon/Phase IV Vulcan RE 2012, June SLU Zonng Changes (up zonng approved) SCC DPD Table AIII.3 South Lake Unon project tmelne, development stage 2 Table AIII.3 shows the most relevant actons and documents consderng South Lake Unon s plannng and development process 2nd Development stage, startng roughly n 2008. At that moment Vulcan delvered some small, but also large developments ncludng award wnnng 2200 complex. However, the economc crss also started to affect the demand for offces and housng n the area. Hence, Vulcan Real Estate states that they never were a bg rsk-taker; they are one of the two dvsons wthn Vulcan Inc. that have to make a proft. Therefore, the fnancal consequences for the Real Estate dvson were not too bad. In May 2011, the vacancy rate of ther property n South Lake Unon for offces for nstance was 0%, the rate for housng only 5%. Hence, Vulcan Real Estate behaves as a development nvestor, workng wth a long-term horzon n mnd when realzng propertes. As they reman the owners of these buldngs, they develop on demand. Snce 2008, ths development strategy focuses on securng tenants before constructon. One of the man tenants n South Lake Unon s Amazon. They became nterested n expandng ther need for offce space n Seattle n the area. Vulcan made contracts wth Amazon to develop several buldngs over a perod of 5 years, accordng to ther growth and need, nto fve Phases. The frst phase of the Amazon offce buldngs was completed n 2010. In the meantme, also Lake Unon Park was developed, jontly fnanced by the Washngton State, Seattle Cty Councl and Vulcan Real Estate. Moreover, the developer holds the vson that redevelopng nner-cty areas requre an area to develop organcally, n accordance to changng nsghts, demands and wshes whch 471 Case USA - Seattle South Lake Unon

smultaneously de-rsks ndvdual projects. Ths s somethng that also urged Vulcan to ask the Cty of Seattle to consder establshng a Mxed-use Zonng Plan for the area. As the area developed, t became clear that a mx of functons would be more benefcal to create a mxed and dverse communty. Under the exstng zonng, from a fnancal pont of vew t was mpossble to create nterestng setbacks and plazas for the publc for nstance. Heghts and denstes were too restrctve on makng development project both fnancal feasble and physcally appealng. In fact t often resulted n box-development coverng the entre development plot. Hence, as a result of several dscussons, n 2010, the Mxed-use Zonng Plan was adopted. The mxed-use zonng allowed for dfferent uses on one plot. Moreover, accordng to the SDPD, t allowed for Incentve Zonng to be used n the Amazon case. Wth Incentve Zonng developers get the ncentve to buld hgher, n exchange for developng more publc space or fnancal contrbutons to affordable housng. In essence, developers than physcally and/or fnancally contrbute to achevng publc plannng polcy objectves on ste or elsewhere n the cty, ths s for local authortes to decde. In South Lake Unon, Incentve Zonng was used for the Amazon buldngs, effectvely a plot-orented Contract Rezone between Vulcan and SDPD. Ths ncluded rasng the base Floor Area Rato and allowng more heght, for whch n exchange Vulcan donated about $6.4 mln. to the Affordable Housng Fund for the Cty, and developed accessble plaza on ther plots. Before the rezone, a lot of what Vulcan was buldng was based on Transfer Development Rghts. They transferred development rghts to exstng market-drven affordable housng project elsewhere. Also, they made fnancal contrbutons to a chld care fund for nstance. Here, we see that a prvate developer thnks comprehensvely about the areas and neghborhood coherence. As they reman owner of the developed propertes they have a stake n thnkng about the place as a whole. Ths then ncludes makng the smart decsons about how users can experence the publc realm. Ths also ncluded thnkng about the publc realm n close cooperaton wth the local authorty, as they remaned owners of the publc space (sdewalks, streets, parks). Therefore, n ths perod a lot of publc-prvate-cvc nformal collaboraton took place around desgn ssues to create a more vbrant place. Ths resulted n SDPD publshng the SLU Urban Desgn Framework (SDPD, 2010). Although t has no offcal mandatory status, accordng to the SDPD t does provde developers wth some drecton for desgn prncples. However, once developers propose plans that are n lne wth these prncples, accordng to the SDPD, t does make gettng desgn approval and buldng permts easer. Ths can be consdered as a shapng the market actvty by the local authorty. Moreover, n February 2011, the SDPD fnshed an Envronmental Impact Statement (EIS) ncludng Heght and Densty Alternatves (SDPD, 2011). In general, the Cty has dentfed the followng specfc objectves of the EIS proposal (SDPD, 2011): Advance Comprehensve Plan goals to use lmted land resources more effcently, to pursue a development pattern that s economcally sound, and to maxmze the effcency of publc nvestment n nfrastructure and servces; Ensure adequate zoned development capacty for long-term growth consstent wth the desgnaton of South Lake Unon as one of the Cty s sx urban centers; Provde for a more dverse and attractve neghborhood character by provdng a mx of housng types, uses, buldng types and heghts; 472 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Enhance the pedestran qualty at street level by provdng amentes, takng nto consderaton lght and ar as well as publc vew corrdors and provdng for retal actvty at key locatons; Use ncreases n heght and densty to acheve other neghborhood plan goals such as ncreasng amount of affordable housng, open space, and other publc benefts through an ncentve zonng program; Determne how to best accommodate growth whle mantanng a functonal transportaton system, ncludng street network, transt, and non-motorzed modes of travel. Smlarly, determne how to accommodate growth whle mantanng functonal capacty of utlty systems, ncludng electrcal energy, water, sewer and storm dran systems. South Lake Unon, overvew of development projects (source: Pryne, 2010; Seattle Tmes) $ bln. 3,200 _ 3,000 _ 2,800 _ 2,600 _ 2,400 _ 2,200 _ 2,000 _ 1,800 _ 1,600 _ 1,400 _ 1,200 _ 1,000 _ 800 _ 600 _ 400 _ 200 0 2004 South Lake Unon - Cumulatve nvestment Investment made by Vulcan represent 2/3 of all SLU nvestment snce 2004 $265 Totals: $3,014 bllon / 7,480,00 sq.ft. $366 $720 $952 $1,570 $1,953 $2,247 $2,555 $2,720 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 $3,014 2013 Fgure AIII.3 South Lake Unon, cumulatve nvestment (adapted from Vulcan Real Estate) 473 Case USA - Seattle South Lake Unon

Snce 2010, Vulcan asked the SDPD to consder an Up zonng for parts of the area, whch ultmately would allow for taller buldngs n the South Lake Unon area. Hence, the request for up zonng has been made strongly by developer Vulcan Real Estate. Here, the am of create a more dverse streetscape and buldng layouts and to allow for more fnancal opportuntes for profts. As from December 2011, ths Up zonng s has been under consderaton by the Cty of Seattle. In summer 2012, SLU Zonng has been changed by the Cty (SDPD, 2012), allowng for ncreased buldng heghts n certan parts of SLU. In May 2011, at the moment of the project vst, Vulcan completed the Amazon Phase IV development. Moreover, Amazon contnues to be one of the greatest tenants for Vulcan, as t s a growng company, whch seeks rent offces wthn the South Lake Unon area. To sum up the plannng and development process, an ndcaton s gven about the total cumulatve nvestment n the project n Fgure AIII.3. It shows that snce 2004 two-thrd of all nvestments n the area have been made by Vulcan Real Estate. In total the development s estmated to rse above $3 bln. (about 2,1 bln.) wth a total of more than 7,480,000 sq.ft. (about 700.000 m2). Despte the ndcaton of 2013, ths cannot be consdered as an end date for development, as Vulcan does not make use of an end date. It all depends on market demand for ther development projects, whch n current tmes mght take longer to unfold. Moreover, the ntervewees argued that offce vacancy rates n Seattle downtown were about 21%, whch leaves a lot of speculatve offce development left on the market. But, as Vulcan develops what they call Class A assets they have a strong compettve poston on the market. Moreover, new projects contnue to be under constructon or n the desgn stage ppelne. They am at havng new offce buldng desgns ready once new tenants come to the area. Organzaton & Management It proved hard to dentfy the nter-organzatonal characterstcs of the collaboraton n South Lake Unon on the bass of the data collected. But the ntervewees stated that there s a clear role dvson between the publc and prvate actors. Vulcan s responsble for desgnng, fnancng, developng and mantanng the dfferent propertes developed upon ther land, under the dfferent plannng and zonng regulatons that apply to the area. The local authorty departments SDPD and SPR are responsble for ssung these regulatons and mantan publc spaces whch are n ther ownershp. Development rsks and revenues all are taken by Vulcan. Hence, there s no legal Development Agreement between Vulcan and the Cty of Seattle. Rather prvate development proposals can be approved or dsapproved by the local authorty on a buldng level, as there s no master plan for the area. Moreover, we see a lot of nformal cooperaton between publc, prvate and cvc actors whch focuses on combnng nterests nto ndcatve plannng documents. Also, the SLU case shows that regulatons are qute flexble, the only excepton beng zonng regulatons. But these regulatons are also are subject to change as development overtme changes nsghts and market demands. 474 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

In terms of management, and the way publc and prvate actors can nfluence the development, t can defntely be consdered as prvate sector-led. Table AIII.4 shows to whch actors the dfferent management measures can be attrbuted to. These fndngs are also presented n Heurkens & Louwaars (2011). Management Measures Project Management Process Management Management Tools Management Resources Management Functons Intatng Desgnng Plannng Operatng Prvate Prvate Prvate Both Negotatng Decson-makng Communcatng Both Both Both Shapng Regulatng Stmulatng Capacty buldng Both Publc Publc Both Land Captal Knowledge Prvate Prvate Prvate Table AIII.4 Emprcal management measures n South Lake Unon The table shows that the project management actvtes (ntatng, desgnng, realzng, and operatng) are mostly prvate sector-led. Vulcan defntely ntated the whole project by acqurng land and propertes after the Commons rejecton. Moreover, they contnuously come wth new ntatves for plot developments. Also desgnng s a prvate project management actvty, as each buldng s desgned by Vulcan. Nevertheless, ndcatve desgn gudelnes and desgn framework from the local authorty apply as well. Plannng as a way to nfluence the development almost entrely rests wth Vulcan, although the Parks and Recreaton department realzed the South Lake Unon Park. In terms of operatng, t s a mxed management actvty, as Vulcan mantans every facet on ther propertes, and the SDPD does the publc realm. When we look at the process management actvtes (negotatng, decson-makng, communcatng), we see that ths s done by both actors. Vulcan and the SDPD for nstance negotate about the comng nto beng of new zonng ordnances, and under these condtons negotate about developer contrbutons to publc objectves such as affordable housng n return for more heght and denstes. Decson-makng s a parallel actvty n both the development process by Vulcan and the plannng process by SDPD. Communcatng wth local resdents and busnesses s manly nformally carred out by the developer n order to ntegrate cvc nterests nto desgns. Also there s formal communcaton n terms of oblged publc meetngs (for nstance on new plannng documents and wthn the Desgn Revew Commttee), organzed by the local authorty. In terms of management tools (shapng, regulatng, stmulatng, capacty buldng), we conclude that t s the local authorty who nfluences development strongly based on regulaton, but also drected towards stmulatng the market. They regulate prvate developments wth ther zonng nstrument, and can deny buldng permts once they fal to comply wth the zonng ordnance. Stmulatng the market to nvest n SLU was effectuated once the area was apponted as one of the Urban Centers of Seattle. Ths ncreased the development nterest of actors, as the urban center provded opportuntes to drect State and county fundng for certan projects, the Streetcar beng one example. Shapng as a tool to nfluence development was not 475 Case USA - Seattle South Lake Unon

conscously used by the local authorty from the begnnng. At the start of the development n the begnnng of the 2000s there was no comprehensve vson or plan for the area n place. But, as development took a breather snce 2008 as a result of the economc crss, t allowed the SDPD to catch up n the plannng process to ntroduce all knds of desgn-related ssues for market actors to respond to. Capacty buldng for the project, n terms of actvatng the market was not really a publc management tool used conscously, although other publc actors were nvolved by the local authorty to contrbute to the area development. However, most of the tme t was Vulcan who actvely pursued tenants and other developers to commonly support the development of the area. When we look at the management resources (land, captal, knowledge) they can defntely be attrbuted to the developer Vulcan. They used ther landownershp and captal to nfluence the development accordng to ther objectves. Captal was brought n by bank loans and prvate equty, whch needed consderable approval of Vulcan Inc. as Vulcan Real Estate has to be a proftable organzatonal part of Vulcan Inc. Land was bought as early as the 1990s. As a result, Vulcan also obtaned a lot of neghborhood and market knowledge durng the process and used ths to steer nvestment towards real estate development. Effects & Experences The effects (effectveness, effcency, and spatal qualty) of the South Lake Unon project are hard to dentfy really at ths moment. Although both publc and prvate actors stated that the project n general s a consderably postve development for both the cty and the neghborhood, t has not commenced far enough to evaluate t. Moreover, as only two ntervews where held wth Vulcan and the SDPD t s hard to valdate the effects. But, there s some ndcaton that the spatal qualty of buldngs s regarded as satsfyng. For the several desgn accomplshments n the South Lake Unon area Vulcan receved some awards (see Vulcan, 2011). Fgure AIII.4 shows an mpresson of the award-wnnng mxed-use 2200 development from Vulcan. In terms of experences, some hghlghts stand out. Frst, the Vulcan ntervewees consder the poltcal leadershp of two successve Mayors of Seattle and publc plannng drectors as crucal for the success of the development. Not only dd they see and promote the mportance and potental of the area, they also effectvely steered plannng offcers to work wth the market. Second, both actors state that the collaboraton, nformal partnershp, and jon thnkng about South Lake Unon have been very frutful and constructve over the years, based on jont nterests. Fnally, the actors argue that the economc recesson helped the area, n the sense that t slowed down development whch provded space to rethnk the potental and future of the area. Vulcan took an even more market-orented stance towards the development thereby de-rskng t even further. And the Vulcan, SDPD had to tme to do some catch up plannng work whch prevously was to slow to catch up wth the developments n the area. In general both actors are postve about ther collaboraton and contnue to work towards mplementng new project that provde opportuntes to make South Lake Unon an even better place to work. 476 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Fgure AIII.4 South Lake Unon, mpresson 2200 complex ( Erwn Heurkens) Conclusons In concluson, what have we observed n South Lake Unon whch mght be of nterest for urban development n the Netherlands? Frst, ndeed we see that urban development n the Unted States s a dfferent ball-game; t s more market-orented. At least n Seattle, we see a neolberal market-orented envronment, n whch local authortes almost totally rely on prvate nvestment to realze plannng goals. They mght change the content of regulatve zonng nstruments to get prvate projects underway, as the fnancal capacty of local authortes s very lmted. Second, we saw that local authortes do not necessarly steer on the bass of overall masterplan for an area. The actors even argued that such a fxed plan s contraproductve to respond to market needs and develop comprehensve areas. In a demand-drven development context one needs to be flexble n ther ntentons; therefore applyng general drectons for development seems enough. Thrd, we saw that beng a development nvestor wth a long-term nterest and nvolvement provdes opportuntes to thnk more strategcally and sustanably about areas, as ths has postve results for the proft of the estates and prvate busness contnuaton. Fnally, we saw that the development has been de-rsked snce the economc crss, not only amng at securng tenants, but also by phasng the development. By dong so, there s no fxed project completon year, whch allows the developer to respond to changng market needs over tme. For the Netherlands such prncples can be taken at heart by publc and prvate actors to fnance, organze and manage prvate sector-led urban development projects n the near future. 477 Case USA - Seattle South Lake Unon

478 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Currculum Vtae Erwn Heurkens MSc. was born n 1979 n Oss, the Netherlands, and currently lves n Rotterdam. He started studyng at the Delft Unversty of Technology (TUD) n 1998 at the Faculty of Geo Scence, before swtchng to the Faculty of Archtecture n 1999. After obtanng hs Archtecture Bachelor degree n 2003, n 2005 Erwn graduated wth honors at the Department of Real Estate & Housng (RE&H) n the feld of Urban Area Development wth a thess on Olympc urban development decson-makng. Also, he acheved a Techncal Commercal Engneer certfcate at the Faculty of Technology, Polcy & Management (TUD), an nterdscplnary course on management, organzaton, economy, law, and marketng. Durng hs student years he was an actve member of real estate student socetes BOSS and FRESH. In 2005 Erwn started hs professonal career as a junor consultant at engneerng company Adecs, smultaneously workng as an academc researcher at RE&H (TUD). He contrbuted to several research projects ncludng the Urban Decson Room (Van Loon et al., 2008) and carred out studes for the Rotterdam Cty Development Department. In 2007 he spend hs sabbatcal year travellng n South Amerca and carryng out voluntary work for the Rubya hosptal n Tanzana where he wrote a hosptal mantenance plan. In 2008 Erwn started hs PhD research. After the frst phase of studyng Dutch urban development projects the research emphass evolved towards Anglo-Saxon development practces. As a result, he vsted the Unversty of the West of England (UWE) for two months n 2010 carryng out two major UK urban development case studes n Brstol and Lverpool. In 2011 Erwn travelled through the USA for two months, vstng varous ctes ncludng a two week case study vst to Seattle. These natonal and nternatonal practce-orented research actvtes have resulted n several academc and professonal publcatons over the years. Besdes hs PhD research Erwn performed several coordnaton and fellowshp actvtes. Snce 2008 he became a program coordnator of the post-ntal academc course Master Cty Developer (MCD); a collaboraton between Delft Unversty of Technology, Erasmus Unversty Rotterdam, and Rotterdam Cty Development Department. He holds fellowshps at AESOP and ULI Europe, and was a FRESH Alumn Board and Supervsory Board member (2009-2011). He organzed MCD Study Trps to London (2009) and Manchester/Lverpool (2010), guded the BOSS Study Trp to Inda (2010), and vsted the Natonal Unversty of Sngapore (2011) to partcpate n a collaboratve plannng workshop. Currently, he mentors several graduate students and teaches dfferent Master Courses at the Faculty of Archtecture (TUD) ncludng Management Fundamentals, Urban Redevelopment Game, Case Study Methods, and Redesgn. In hs future academc career Erwn ams at further extendng hs knowledge on foregn development practces by specalzng n nternatonal comparatve urban management research, amed at sharng such nsghts and lessons wth students, academcs and practtoners. 479 Currculum Vtae

Lst of Publcatons Heurkens, E.W.T.M. (2005). Mult-actoren beslssngsmodel voor rumteljke ontwkkelngsprojecten van de Olympsche Spelen van 2028 n Nederland (Thess). Delft: Delft Unversty of Technology. Heurkens, E.W.T.M., & Loon P.P.J. van (2006). Preference measurement methodology n urban land use Plannng: An experment for urban decson-makng on buldng stes and nfrastructure for the 2028 Dutch Olympc Games. In C. Wang, Q Sheng & C. Sezer (Eds.), Proceedngs from IFoU 06: Internatonal Forum on Urbansm 2006, Modernzaton and Regonalsm Re-nventng the Urban Identty, Proceedngs Volume II (pp. unknown). Delft: IFoU. Heurkens, E.W.T.M. (2008). Olympsche Spelen 2028: Katalysator voor rumteljke nvesterngen en bestuurljke verneuwng. BOSS Magazne, 32, 74-79. Heurkens, E.W.T.M. (2008). The Anglo-Saxon Western wnd: Repostonng the management of urban area development n the Netherlands. BOSS Magazne, 34, 54-58. Heurkens, E.W.T.M., Hobma, F.A.M., & Zeeuw, W.T.C.F. de (2008). Gebedsconcesse: een omstreden neuwkomer. Rumteljke Ontwkkelng Magazne, 10, 12-15. Heurkens, E.W.T.M., & Loon, P.P.J. van (2008). The Urban Decson Room: Applcaton and evaluaton of an urban management nstrument. Proceedngs from DDSS 08: 9th Internatonal Conference on Desgn & Decson Support Systems n Archtecture & Urban Plannng (Dgtal proceedngs). Endhoven: Endhoven Unversty of Technology. Loon, P.P.J. van, Heurkens, E.W.T.M., & Barendse, P. (2008). The urban decson room: Applcaton and evaluaton of an urban management nstrument. Proceedngs from CC 08: Corporatons and Ctes: Envsonng Corporate Real Estate n the Urban Future (Dgtal proceedngs). Brussels: Delft Unversty of Technology. Loon, P.P.J. van, Heurkens, E.W.T.M., & Bronkhorst, S. (2008). The Urban Decson Room: An urban management nstrument. Amsterdam: IOS Press. Heurkens, E.W.T.M. (2009). Changng publc and prvate roles n urban area development n the Netherlands. In J. Rosemann, L. Qu & D. Sepúlveda (Eds.), The NEW Urban Queston: Urbansm Beyond Neo-Lberalsm (pp. 345-355). Rotterdam: Internatonal Forum on Urbansm. Heurkens, E.W.T.M. (2009). Repostonng the management of urban area development n the Netherlands. In V. Ahmed, M. Alshaw, C. Egbu, & M. Sustrsna (Eds.), Proceedngs from IRW 09: 9th Internatonal Post Graduate Research Conference (pp. 126-136). Manchester: Unversty of Salford. Heurkens, E.W.T.M., Hobma, F.A.M., & Zeeuw, W.T.C.F. de (2009). Gebedsconcesse n de praktjk. Rumteljke Ontwkkelng Magazne, 9, 30-33. Heurkens, E.W.T.M. (2010). Prvate sector-led urban development. Real Estate Research Quarterly, 2, 29-34. Heurkens, E.W.T.M., & Peek, B. (2010). Effecten van de toepassng van het concessemodel bj gebedsontwkkelng. Real Estate Magazne, 71, 42-45. Heurkens, E.W.T.M. (2011). A method to study the management of urban development projects. In H. Wamelnk, R. Geraedts & L. Volker (Eds.), Management and Innovaton for a Sustanable Bult Envronment (pp. 1-13). Amsterdam: Delft Unversty of Technology. Heurkens, E.W.T.M., & Louwaars, S.P. (2011). Publc & prvate leadershp n urban development. Real Estate Research Quarterly, 10(2), 37-47. Pol, P.M.J., & Heurkens, E.W.T.M. (2011). Wat kan Rotterdam-Den Haag leren van Amerkaanse metropolen. Real Estate Research Quarterly, 10(2), 27-36. Heurkens, E.W.T.M. (2012). The fall and rse of neolberal Amercan ctes: Towards more sustanable urban development strateges. BOSS Magazne, 43, 19-28. 480 Prvate Sector-led Urban Development Projects

Delft Unversty of Technology, Faculty of Archtecture, Department of Real Estate & Housng