Starting From The Makers: Interaction Environments (2014, Isabel Neumann) by Vereniging Deltametropool

Starting from the makers a stakeholder perspective on interaction environments

Master Thesis submitted during Winter Semester 2014/15 at the Bauhaus-Universit채t Weimar Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism Study course European Urban Studies

Author: Isabel Neumann B.A.

Examiners:

1st examiner: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Bernd Nentwig

Bauhaus-Universit채t Weimar, Chair Architectural Management

2nd examiner: Yvonne Rijpers Deltametropolis Association, Rotterdam

Starting from the makers a stakeholder perspective on interaction environments 1.

Starting from the makers

a stakeholder perspective on interaction environments

1.1. Interaction what…? 8 1.2. A stakeholder perspective! 9 1.3. What to expect… 10 1.4. How to do this? 10 1.5. Why is this relevant? 11 2. The Dutch metropolis 13 2.1. Interaction environments 15 2.2. Cultural cluster as interaction environments

2.2.1. Typologies of cultural clusters 17 2.2.2. Stimuli for cultural clusters 22 2.2.3. Up-coming clusters 24 2.3. Interaction environments - a planning topic in progress 3.

A new planning topic… a new planning approach

25 31

3.1. The actor-relational approach 32 3.2. Cultural clusters breeding ground for cultural interaction environments?

3.3. Cultural interaction environments revised: a broadened view

3.3.1. Cultural clusters revised: definition 36 3.3.2.

Cultural clusters revised: analytic perspective

4. Starting from the makers 39 4.1. Schouwburgplein: the story 40 4.2. Rotterdam-Noord: the story 43 4.3. In de Hoog’s sense 48 4.4. A stakeholder perspective… 49 4.4.1.

The institutional set-up: what to find at these sites

4.4.2.

Taking the initiative: top-down or bottom-up

4.4.3. Formalisation: long-term-coalition building vs. ad-hoc cooperation

4.4.4.

structural support vs. first aid

4.5. … explains concrete interventions 67 4.5.1. Space 67

4.5.2. Programme 71 4.6. A stakeholder perspective - getting grip on interaction environments?

4.6.1.

Institutional differences = spatial differences?

4.6.2.

Institutional and organizational modes delineate interventions? 76

4.6.3.

Processes shape stakeholder constellations?

4.6.4.

Site specific knowledge for new perspectives?

A stakeholder perspective - getting grip on interaction environments! 81

6. Sources 86

Starting from the makers a stakeholder perspective on interaction environments

Starting from the makers

Starting from the makers - a stakeholder perspective on interaction environments

1.1. Interaction what…? In 2013 I did my internship at Deltametropolis Association in Rotterdam. I worked there with my colleague Yvonne Rijpers on a study dealing with cultural clustering; in this context I encountered the work of Maurits de Hoog that builds on a very distinct definition of the term. It generated my curiosity and my scepticism and I decided to take his framing up and investigate it in the course of my Master thesis. Maurits de Hoog is a proponent of planning for strong places of encounter. He names these settings interaction environments (Vereniging Deltametropool 2011). In order to make this rather general claim more concrete de Hoog publishes the study “The Dutch metropolis - Designing quality interaction environments” in 20121. It should introduce this new assignment to planning professionals and institutions. In the book, he establishes a terminology to define and classify places of encounter (de Hoog 2013). This thesis is a supplementation of his work. De Hoog’s acknowledges three types of interaction environments: knowledge clusters, as for instance university campuses; convention clusters, such as fair and exhibition centres; and cultural clusters, referring to cultural facilities situated within walking distance from each other (ibid.). He focuses on their spatial, typological and location features (ibid.). As a result of this frame, the study recalls the importance of mentioned places in the urban fabric and provides an overview of the shapes they can take. Institutional support for the study has been provided by the Department of Physical Planning at the municipality of Amsterdam, the Department for Real Estate at the University of Amsterdam, the Technical University of Delft and the Deltametropolis Association (ibid.). However, a broad response on the book in the form of policies or scholarly publications failed to happen (M. de Hoog, interview, July 11, 2014). My thesis takes the gap between interest and the ability to actively deal with interaction environments as a starting point. De Hoog provides a spatial and descriptive per1 The Dutch title of the book is : “De Hollandse metropool – Ontwerpen aan de kwaliteit van interactiemilieus”. The English translation was published in 2013.

spective on these settings; it offers minor insights regarding strategies dealing with them. The framing of places of encounter as a new planning topic is nevertheless a remarkable achievement and puts the topic on urban and regional development agendas (J. Gadet, interview, July 2, 2014). With this thesis I will provide new input to the discourse on interaction environments. I aim for a stronger conceptual definition to provide stakeholders with the reference points to actively engage in this task.

1.2. A stakeholder perspective! De Hoogâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s research offers a rich overview of the spatial features of interaction environments (de Hoog 2013). I will complement this with a process and stakeholder related approach, indicating broader criteria constituting interaction environments. This thesis raises and answers the question: who is bringing these spaces to live and makes them part of our real physical environment? To do so I set focus on cultural clusters. Cultural clusters continue to be of high relevance to urban development. The creative city discourse highlights them as means to meet the (spatial) requirements for economic restructuring. Creative stakeholders are also considered to be carriers of organisational innovation and novel approaches to spatial development. This is also at display when looking at cities: interesting interventions as spatial site marks of cultural producers. Knowing the discourse and knowing cities I think de Hoogâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s terminology on interaction environments lacks the consideration of these activities and producers. I acknowledge that cultural facilities, and spatial agglomerations of them, are springoffs of manifold stakeholder constellations and processes. I consider these as a factor to link the current conception of cultural interaction environments to the practice at these sites, and a means to achieve a broader adoption of the topic in the planning discipline. De Hoogâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s distinction between so-called established and up-coming cultural-clusters describes cases of different development stage and provides an additional input for my research. My assumption is that young and mature clusters differ in their spatial and organisational make-up. To follow this interest and to make

Starting from the makers

stakeholder constellations a part of the current definition of ‘cultural clusters’ in de Hoog’s sense I will answer the following research question: When looking at cultural interaction environments in different states of development, what can we learn from the different processes and stakeholder constellations at them in order to apply the term broader in the planning practice? To operationalize the question I developed four hypotheses. Established and up-coming clusters differ spatially, but also with regard to their institutional make-up. Because institutional and organisational make-up differs, also the concrete interventions of stakeholder at sites are distinct. Distinct processes give rise to these stakeholder constellations. For their interventions at sites stakeholders depart from location specific features.

1.3. What to expect… The opening chapter pays attention to “The Dutch Metropolis” and illustrates the character, the strong points and short comings of de Hoog’s study. It ends with a critical assessment that will be the base for my own research. The next chapter is dedicated to the theoretical references I use to inform my analysis of the case studies. The fourth chapter applies this frame to two case studies: an up-coming cluster and an ‘established’ cultural cluster. Chapter five is the closing chapter.

1.4. How to do this? For answering my research question I use both desk and field research. The desk study consists of an analysis of published literature on interaction environments, stakeholder/actor-related planning and clustering. To understand the current trends and matters for the discipline the analysis of reports, e.g. of municipalities, provides an important source of information. A broad media analysis of professional journals, newspapers, websites and blogs is made. Additionally a number of guideline-based interviews are conducted. Participant observations, mapping and photography round the examination of cases of.

1.5. Why is this relevant? Planning in the Netherlands has seen some vast changes in the last years: The financial crisis lowered investment in real estate significantly at the same time governmental spending on urban development has been cut down. Both events are central moments drawing the conditions for a slower pace of urban planning in the Netherlands today and ask for a renegotiation of the roles of public and other stakeholders in developing the urban environment. Beyond these very urgent questions the discipline is confronted with long-term change in a number of realms many European countries face: energy transition, on-going demographic transition, climate change and against the background of increasing budgetary restrictions â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;public service provisionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. Moreover the ascent of new media changed planning; in effect new bottom-up initiatives indicate a democratisation of city making. De Hoog boldly ignored this array of altered conditions and the challenges they create. However they in fact raise a multiplicity of tasks for planning. This backdrop raises the question if discussing interaction environments as a purely spatial framework is enough to land the new topic on the disciplineâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s agendas.

Starting from the makers

The Dutch metropolis

In 2012 Maurits de Hoog published the study “The Dutch metropolis - Designing quality interaction environments”. In it he describes interaction environments and triggers a broader discourse on the topic (de Hoog 2013). “Over the last decade it is primarily logistical interaction which has received the lion’s share of investment” de Hoog 2013: back cover

De Hoog’s claim for a planning of interaction environments departs from a critical statement on the current approaches towards metropolitan development in the Netherlands, particularly in the Randstad. He states that thriving for a Dutch metropolis is largely driven by measures to improve infrastructure and accessibility, while it is equally “important to invest in facilities for human interaction” (de Hoog 2013: back cover). He therefore proposes to consider numbers of visitors in a city as a measure to recognise a successful metropolis, whereas conventional definitions depart from population statistics (de Hoog 2013). Metropolitan core functions attract these visitors. De Hoog describes interaction environments as the ‘spatial bracket’ housing these. In this argumentation he claims “it is this pallet of interaction environments that gives the metropolis its colour” (de Hoog 2013: 34). To embed his argumentation in the context of the Randstad de Hoog obtains a planning history perspective on metropolitan development in the Netherlands. Due to the planning focus on “regulated urbanization” (de Hoog 2013: 10) for decades, the country depicts an urbanized field with relatively small single cities, but without a big metropolitan core. Nevertheless, in the mid 1990’s started a metropolitan debate that focused from the beginning on the densely populated Western part of the Netherlands, the Randstad. Metropolitan development in the area is based on the voluntarily cooperation of municipalities and on the networking and projects of Deltametropolis Association. A formal fixation of the metropolitan area, a politically legitimised steering institution or planning instruments, are not at hand (P. Gerretsen, interview, April 15, 2014). Metropolitan policies are a pronounced, but institutional weak field in the Netherlands. They are carried by certain concepts that help “the development of metropol-

Starting from the makers

itan functions” (de Hoog 2013: 30) and comprise programmes targeted on infrastructural provision to achieve an improved competitiveness of the Dutch economy. One pillar of these strategies is aimed at improvement of transport and network nodes and sub-summed under the term ‘ports’; another one are the ‘key projects’ directed at “intensifying and completing of the existing city… and curtailing and channelling mobility” (de Hoog 2013: 31). Another planning concept related to metropolitan development is the ‘Top sectors’–programme that “discussed the spatial clustering of activities in sectors” (de Hoog 2013: 32) of high relevance for durable economic growth. De Hoog recognises a high emphasis on infrastructural investments in these concepts, and claims interaction environments are equally important outfits for a competitive metropolis (de Hoog 2013: 30). What supports his claim is that “in the recent decades the tourism and conference sector in the Netherlands has undergone massive growth” (de Hoog 2013: 34). Against the background of “a wave of budget cuts, and then the real estate crisis” (de Hoog 2013: 7) the trips to Dutch cities might become a critical income factor for municipal households. “We no longer could look to banks for our salvations, but city tourism remained every bit as popular as it had been” de Hoog 2013: 7

The investment in quality urban facilities for interaction translates in this line of argumentation into higher numbers of visitors and subsequently in higher incomes from city tourism. The decline in traditional outdoor recreation among Dutch day tourists, but the growth in typical city activities reinforces de Hoog’s claim (Jonker 2014). The focus on city tourism also rests on a quest for new planning topics in the Netherlands and is more specifically off-spring of the discussions on the strategic vision ‘Randstad Holland 2040’ (Ministerie van VROM 2008). Published in 2008, it is supposed to guide regional/metropolitan development in Randstad in the decades to come. However, the advice is critically perceived by decision makers, who expressed the need for new view points and approaches. Jointly “it was decided that this perspective could be emphasized through a focus on tourism and knowledge and more specifically on clusters.” (Vereniging Deltametropool 2011: 15).

2.1. Interaction environments “In discussion with […] with the Department of Physical Planning in Amsterdam we came up with the concept of interaction environments. These are places for encounters and exchanges among people, of goods, information and capital.” de Hoog 2013: 7

The concept of interaction environments is an expression of this new perspective. It delineates urban settings where get-togethers of people take place, which generate (through attracting big numbers of people) unexpected encounters. Their meaning for “exchanges among people, of goods, information and capital” (ibid.) assigns an economic function to them. De Hoog defines them as a certain complex of buildings; as spaces whose central function is to house high densities of encounter they “have ever-changing groups of users and specialized facilities” (de Hoog 2013: 32). Due to their spatial formation and accompanying uses, they form a realm in the cities that can be “sharply distinguished from other urban environments such as living or production environments” (ibid.). An economic effect, a critical amount of visitors, as well as a distinct urban form, are the decisive criteria for a place to be recognized as an interaction environment. Many urban settings fit this definition: “in many cases they involve what have been traditionally labelled as centres” (de Hoog 2013: 33), but “interaction environment is a broader and more natural term” (ibid.). To answer the research question “how these metropolitan interaction environments could be taken a step further” (de Hoog 2013: 7) he focuses on the functional realms “culture, conferences and knowledge” (de Hoog 2013: 34). Institutions determine the character of clusters: a number of cultural amenities in close proximity comprise a cultural cluster. De Hoog analyses case studies regarding these facilities; the spatial typology in which they are assembled; and how they relate to other interaction environments (de Hoog 2013). The focus is clearly set on the spatial make-up of sites. Metropolitan Interaction environments “A metropolis is to be distinguished from a ‘big city’ perhaps directly through its large number of visitors …” de Hoog 2013: 33

“The Dutch metropolis” is based on a research interest on places of encounter of

Starting from the makers

metropolitan importance (M. de Hoog, interview, July 11, 2014). To distinguish metropolitan interaction environments from local ones de Hoog attests them “a wide international reach” (de Hoog 2013: 33). The share of foreign users on total users of facilities is the indicator to measure and prove this. The distinction is hence based on the popularity among international visitors and affirms de Hoog’s focus on tourism as a key-driver for a metropolitan planning agenda.

2.2. Cultural cluster as interaction environments “A cultural cluster has at least three cultural institutions within a walking distance of not more than five minutes from each other, and draws at least 500.000 visitors per year” de Hoog 2013: 47

To identify cultural interaction environments of critical importance, de Hoog establishes high thresholds: three institutions in five minutes walking distance, hosting at least 500.000 visitors annually. He reckons only “the major cultural institutions” (de Hoog 2013: 47) forming these settings: “museums, theatres, music venues, discussion centres and libraries” (ibid). This definition frames an approach that is “strongly quantitative in nature” (de Hoog 2013: 66) and narrows down the results of the study to ‘the’ main places of encounter in cities; often equivalent with internationally known sights. De Hoog applies the definition on the four big cities in the Randstad and identifies nine such settings in Amsterdam, four in Rotterdam, three in The Hague and two in Utrecht (de Hoog 2013). “Dam Cluster The Dam cluster overlaps with the 1012 cluster. Although the greatest cultural institutions - Nieuwe Kerk, the Palace, Madame Tussauds - lie around Dam Square, the atmosphere is defined more by the shoppers. The Dam is a nexus for day functions; the Nes, with its various theatre, chiefly draws an evening audience. About 60% of the visitors to Madam Tussauds are international visitors. For the theatres on the Nes, the percentage is much lower.” (de Hoog 2013, 62) cultural facilities gastronomy artistic education

retail hotels

two minutes walking distance five minutes walking distance

ill.1: example “The Dutch metropolis” Maps such as this from the Dam-cluster in Amsterdam and a short description are the starting points for de Hoog’s eloboration on interaction environments.

He develops further an analytic frame to distinguish cases with regard to “programme, the form of public space, intensity and time of usage” (de Hoog 2013: 69). He refers to their location, spatial structure, the number of users in total and the share of international visitors (de Hoog 2013) and thus develops a classification of cultural clusters. This ‘typology’ is the centre piece of his work on cultural interaction environments. 2.2.1. Typologies of cultural clusters De Hoog distinguishes seven different types of cultural clusters. I illustrate his findings with domestic and international examples. A cultural centre “accommodates various institutions under one roof” (de Hoog 2013: 69), as for instance the Museumsinsel Berlin. It is located in the Berlin Mitte district and features six major cultural facilities: Altes Museum, Neues Museum, Alte Nationalgalerie, Bode-Museum and Pergamonmuseum. The James-Simon-Gallery (still under construction) will transform the Museumsinsel fully into a cultural centre: it forms a common central entrance and serves as a visitors centre for all facilities (Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz 2014). In 2012 the Museumsinsel attracted roughly 3.2 million visitors2 (Senatskanzlei Kulturelle Angelegenheiten 2012). As a museum cluster, it is mainly used in day time.

3 4 6

2 5 1

ill. 2: Museumsinsel, Berlin 1: Altes Museum, 2: Alte Nationalgalerie, 3:Bode-Museum, 4: Pergamonmuseum, 5: Ägyptisches museum, 6: James-Simon-Gallery

Precisely it had been: 3.228.500 visitors.

Starting from the makers

ill. 3: Museumplein, Amsterdam 1: Rijksmuseum, 2: Van Gogh Museum, 3:Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, 4: Concertgebouw

The Dam in Amsterdam is a typical example of a classical cultural square with a radius of about 150m. It houses cultural institutions such as ‘Amsterdam Historical Museum’, ‘Bible Museum’, the ‘Allard Pierson Museum’, and tourist attractions such as ‘Madame Tussauds’, the ‘Amsterdam Dungeon’ and the ‘Hash, Marijuana and Hemp Museum’ (amsterdam.info; de Hoog 2013). Museumsplein in Amsterdam is also a cultural square, but exceeds the typical radius. Cultural institutions situated here are the Van Gogh Museum, Rijksmuseum, Stedelijkmuseum and Concertgebouw (de Hoog 2013). Both cases are situated in the city centre and important tourist magnets. Museum-

1 4

7 6

3 2

ill. 4: Times Square, New York 1: Sage Theatre, 2: Lyceum Theatre, 3:The Marquis Theatre, 4: Cort Theatre, 5: The Palace Theatre, 6: Booth Theatre, 7: Birdland Jazz Club NYC

splein attracts about 3.3 million visitors annually (de Hoog 2013) and is mainly busy during day time. The Dam also has its broader reach during day time.3 Times Square in New York is a modern cultural square. The typical radius is again 150m, but “in contrast to the classic square, the modern cultural square is busiest at night” (de Hoog 2013: 71). The evening use is related to the functions situated here. For the case of Times Square these are mainly theatres such as Sage theatre, but also other venues such as the ‘Birdland Jazz Club’ or the ‘The Palace Theatre’ (Times Square Alliance). Annually Time Square attracts about 39.2 million visitors (Travel + Leisure 2011).

2 6 1 5 3 4 ill. 5: De Jordaan, Amsterdam 1: Anne-Frank-Huis, 2: Galerie Jordaan, 3: GO Gallery, 4: Het Perron, 5: Pianola Museum, 6: Noorderkerk The map shows only a few facilities situated in Jordaan.

A cultural quarter is a mixed urban area “in which residential and work functions dominate”. An international case is SoHo in New York; in Amsterdam the Jordaan is a good example (de Hoog 2013). De Hoog describes these quarters as “clearly defined areas with a strong spatial identity, imposed by the street plan and architecture” (de Hoog 2013: 72). The radius of such a cultural quarter is typically between 300 and 400m (ibid.). The majority of cultural facilities in these areas are rather small and made-up by galleries or concept stores. In most cases however there is a ‘light tower’ drawing enormous visitor numbers. For the case of Jordaan this is the ‘Anne-Frank-Huis’ that attracts about a million visitors per year (de Hoog 2013: 62).

3 There are no cumulated visitor numbers for Dam square available.

Starting from the makers

ill. 6: Waterfront, Genoa 1: Aquarium of Genoa, 2: Galata Museo del Mare, 3: University

Waterfronts are a variant of cultural quarters that emerged through economic-restructuring and renewal of harbour areas from the 1970s onwards. “In addition to new cultural facilities such as a science museum or concert hall, the formula chiefly revolves around commercial leisure facilities” (de Hoog 2013: 73). The radius of a waterfront can reach up-to 600m (ibid.). As follow-ups of harbour uses they are situated at the edges of city centres. A famous international case is the waterfront of Genoa, redeveloped for the 1992 World Expo (ibid.). The transformation aimed at integrating city centre and old harbour. Today the area houses amongst others an aquarium, a sea museum and university facilities (Bobbio 2011). Annually the aquarium alone attracts

4 6

ill. 7: Westergasfabriek, Amsterdam 1: Westerpark, 2: MediaCafé, 3: De Gashouder, 4: Het Ketelhuis, 5: MC-Theater, 6: North Sea JazzClub

1.2 million visitors (Agenzia regionale Promozione Turistica “In Liguria” 2009). Waterfronts are mainly active in day time. The development of cultural parks is often aimed at the revitalisation of former industrial sites. An exemplary case is the Westergasfabriek-area in Amsterdam (de Hoog 2013: 76). The typical radius among facilities ranges between 250 and 400 meters (ibid.). Cultural parks are often situated at the edge of city centres (ibid.). Besides concert venues Westergasfabriek accommodates flexible exhibition spaces and working rooms for creative industries, such as a TV-studio (Westergasfabriek BV; Stichting Westergasfabriek). Furthermore festivals shape the character of the site4 (de Hoog 2013). Parc de la Villette in Paris is another well-known international case (ibid.).

5 4

ill. 8: NDSM Werf, Amsterdam 1: HEMA, 2: MTV Networks BV, 3: Scheepsbouwloods, 4: Noorderlicht Café, 5: NDSM Kraan

A cultural wharf is “an organic, rough around the edges little brother of the cultural parks” (de Hoog 2013: 77). As an example de Hoog names NDSM in Amsterdam. The typical radius of such sites is about 400m. Their character is highly shaped by events. Typically large parts are left open for temporary and mid-term uses. Also business facilities for creative industries are often situated here (de Hoog 2013). MTV Benelux and Discovery Channel (NDSM B.V.) hold amongst others head offices of in NDSM. Cultural wharfs are usually found at the edges of or outside city centres. They occupy places that have long been secluded from the urban core by physical or mental barriers5 (de Hoog 2013). 4 There are no cumulated visitor numbers for Westergasfabriek available. 5 There are no cumulated visitor numbers for NDSM-wharf available.

Starting from the makers

“Museums … form the core of the cultural section” de Hoog 2013: 41

De Hoog concludes that some clusters are of “primarily city-wide or regional significance” (de Hoog 2013: 66) and attract therefore mainly local or domestic users. Facilities in these environments are often libraries or theatres. Museums on the contrary have the greatest reach: “in addition to local and regional visitors, they draw national and international visitors” (de Hoog 2013: 41). Mixed cultural clusters are available in all four big cities in the Randstad. Nevertheless there are differences in the integration (ibid.). In “the old city centres” (de Hoog 2013: 81) functions are highly intertwined. Areas that underwent modernist planning with emphasis on functional separation are in this respect challenging (de Hoog 2013). On the scale of the Randstad ill. 9; Functional mix At the Dam in Amsterdam is cultural functions are highly intertwined with other uses (legendmap: p 9).

The high number of cultural and other interaction environments in Amsterdam

builds the conclusion “Amsterdam is the core of the Dutch metropolis” (de Hoog 2013: 87). It is attractive equally for regional, national and international visitors. Cultural facilities in Amsterdam are supported by a “differentiated shopping district, with adjoining entertainment quarters” (ibid.). 2.2.2. Stimuli for cultural clusters “Amsterdam and Holland are the strongest brands and …museums and the coast are the most important attractions” de Hoog 2013: 88

Pointing at ‘Holland and Amsterdam’ as destinations and the facilities ‘museum and coast’ de Hoog sketches a rough approach for a further development of cultural clusters in the Randstad: “it is obvious that spatial policy and investments should be concentrated on precisely these sectors” (de Hoog 2013: 88). The biggest challenges

for cultural interaction environments are increasing international competition around visitors and the growing demands of users on leisure activities (de Hoog 2013). However, “markets created by emerging economies” (de Hoog 2013: 87) provide a new visitors potential. To meet these requirements and to keep cultural clusters (internationally) appealing de Hoog calls for “collaboration among entrepreneurs, governmental authorities, organizations and researchers” (de Hoog 2013: 88). ). He emphasises the importance of quality urban design for these prominent sites and of relations among them. The most effective development strategy is “the combination of various smaller interaction environments into larger ones” (de Hoog 2013: 194) to form interaction districts. These create a “strolling city” (de Hoog 2013: 195) that derives its attraction from quality public space and from a “supporting program in the vicinity” (ibid.). “What we would like to do is not to focus on … facilities, because we have already built them, but to focus on public space and a more diverse programme around them.” de Hoog, interview, July 11, 2014

Looking at the development of cultural clusters de Hoog observes that they usually depart from existing facilities (de Hoog 2013). The forming of a cluster is hence based on an increase of institutions in a limited urban realm, a kind of ‘cultural densification’. Furthermore he recognises “presently rising clusters often lay on the periphery of the cities” (de Hoog 2013: 88) and take a rather slow pace in development. Examples are Westergasfabriek or NDSM in Amsterdam (de Hoog 2013). Approaches for the strengthening of clusters evolve around “the numbers of institutions, accessibility, the design of their public space and the supporting programme” (de Hoog 2013: 89). “What the clusters have to offer in the broadest sense” de Hoog 2013: 91

To ‘mature’ clusters it is less relevant to expand the number of cultural facilities but rather to aim at “a lively mix of functions on the ground floor … and a safe attractive public space” (ibid.). In effect cultural facilities would then be highly intertwined with supportive uses. This allows visitors “simple combinations …: shopping can be combined with a lunch, or a visit to a compact exhibition” (ibid.). For clusters which already present such a strong mix, the task is to meet requirements popularity brings about. This is in the first place “the accommodation of large numbers of visitors” (ibid.). To serve this need “the quality of the public space, and better relations with the surrounding areas” (ibid.) is crucial. On the scale of several clusters better links between

Starting from the makers

them makes the whole range of cultural facilities and supportive functions a city has on offer available for visitors. “Improving the relations between clusters, and the combination of clusters, is at least as important as the investment in the individual clusters” de Hoog 2013: 91

2.2.3. Up-coming clusters “Clusters […] which did not (yet) reach the 500.000 visitors per 5 minute walking distance definition, but which do have a large influence on the city” Vereniging Deltametropool 2011: 16

Presenting the intermediate results of his research de Hoog introduced the term ‘up-coming clusters’ during an expert talk on cultural clusters in late 2011. He describes these as settings that do not meet the high thresholds of his definition, but that have an influence on the city. The label matches foremost cultural wharfs, such as NDSM, and commercially run entertainment clusters, like the ArenA-area in Amsterdam (Vereniging Deltametropool 2011). What makes them interesting is that they assumedly “may play a bigger role in the future” (ibid.). The triggers to realize this development potential range from “improving their accessibility or programming, adding new functions, improving the quality of venues, extending their public reach, making them more accommodating for larger flows of visitors, improving their relation and connectivity with other clusters etc.” (ibid). The challenges de Hoog describes for these places equal widely those other clusters face. Different from established clusters he points also at the qualitative improvement of single facilities. The development of up-coming clusters does not solely follow the development ideas of public stakeholders. On the contrary, in commercial clusters development companies and in cases with an unpolished character initiatives take a stake. Therefore they present an interesting subject for my research.

2.3. Interaction environments - a planning topic in progress “A metropolis is to be distinguished from a ‘big city’ perhaps directly through its large number of visitors …” de Hoog 2013: 33

With his book de Hoog aims to assign places of encounter a meaning on metropolitan development agendas, since a high number of users, preferably visitors, give a city a metropolitan character (de Hoog 2013). Demanding a higher priority for the planning of places of encounter and acknowledging them as the spatial frame of metropolitan functions, shifts the focus of metropolitan planning from the increase of population numbers towards the use of sites (ibid.). For de Hoog user numbers are a decisive feature to recognise interaction environments. However, the centre piece of de Hoog’s approach is the spatial typology to describe and classify them (ibid.). Depicting settings with regard to their spatial formation allows demarcating them from their surroundings and sets the base to highlight their distinctive features and understand their relations to the surrounding urban realm (ibid.). Starting from this acquisition of (spatial) information de Hoog sketches, solely spatial approaches to strengthen interaction environments. Instead of discussing detailed strategies he calls for an appropriate position of planning for interaction environments on broader urban development agendas (ibid.). An achievement of de Hoog’s framing is the introduction of a visitors’ perspective on cultural clusters. Clusters are widely discussed in the field of ‘economic geography’ and in the ‘creative city discourse’ (Boix, Capone, Lazzeretti 2009; van Heur 2010; Krätke 2002; Lange 2007; Mommaas 2004). In this context they are understood as places of production and fostering them aims at making them attractive for cultural entrepreneurs (ibid.). Raising awareness for visitors of cultural amenities adds another viewpoint and accumulates on existing knowledge. Critique Introducing a user perspective on cultural clusters is definitely a strong point of de Hoog’s work. A weakness is that he does not refer to the established cluster discourse at all (M. de Hoog, interview, July 11, 2014). This is an interesting source when trying to complement de Hoog’s terminology; it highlights the relations and roles of facilities

Starting from the makers

and makers at a site. Features of it provide me with starting points to strengthen his reasoning. For example, to conduct an analysis of clusters with regard to their institutional set-up (public, private, entrepreneurial), or the ‘phase of value creation’ they are active in (production, consumption, representation) (Mommaas 2004). De Hoog’s focus on major cultural facilities discussed very prominent places in the Randstad (de Hoog 2013). His approach reaffirms the cores of individual cities, but also in the region and acclaims once more the dominant position of Amsterdam in the Dutch urban environment (ibid.). The indicators and stimuli de Hoog sets cannot reveal much about the potentials and distinct roles of the other cities in the Randstad in a network of cultural interaction environments. His argumentation rather degrades them to “subsidiary troops of Amsterdam in the fight against bigger international competitors” (Eckhardt 2001: 152). A related criticism towards de Hoog’s approach has been also expressed in the 2011 expert meeting: “there was too much emphasis on attracting foreign tourists” (Vereniging Deltametropool 2011: 20). Inhabitants but also local visitors and tourists use sites at a much higher frequency: “these are the people that shape and live in these cities after all” (ibid.). That de Hoog highlights the role of Amsterdam and cannot assign relevance to other cities is in my opinion related to the fact that he does not draw a strict line between interaction environments of urban and metropolitan importance. In the general terminology he provides an overall definition, the addition ‘international reach’ characterises metropolitan interaction environments. The high thresholds in the definition of cultural clusters seem to solely delineate cases of metropolitan importance. However the study nowhere states this explicitly. De Hoog seems to assume that big cultural clusters are necessarily of metropolitan importance. But is this always correct? The cluster ‘Binnenrotte’ in Rotterdam attracts roughly a million visitors a year (de Hoog, 2013). However, the lion’s share of them is here for the public library and is local (ibid.). Can it therefore be regarded as metropolitan in de Hoog’s sense? Furthermore, I miss the categories up-coming and established cultural clusters in the “The Dutch metropolis”. I perceive this distinction, but also the previously discussed one between cases of metropolitan and urban reach, as important providers of insight to develop planning objectives for interaction environments. This ‘process-related understanding’ raises interesting questions towards this new planning assignment: ‘Can

ill. 10: Binnenrotte At Binnenrotte in Rotterdam’s inner city the public library (white terraced building in centre of picture) and the Groote Kerk are (foreround) situated. However the imprinting function for the site is the market taking place on two days per week. (legend map: p 9)

a cluster shrink and still be an interaction environment?’ or: ‘Does development automatically lead to the ‘metropolisation of a cluster’?’ Discussing these issues allows a more differentiated picture of interaction environments. A talk “When we started this research we were completely focused on the usual suspects .... So we said … a minimum of 500.000 visitors a year, three or more of the big cultural facilities situated in a three to five minutes walking distance. Well I think today we should take a more flexible approach, also talking about starting and grown-up clusters and involve visitors of festivals and events. Also the whole range from the local to the metropolitan” M. de Hoog, interview, July 11, 2014

De Hoog has been elaborating on interaction environments together with colleagues at the Department of Physical Planning at the municipality of Amsterdam; one of them is Jos Gadet. According to both the book landed the topic in the Dutch planning context. My impression from the other interviews was quite the contrary: everyone had heard about the term, but no-one, including planning professionals precisely knew what it encompasses (interviews July, 2014). Nevertheless, in Amsterdam recent policies have approached a practical implementation of the findings (J. Gadet, interview, July 2, 2014; M. de Hoog, interview, July 11, 2014). De Hoog is aware of the little conceptual feedback on the study for example from a more scholarly audience (M. de Hoog, interview, July 11, 2014). To develop the terminology he wants to investigate

Starting from the makers

further the use of sites. Also the share of more low and high cultural attributes and the types of organizations and institutes involved in making clusters are matters of interest (ibid.). De Hoog agrees that a further exploration of the distinctions between very local and metropolitan clusters and their development stages would strengthen the concept (ibid.). A strong argument for interaction environments could be to more precisely prove their economic impact. In order to do so it is necessary to better understand what people do there (ibid.). Different from a theme park with an annual balance, an urban interaction environment has no single entrance and contracted sales stalls. Such an investigation is therefore difficult to conduct and has already now imposed limits to de Hoog’s study (ibid.). He claims the importance of open spaces, to understand the popularity of clusters he had to refer however to numbers of visitors of facilities. New research methods can possibly help to grasp interaction environments better. A stakeholder perspective... According to de Hoog a sharpened conceptualisation can help to create distinct perspectives on cases and indicate certain measures to deal with them (M. de Hoog, interview, July 11, 2014). So I propose to use this thesis to inform the current concept by a broader view on cultural interaction environments. I set focus on the development paths and organisational make-up of cases and will relate findings on these factors to the tools stakeholders apply, when intervening at sites (in particularly on programme and space). A widened outlook on interaction environments aims to offer a strong reply to de Hoog’s solely spatial framing. In this context the differences between up-coming and established clusters are of high relevance. The comparison of two cases of ‘different age’ provides learning opportunities with regard to the concrete forms of stakeholder interventions at very distinct sites. Conceptually my perspective is substantiated by arguments of the actor-relational approach that claims the relevance of stakeholders for urban development (Boelens 2009); and by the existing knowledge on ‘clusters’ (Boix, Capone, Lazzeretti 2009; van Heur 2010; Krätke 2002; Lange 2007; Mommaas 2004). The assumption that guides me is: the question ‘Who precisely should perform the task steering for interaction environments?’ will be easier to answer, when knowing who is already involved at them and what processes take place. Reading and talking to de Hoog, it seems cultural

institutions are in first respect the stage drop for the urban spaces surrounding them (M. de Hoog, interview, July 11, 2014). However a theatre is not only a faรงade framing a square, but a cultural institution with a role in the urban society and an actor, among many, with an interest in its urban environment. Why is this perspective on interaction environments important? During the interview de Hoog validated my assumption that the establishing of cultural clusters highly relies on public/governmental stakeholders (ibid.). Against the background of cuts in public planning budgets and a low investment climate in the real estate industry new approaches in urban development ask not only for new thematic and spatial approaches, but also to indicate suggestions on how these objectives can be achieved.

Starting from the makers

A new planning topicâ&#x20AC;Ś a new planning approach

A new planning topic… a new planning approach

The current change for Dutch urban development raises the question whether new planning topics have to provide more than strictly spatial models. Also the broader discourse in the discipline (Arnold, Klotz 2005; Boelens 2009; Janssen-Jansen et al. 2012; Schuhmacher 2005; Siebel 2005 et al.) stresses the need to put spatial development objectives in a broader perspective. It argues that organisational and financial formats draw processes in which otherwise prescriptive aims can be actively approached (ibid.). “Next to spatial strategies we need also organizational and financial strategies that will help us to guide urban development in the desired direction”6 Schumacher 2005: 37

These claims are also true for interaction environments: beyond naming a typology in need for better planning and outlining goals for its development, an approach can indicate paths to achieve an improved situation. The slower pace of urban development in the Netherlands, characterised by the renegotiation of the role of central government and municipalities, draws an opportunity to implement these high claims (Janssen-Jansen et al. 2012). A broader recognition of stakeholder activities at sites opens up a new perspective on how to achieve planning goals and maintain a high quality of urban space (Boelens 2009). For interaction environments I see them as a way to open the concept up for a broader adoption in the planning practice. Manifold stakeholder constellations play a role in cultural interaction environments and designate the topic for such an approach. This third chapter explores two lines of thought enriching the current conception of interaction environments: the actor relational approach and the established terminology on ‘cultural clusters’. Both stress the relevance of stakeholders in shaping the urban realm.

6 „Neben den räumlichen Stragtegien braucht es aber auch organisatorische und finanzielle Strategien, die uns helfen Stadtentwicklung in die gewünschte Richtung zu lenken“

Starting from the makers

3.1. The actor-relational approach “A shift is needed from a primary spatial to a more actor-specific, cluster and networkoriented approach, with …regard for institutional settings and more facilitating relational planning strategies” Boelens 2009: 56.

Luuk Boelens has introduced the so called ‘actor-relational approach’. He claims a spatial strategy that is not aware of a shift away from ‘one-size-fits-it-all-policies’ of the welfare-state-age “will be not effective or robust.” (Boelens 2009: 57). As a starting point for more targeted and site sensitive planning he stresses the crucial importance of existing structures in developing an area. They shape space and stand for stakeholders, “from the part of government, spatial and economic planners, affiliate organizations or other institutions” (Boelens 2009: 57). Therefore, existing structures are starting points to identify interests and people related to a site. According to Boelens, new developments and the maintenance of urban space should depart from this location specific knowledge. He refers to clusters as spatial formations where such an approach could be applied (Boelens 2009). “A cluster cannot be conceived just in a spatial sense […] they are also active in the in form of institutional, cultural, organizational and relational proximity” Boelens 2009: 41

Whereas de Hoog discusses clusters solely as spaces, Boelens sheds light to institutions in them and thereby creates a connection to the established cluster discourse that stresses internal links and mutual benefits for actors in such formations. Additionally, he extends the arguments and relates the participation in clusters to an active role of firms and facilities in shaping their physical environment. This means a cluster cannot be made for players at a site but with them (Boelens 2009). “There is an iterative connection, in which primarily the companies themselves shape the material, institutional and spatial development of a region” Boelens 2009: 41

In order to come to ‘actor-aware’ development concepts, social, business, cultural and institutional factors should be acknowledged as key concepts to explain spatial dynamics (Boelens 2009: 40). This broad understanding of clusters “offer[s] chances to come-up with new and creative spatial proposals” (Boelens 2009: 56).

Boelens postulations are also a criticism towards the use of the cluster term in policies: they often depict the co-location of companies, but stay unaware of the specific potentials this offers and respectively fail to make use of them (Boelens 2009). This criticism is also true for interaction environments: areas in need for planning are labelled clusters, but the concept does not ask for other than spatial factors as reference points for spatial development. This causes de Hoog to draw only general objectives for the cases, such as better accessibility or quality urban design (de Hoog 2013). These generic recommendations remain unaware of site specific potentials and stand exemplary for the ‘one-size-fits-it-all-policies’ Boelens criticises. “Predominantly focused on quantity and generic growth and less on a more areaspecific and sustainable quality environment in the broad sense” Boelens 2009: 56

3.2. Cultural clusters - breeding ground for cultural interaction environments? “Enhanced ‘cultural content’ of urban development and place-remaking” Indergaard et al. 2013: 2

The cultural clusters concept grew popular with the rise of the ‘creative city’ discourse, which describes cultural producers as important stakeholders to meet the requirements of economic restructuring of 1980/90s and stresses the importance of creativity as a production factor in a post-fordist context (Bagwell 2008; Florida 2003; Indergaard et al. 2013). With regard to space, it shows that companies in the sector often occupy the vacant sites of the industrial age. With this constructive re-interpretation of space they generate positive images for respective cities (Lange 2007; Vickery 2011). This has changed perspective on the broader effects of cultural production and resulted in a new perception of creative entrepreneurs and cultural facilities as carriers of organisational innovation and new approaches to develop space (Hemel 2002; van Heur, 2010; Krätke 2002; Lange 2007). “Creative industries are not homogeneously distributed across the territory but they are concentrated in space” Boix, Capone, Lazzeretti 2009: 1

In this context, creative and cultural producers have been broadly discussed as a clustering branch (Bagwell 2008, Boix, Capone, Lazzeretti 2009; Hemel 2002; van Heur,

Starting from the makers

2010; Schlögl 2011). Clustering describes the “concentration or growth of a particular industry in a certain location” (Boix, Capone, Lazzeretti 2009: 5). What distinguishes a cluster from a regional agglomeration of firms in the same branch, are the networking links between them. The basic assumption behind the cluster concept is that the development potential of location-wise grouped firms “depends not only on general market developments and industrial trends, but also on the quality of social organization” between them (Krätke 2002: 29). The central argument serving this is that agglomerations provide advantages on costs or quality due to “spatial concentration of productive resources and actors” (Boix, Capone, Lazzeretti 2009: 4). To make proximity productive, exchange is necessary. The discourse highlights the importance of direct communication in clusters, enabling, so called sticky or tacit knowledge to be passed around (Gertler, Wolfe 2005). “Tacit knowledge is by definition more difficult to share in written, symbolic form, and because it is strongly context-specific” Gertler, Wolfe 2005: 5

This factor is considered decisive for the innovation circles of creative producers (van Heur 2010), as they depend on the adaptation and work with current trends. Local scenes and their facilities such as clubs, bars and galleries, but also co-working spaces are the social hubs of the sector that allow exchange and creativity to flourish (Lange 2007). In these environments, creative workers sustain links to companies active in the same field and stay informed about activities of peer-professionals. At the same time these places allow contact to target groups and entrepreneurs in related sectors (van Heur 2010). Regarding existing clusters, the discourse advises to strengthen these by the support of “links between cluster elements” (Krätke 2002: 30), aka firms. In effect increasingly professional networks, in the sense of business associations, support entrepreneurs to foster the integration of agglomerations (Neumann, Rijpers 2013). The general discourse on cultural clustering emphasises the applicability of the concept on “small firm environments” and on the ‘non-traditional’ sub-sectors (Boix, Capone, Lazzeretti 2009). The site selection of public cultural facilities does not follow the market and the ‘traditional’ cluster logic; nevertheless there are urban areas where we find a number of them in close proximity (Markusen, Gadwa 2010). Often

these settings are also regarded as clusters, even though, according to the concept, they are not. This is because the scholarly discourse on clusters has a broad impact on cultural policies (Markusen, Gadwa 2010; Helms, Phleps 2007; van Heur 2010; Schlögl 2011). Initiatives of public authorities to facilitate an agglomeration of creative industries pass sector limits and also work on the concentration of public cultural institutions; or apply the term to already existing ones. As a result ‘real-life cultural clusters’ often present a mixture of activities ranging from big cultural institutions, such as theatres, to smaller providers of cultural services and supplementary functions with no distinctive cultural character (Markusen, Gadwa 2010; Mommaas 2004). “Mixtures of cultural functions and activities, from production to presentation and consumption and from theatre and the visual arts to pop music and the new media, are grouped together in a great variety of spatial forms.” Mommaas 2004: 506

These agglomerations are most productive when starting based on own initiative and get formalized with help of the government. This ‘initiative moment’ is decisive to establish a self-sustaining organizational and financial structure (Mommaas 2004). It assigns an active role to clustering facilities to achieve set objectives. Next to the spatial accessibility this is a central measure to make a cluster work (Lange 2007; Mommaas 2004). “Spatially concentrating cultural functions is one thing; transforming them into more self-sustaining milieus is quite another.” Mommaas 2004:515

The different forms of clusters have been discussed in various aspects. For my thesis the following questions are of interest: What kind of cultural institutions are situated there? Are they foremost active in the presentation (e.g. theatres, venues), in the consumption (libraries, galleries) or the production (workshops, studios) of cultural goods? Are institutions in such a cluster for the bigger part fully publicly funded or is there a public-private sector involvement? And finally, do facilities ‘steer for the cluster’: is there a common management? In case there is: is this collaboration set on a vernacular base or is it top-down organised? (Mommaas 2004) These distinctions allow grasping the organisational, cultural and institutional factors making up clusters. They respectively describe the key concepts Boelens refers to in explaining spatial dynamics.

Starting from the makers

3.3. Cultural interaction environments revised: a broadened view As a result of my investigation of de Hoog’s “The Dutch metropolis”, the actor-relational approach and cultural clusters I want to present a revised definition of cultural interaction environments. It also delineates my analytic perspective on cases. 3.3.1. Cultural clusters revised: definition “A cultural cluster has at least three cultural institutions within a walking distance of not more than five minutes from each other, and draws at least 500.000 visitors per year.” de Hoog 2013: 47

A cultural interaction environment consists of cultural facilities in the functional realms: presentation (e.g. museums), consumption (e.g. galleries) and/or production (e.g. ateliers) in walking distance. The creative institutions in such an environment are complemented by a set of supplementary functions such as dining, cafés and shopping. Jointly they give an imprinting image to an area that attracts a wide range and high numbers of visitors. Facilities at a cultural interaction environment steer for the active use of the site. 3.3.2. Cultural clusters revised: analytic perspective De Hoog provides an elaborate framing of the spatial make-up of cultural interaction environments. The discussion of cases here is dedicated to the organisational and institutional make-up behind them. Different then de Hoog I do not consider not space, but stakeholders to be the key to actively approach these settings. The examination of the actor-relational approach and the cultural cluster delivers a number of indicators as an input for this. I want to look at the “institutional, cultural, organizational and relational” (Boelens 2009: 41) make-up of cases as the base for the interventions of stakeholders at sites. Existing structures allow access to location-specific knowledge for further development (ibid.). This resource needs to be unlocked for the planning topic interaction environments. The cultural cluster discourse with its focus on practical implementation allows describing “institutional, cultural, organisational and relational” (ibid.) factors more

precisely and to outline indicators. Whereas de Hoog focuses on the identification of cases based on the presence of at least three big cultural facilities, I propose to include facilities in all phases of value generation: presentation, consumption and production. My analytic view takes up this broadened range of facilities. Moreover I discuss the cases with regard to the share of publicly funded and entrepreneurial institutions and ask if facilities are permanent or temporarily established. These three indicators enable an understanding of the institutional set-up and working culture behind sites. To understand the cases in the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;organisational and relational dimensionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; the cluster discourse provides some concrete measures: I want to look at whether bottom-up or top-down steering takes place and how it has been implemented. I would like to understand if facilities in a cultural interaction environment have formalized the relations between them. To understand the consolidation of a cultural interaction environment it is also interesting to comprehend how governmental structures support clusters: with counselling and networking, with relaxing rules and permissions or with project or structural funding. In the study I will present an image of cultural interaction environments that cannot only tell about the spatial make-up of sites, but that allows us to comprehend the social, business, cultural and institutional factors constituting them.

Starting from the makers

In this chapter I analyse two case studies. The examples are firstly a settled cluster of classical cultural facilities: Schouwburgplein in Rotterdam (de Hoog 2013: 58), and secondly an up-coming case in Rotterdam-Noord. Both present interesting examples for the involvement of stakeholders in the ‘making’ of a site: since 2010 Schouwburgplein is actively steered and programmed by an association of (cultural) actors surrounding the square (R. Dutrieux, interview, July 18, 2014). The cluster Rotterdam-Noord is set-up based on the efforts of local initiatives (G. Everraert, interview, July 9, 2014). This offers insights with regard to the institutional and organisational proximity that characterises clusters (Boelens 2009). Besides that the cases depict two different development stages of cultural interaction environments. Whereas Schouwburgplein has been imprinting Rotterdam’s inner city already for decades, Rotterdam-Noord has existed in its current formation since 2011 and features many temporary formats (Havensteder, Stipo; Projectbureau Hofbogen; Schieblock bv; zohorotterdam.nl). Picking case studies outside Amsterdam and highlighting other than their spatial qualities I offer a reply to de Hoog’s typological approach and his state-

ill. 12: Innercity Rotterdam Both case studies are situated in the city centre of Rotterdam. Schouwburgplein (smaller circle) in Southern direction from the central station; the cluster in Rotterdam-Noord in North-Eastern direction (bigger circle).

Starting from the makers

ment: “Amsterdam is the core of the Dutch metropolis” (de Hoog 2013: 87). Rotterdam is currently referred to as a laboratory for new planning approaches offers a range of interesting cases (Baes-Cantillon et al. 2012; The Guardian 2014, Hemel 2013). I introduce the cases firstly in a portrait, and classify them secondly in de Hoog’s typology. In the third step, a comparative discussion I research them with regard to the analytic frame.

4.1. Schouwburgplein: the story “I think Schouwburgplein is not very known outside Rotterdam, even though it is very photogenic” G. Everraert, interview, July 9, 2014

Schouwburgplein is located in the centre of Rotterdam. Due to its diverse urban surroundings, the square is not simply perceived as an open space in front of a cultural facility, but it “surely has the potential to develop into the city square of Rotterdam”7 (Gemeente Rotterdam 2008: 1). The city government is adamant in realising this and aims to develop Schouwburgplein into the ‘city’s stage’ (ibid.). The square is surrounded by the concert house ‘de Doelen’, the theatre ‘Rotterdamse Schouwburg’, the cinema ‘Pathé’ and several gastronomic facilities. Together with a number of cultural venues in close proximity institutions have a capacity of 10.000 seats and attract together more than 2.3 million visitors annually (Gemeente Rotterdam 2014). Because facilities here are mainly active in the evening Schouwburgplein is referred to as Rotterdam’s entertainment square (Gemeente Rotterdam 2010). Schouwburgplein has a surface of approximately 9000 sq m and is situated in less than five minutes walking distance from Rotterdam’s central station. It is an important link between the station area and other parts of the inner city (Gemeente Rotterdam). Formative for the atmosphere of the square is also the architecture: the buildings of the cultural institutions framing the square are architectural works with a strong imprinting character. The re-design of the square by the Rotterdam-based office West8 has made Schouwburgplein an internationally discussed textbook example for contemporary open spaces. The result of the renovation is an “iconic square with 7 “ Het Schouwburgplein heeft zeker de potentie om zich te ontwikkelen tot hét stedelijk plein van Rotterdam.”

8 6 4

7 2 1

ill. 13: Schouwburgplein, Rotterdam 1: Schouwburg, 2: Pathé, 3: de Doelen, 4: Codarts, 5: IFFR, 6: Het Rotterdams Philharmonisch, 7: SKVR, 8: Luxor

ill. 14: Panorama of Schouwburgplein From left to right: residential/commercial building; Schouwburg;residential building at the corner of the square; commercial building (partly vacant); Pathè; de Doelen. The surrounding urban realm in Western direction is dominated by highrise buildings.

handicaps” (R. Dutrieux, interview, July 18, 2014): users continue to experience it as empty, slick and bad accessible. In reaction to these complaints, the design is now adapted and additional entrances allow better accessibility of the square (ibid.). Schouwburgplein has a very broad reach among Rotterdam citizens and visitors (Gemeente Rotterdam 2008). Cultural institutions attract an important part of the users, especially in the evening hours. The products they offer in house but also at the square have a local and regional reach (de Hoog 2013). Beyond the users of cultural functions, Schouwburgplein draws a broad public: it is used by employees

Starting from the makers

ill. 15: close encounters with Schouwburgplein The façades of buildings surrounding the square are gradually opened. The Pathé (right) and the commercial building at the square still await this renewal. | The Schouwburgplein requires a big critical mass to make the square appear crowded.

of surrounding offices during lunch time, by people taking a break from shopping and equally by youngsters from Rotterdam’s central neighbourhoods in day time (R. Dutrieux, interview, July 18, 2014; Gemeente Rotterdam 2010; own observation). “You can often see on the benches, how that looks: there are different groups. And when you are talking about ages or cultures it’s really diverse.” R. Dutrieux, interview, July 18, 2014

This high reach shows: irrespective of the criticism on the design the place has a high spatial identity and an imprinting character for the city centre. “The square [itself] was for many people a symbol for the inhospitality of the architecture of the reconstruction period“8 AIR Foundation

Schouwburgplein is a place with history: it has been created during the reconstruction of Rotterdam in 1946 and since then has been transformed several times. A big milestone in the recent history of the square is the total re-design, completed in 1996. It was an answer to the bad situation Schouwburgplein was in. The roof of the parking garage under it suffered construction faults due to which the square could not be used to its full extend. The area also suffered from a lack of green. Small scaled interventions aimed to improve the image and use of the square. However, the situation worsened and was dominated by drug abuse and trash in the end of the 1980s; 8 “De ongezellige vlakte was voor velen symbolisch voor de onherbergzaamheid van de Wederopbouw.”

also due to the close proximity of a church that offered drug addicts shelter. In the early 1990s the city government decided therefore to refurbish Schouwburgplein (AIR Foundation; Het Nederlands Architectuurinstituut; Vereniging Verenigd Schouwburgplein). However this could not finally solve the multiple problems related to the utilisation of the square. To improve this, cultural institutions and other parties along the square join forces in 2010 and form the association ‘Verenigd Schouwburgplein’ (R. Dutrieux, interview, July 18, 2014). On the city scale, the coalition is perceived as a big success: it visibly generates more activities on the square, it mediates between the wish and the consequences of an active use and the needs of cultural institutions, shop owners and residents. On request of the city of Rotterdam ‘Verenigd Schouwburgplein’ will extend the programming towards the neighbouring Kruisplein and Stationsplein (ibid.). “And that we are starting up now. It’s convenient because it’s around the corner, but in that we also participate with other parties. From August on we are planning to make a programming” R. Dutrieux, interview, July 18, 2014

4.2. Rotterdam-Noord: the story “Really interesting how it has changed the whole area, which has been a very dark, unpleasant and unsafe place for decades and suddenly it’s open and free.” L. Smits, interview, July 7, 2014

The cluster in Rotterdam-Noord has undergone a transformation that builds on cultural uses and rests on the efforts of strong initiatives (G. Everraert, interview, July 9, 2014; Havensteder, Stipo; Projectbureau Hofbogen; Schieblock BV; zohorotterdam.nl). The case has a strong influence on the city and stands for a new mode of ‘city making’ in Rotterdam. The cluster is made up by three projects: the creative business complex Schieblock; the former Station Hofplein imprinted by retail and gastronomy; and the ‘makers district’ ZOHO. It features three cultural facilities with a presentation character: the music, party and debate centre BAR (also known as ‘Dependance’), the Jazz-stage BIRD and the gallery/project room/party venue Roodkapje. It also houses consumption related cultural facilities such as concept stores and galleries. The lion’s shares

Starting from the makers

ill. 16:: Three projects making up the cluster Schieblock | Hofbogen | ZOHO

of uses are small producing and service providing companies in the creative sector (Havensteder, Stipo; Projectbureau Hofbogen; Schieblock BV; zohorotterdam.nl). Because wide parts of the public programme are free of charge and counting of visitors does not match the character of facilities (e.g. concept stores, open spaces) it is difficult to set concrete user numbers, official reports also provide little insight. The annual balance of the venue BIRD indicates 16.500 visitors (Dirkson 2013). However, the report solely shows numbers at publicly funded parts of the programme. The real visitor’s numbers remain unknown. The cluster Rotterdam-Noord is situated five to ten walking minutes from Rotterdam’s central station in North-Eastern direction. It stretches along a bended line of approximately 700m from Schieblock, over Station Hofplein to ZOHO (G. Everraert, interview, July 9, 2014). The urban realm of the cluster is sandwiched between dominant spatial structures. Its surrounding in Northern direction is made-up by a residential neighbourhood. In Southern direction it is demarcated by Weena, beyond it lays the city centre. Weena is a six to eight lane road that is surrounded with highrises. By generating activity actors succeeded in transforming the area into a more coherent zone that ‘mentally’ shortens the distances between the residential North and Rotterdam’s central areas (Laven, interview July 08, 2014). To further improve the accessibility and integration of the cluster a wooden pedestrian bridge, the Luchtsingel, is currently under construction (Stichting de Luchtsingel). The atmosphere at the cluster is characterised by the presence of cultural producers, temporary use and events. It is best described as “Rotterdam’ with (inter)national quality” 9 (Projectbureau Hofbogen 2013, 10). It attracts an audience ranging 9 “Rotterdams met (inter)nationale kwaliteit”

ill. 17: Map Rooterdam-Noord 1: Schieblock in Schiekadeblock with with the cultural faclilities BAR and GROOS, 2: Station Hofplein with the Jazz-stage BIRD, 3: ZOHO-area with Roodkapje (4), 5: Luchtsingel

ill. 18: Urban surroundings of the Cluster Rotterdam-Noord Weena-road is a strong sptial barrier between the inner city and the cluster | Internally big streets as Schiekade and rail infrastructure dominate the cluster. | A residential neighbourhood is situated in the Norther direction of it.

Starting from the makers

from local population, regional visitors, temporary inhabitants such as students and ex-pats to tourists. The ‘Lonely Planet’ travel guide lists a number of facilities in the cluster in the category “five reasons to visit Rotterdam” (Morgan 2014).The strong spatial identity as an effect of the transformation of the area is an additional attractor among local and regional visitors (Projectbureau Hofbogen 2013, 10). An indicator for this is the awarding of Schieblock with the audience award of the Rotterdam Architectural Price (Gemeente Rotterdam 2013). Even though stakeholders claim the contrary, the question is, if the cluster does not carter a very specific community and is therefore not a ‘real’ public realm. Just like Schouwburgplein, the cluster in Rotterdam-Noord enjoys a certain reputation in planning circles; as a model case for ‘new city making’10 and “a great urban project with a Berlin allure”11 (van Dijk 2013). This also raises a certain political attention for the case: in spring 2014 Stef Blok ‘Minister of Housing and Civil Service’ visited the area (Havensteder, Stipo; Stichting de Luchtsingel). “The Schieblock urban laboratory … became a vital urbanistic component; it has claimed a new light for the entire thinking on urban development and the thinking over transformation in times of crisis” 12 AIR Foundation

The history of the cluster is very recent. Two of the projects are situated in ‘development areas on hold’; Schieblock and ZOHO occupy spaces that will change significantly in the years to come. The North-Eastern edge of the city centre, where Schieblock is situated, is part of ‘Rotterdam Central District’ (RCD). The city and the local developer LSI intend to add another 240.000 sq. to the existing highrise in the surrounding (LSI project investment nv 2010). Due to the financial crisis, the funding of the project has dropped and plans have been postponed. The development is paused until 2024 (van Boxel, Koreman 2012; van Dijk 2013; G. Everraert, interview, July 9, 2014). Housing cooperation Havensteder is the main real estate owner of the area that is 10 Schieblock was presented in the International Architectural Biennial Rotterdam (IABR) 2010 and 2012 (Brugmans, Petersen 2012; IABR 2012-14). The urbansim office Stipo discusses ZOHO in the same context (Kesselar, Laven 2014; Niederer 2014) 11 “geweldig stedelijk project met Berlijnse allure” 12 “Het Schieblock Stadslaboratorium is …een vitale stedebouwkundige bouwsteen geworden, die de gehele gebiedsontwikkeling en het denken over transformatie in tijden van crisis in een nieuw daglicht heeft gesteld.”

since 2013 branded as ZOHO. It bought the production site in 2005 to develop it into housing (ibid.). In 2012 Havensteder had to acknowledge that this would not take place any time soon, due to the difficult financial situation of the housing corporation and the real estate market as whole. The only permanent established project is Station Hofplein. It is the outset of the 1,9km train viaduct called Hofbogen that was built from 1905 to 1907. In the early 2000s public transport in Rotterdam was rearranged and as a result the tracks on top of Hofbogen would no longer be used (G. Everraert, interview, July 9, 2014). In 2002 the entire structure got the status of a Rijksmonument (heritage protection), what created the need for an adaptive re-use of it (G. Everraert, interview 9th July 2014; Projectbureau Hofbogen). In 2006, the Rotterdam housing corporations Com.Wonen, PWS, Stadwonen (today merged as Havensteder) and Vestia bought the entire Hofbogen from the national train company to develop a new perspective for it (ibid.). The transformation of the area is in generally perceived as very positive. However, the enthusiasm about it should not avoid a critical eye on the factors and circumstances that allowed the projects to happen. As an effect of the financial and real estate crisis LSI nearly went bankrupt. In this situation the city bought the RCD-area in 2009 from the developer for 52 million €; the double amount it had paid to the municipality some years ahead to buy the site and facilitate the redesign (van Boxel, Koreman 2012; van Helleman). LSI uses RCD now based on leasehold. The rationale behind this step was to make money available for the plan implementation (ibid.). Today the Delftseplein (address of RCD) is activated by temporary use; the completion of RCD has not been taking further. This raises a criticism regarding Schieblock as an excuse for LSI to postpone the development, and made the case a political issue (Mascini, 2013; Rijpers 2014). Even though the RCD is currently on hold, the amount of money involved reinforce the need to develop the site on the long-run, and respectively the temporary character of Schieblock and other uses in the area. ZOHO will be in place until at least 2023 (Volder, 2014). The experimental use for a limited time span is emphasised by the clear intention of the housing corporation to bring the area back on a ‘normal’ development track (P. Elleswijk, interview, July 8, 2014). At Hofbogen the long-term transformation is continued, however changing manage-

Starting from the makers

ment and financial matters change the condition for adaptations of the initial intensions. “This abandoned train track … needs not only to be resuscitated and transformed, but also to become itself a transformer” Urban Transformers 2009, 1

What is however unquestioned: the cluster has a major impact on the northern part of the city centre and transforms it into a place of encounter. Nevertheless it will not continue to exist in its current form on the long run (van Dijk 2013; P. Elleswijk, interview, July 8, 2014; L. Smits, interview, July 7, 2014). “Areas change over time … it will not be like this any more in few decades.” L. Smits, interview, July 7, 2014

The positive transformation of the cluster is also results in changes in the surrounding urban realm. Already today we can see a ‘spreading of cultural functions’ in the adjacent areas. Katshoek, an office building just between Station Hofplein and ZOHO, currently enters the same line of development. It is marketed as a business centre for creative and start-up companies (katshoek.com). Because Schieblock has become such a success it seems that the ‘model’ is now applied in neighbouring locations.

4.3. In de Hoog’s sense Schouwburgplein clearly meets de Hoog’s high thresholds for established cultural clusters: it features eight permanent established cultural facilities in five minutes walking distance and attracts far more than 500.000 visitors. In his terminology of cultural interaction environments it resembles a ‘modern cultural square’ (de Hoog 2013, 58). “The ‘modern cultural square’ … Here you will chiefly find theatre, music, film, jazz and pop. … The square is busiest at night. That is also true for the multitude of restaurants, cafés, terraces…” de Hoog 2013, 71

Rotterdam-Noord is not a cultural cluster discussed in “The Dutch metropolis”, but forms a so-called ‘up-coming cluster’ that is not reaching the critical amount of visitors (Vereniging Deltametropool 2011: 16).

“The term of the wharf … was not only used in NDSM but also to describe … areas in Dordrecht. That refers to areas that are a bit more rough.” M. de Hoog, interview, July 11, 2014

Even though it is not situated at a waterfront, in de Hoog’s typology of cultural clusters it is a classic example for a cultural wharf. It occupies underused premises, activities are conducted by market based creative actors and it features a high share of midterm and temporary uses (de Hoog 2013; M. de Hoog, interview, July 11, 2014).

4.4. A stakeholder perspective… The stories behind the clusters give a rough overview about which kind of cases basically are discussed: an established city square with cultural facilities on the one site, and on the other site a rising cultural cluster. Whereas Schouwburgplein is a clearly distinguishable setting, for the up-coming cluster in Noord this is not the case. The quality of the description is that it carries a notion of the debates and conflicting opinions related to the sites. In the next part I will analyse both cases and discuss: 1.

the functional range of facilities at sites (presentation, consumption, production).

if these are publicly funded or entrepreneurial institutions, and related to that if they are permanent or temporarily established

to comprehend institutional set-up and working culture behind sites. I capture if steering for the cluster takes place and in case if, 3.

it is bottom-up or top-down

if there are formalized relations between clustering facilities

and how governmental structures support this (with counseling, networking, project or structural funding)

4.4.1. The institutional set-up: what to find at these sites Eight cultural institutions are situated around Schouwburgplein: De Schouwburg (theatre), De Doelen (concert house), Pathé (cinema), Het Rotterdams Philharmonisch (philharmonic orchestra), Codarts (university for performing arts), Luxor (musical

Starting from the makers

theatre), SKVR (Stichting Kunstzinnige Vorming Rotterdam) and IFFR (International Film Festival Rotterdam) (Dutrieux 2014; Vereniging Vereinigd Schouwburgplein). The first three institutions are located immediately adjacent to it; the rest within five minutes walking distance in side streets of the square. The IFFR is not holding its own event venues but uses the facilities around Schouwburgplein for the festival (Dutrieux 2014; Vereniging Vereinigd Schouwburgplein). The lion’s share of facilities at the square possesses a clear presentation related character and provides solely classical (high) cultural functions: theatre productions, concerts and movies (Gemeente Rotterdam 2014). SKVR, an education centre in the realm of the arts and the art university Codarts are exceptions (Codarts, SKVR). All institutions at the square are clearly cultural facilities. Supplementary functions such as gastronomy are largely provided outside them, exceptions are the cafés in the Schouwburg and de Doelen (R. Dutrieux, interview, July 18, 2014). Schouwburgplein is therefore a city square imprinted by strong cultural light towers. The cluster in Rotterdam-Noord consists of three projects Schieblock a creative business complex with several public functions; Station Hofplein, with a live music club, high quality gastronomy and retail; and ZOHO, with a focus in urban production. More than 200 different entrepreneurs or NGOs are settled in the area. (Havensteder, Stipo; Projectbureau Hofbogen; Schieblock BV; zohorotterdam.nl).The programme of the cluster Rotterdam-Noord excels in popular and local culture with a strong focus on production in creative industries and consumption related cultural facilities (ibid.). In Schieblock, 80 producers of cultural content hold office, in the ZOHO-area another 120. The two permanent established public cultural functions at Schieblock are: GROOS (Rotterdam dialect word for proud) and BAR. GROOS is a concept store for design products from Rotterdam. BAR is a bar and venue for exhibitions, debates and concerts. Other public functions are for example Mess, a workspace for a catering company, a cooking school and a cantina situated at Schieblock (Schieblock BV). The owners of Mess also run Biergarten in its courtyard. At Station Hofplein shops with a design focus, restaurants, cafés and a gym are situated. Next to these supplementary functions the jazz and urban music venue BIRD is a cultural institution(Projectbureau Hofbogen). Roodkapje is a gallery and project space for artists and a public function with a pronounced cultural character, which occupies one of the five buildings at ZOHO. It accommodates several public uses: on the ground floor the café ‘Magnet-

ronbar’ and a shop for products of local designers and artists; in the basement a club and music venue (Roodkapje). Public, but not-cultural functions at ZOHO are amongst others scrap, a shop for handicrafts and DIY and the ZOHO-Lab, a space for debate on planning issues (Havensteder, Stipo). Noticeable is that we find only very few presentation centred cultural functions at the site (BAR, BIRD, Roodkapje). The area is clearly perceived as ‘creative’ but does not feature a cultural function with a comparable reach of facilities at Schouwburgplein. Just like other cases de Hoog discusses as cultural wharfs the area is imprinted by producers and consumption related facilities (Havensteder, Stipo; Projectbureau Hofbogen; Schieblock BV; zohorotterdam.nl). Established facilities vs. start-up entrepreneurs The two cases are not only different in the programme they provide; they are also different in their organisational set-up. The big cultural facilities at Schouwburgplein can sustain their distinctive cultural character; because they are to a large extend structurally funded. In Rotterdam-Noord facilities often operate at the intersections between cultural and supplementary functions: a bar is also a stage, at the same time an exhibition is on display. This is due to the need to establish an economic basis for creative interventions. At Schouwburgplein cultural facilities spatially have imprinted the square for decades. Because there is no current discussion on the relevance of this use they will continue to do so. The cluster in Noord on the contrary, is very young and will, due to the existing development plans, most probably not develop into a full-bloom cultural cluster. The future prospects of cases also delineate the modes of cooperation in them. 4.4.2. Taking the initiative: top-down or bottom-up My definition introduced next to the broadened range of cultural facilities a steering for an active use as a characteristic of cultural interaction environments. In both cases we can perceive this. Whereas at Schouwburgplein facilities collaborate to achieve this aim, there is no overall coordinated action at the cluster in Rotterdam-Noord.

Starting from the makers

Since 2010 the cultural institutions along the Schouwburgplein have cooperated in the association ‘Verenigd Schouwburgplein’ to develop a joined programme and activate it. The association was a reaction to the on-going discussion on the use of the square (R. Dutrieux, interview, July 18, 2014). In 2006 a citizen’s initiative complained about the ‘overuse’ of Schouwburgplein. In 2008 the ‘Academie voor Bouwkunst’ (Academy of Architecture and Urban Design) conducted a study on the everyday-use of it (Gemeente Rotterdam 2008). Subsequently a ‘Stadsdebat’ (English: city debate) on the future of Schouwburgplein was initiated by the city council (ibid.). The fraction ‘Leefbar Rotterdam’ (Liveable Rotterdam) triggered it by putting the provocative claim to either improve the square or to give it up and fully build on it (Aboutaleb, Gils 2008: 1). This debate has marked a turning point in the development of Schouwburgplein. “Cultural institutions, inhabitants and business owners ... mostly had the same complaints …, But they also said it is a really distinctive square. And it’s really Rotterdam, so we are not going to tear it down but we are going to make it better” R. Dutrieux, interview, July 18, 2014

As a result a number of guidelines for the physical improvement of the square were agreed on; forming the base for the on-going renewal of Schouwburgplein (Lamers 2009): opening of the plinths of cultural facilities; adding of greenery; extension of existing terraces; the establishing of an attractive walk way between Lijnbaan, Schouwburgplein and the adjacent Kruisplein (ibid.). Some of them have been already implemented, others will be realised later on. As a condition for the investment the municipality demanded increased activities of the institutions on the programming of Schouwburgplein. With the start of the physical improvements in 2010, the association was established. “The city council said: ok, we want to invest into the square to upgrade it. But then you need to do something about the programming. And then the cultural institutions said: ok” R. Dutrieux, interview, July 18, 2014

Beyond the cultural actors, four owners associations of adjacent residential houses and the ‘Rotterdam central’ entrepreneurs’ assembly participate in ‘Verenigd Schouwburgplein’ (Dutrieux 2014; Vereniging Verenigd Schouwburgplein). The incentive to build a coalition and get active for the square clearly came from the municipality.

2002

2001

2006

2004

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

Binnenstadsplan: City Lounge

Bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers

53 events in 2012/2013

Facade and Foyer de Doelen

Scandal housing corporations

ill. 19: Time line Schouwburgplein The time line sums up mliestones in the younger history of the square. The events in pink indicate the importnant moments where stakeholders got active.

European Cultural Capital Rotterdam

2005

Stadsdebat: outcome guidelines for physical improvement

2008

Citizen’s initiative bringing to debate the overuse

2009

Completion of redesign Pathé

2007

THE square of the city of Rotterdam

2010

Early 1990’s: Intervene at Schouwburgplein with a total redesign

2003

Study ‘Academie voor de bouwkunst‘: all users perceive the Schouburgplein as

2011

Programmer > set-up steering team

2012

11 events with many complaints

2013

Schouwburg (theater)

Esplanade, facade and Foyer Pathe

Stadsfestival: space should be ready

2014

+ Vereniging verenigd Schouwburgplein, leading parties Doelen (concert house) and

2015

+ Start of reconditioning Facade and Foyer Schouwburg

2016

Starting from the makers

Starting point of today’s cultural mix in Rotterdam-Noord is the development site RCD that has been on the municipal agendas since the early 1990s. Awaiting the development maintenance of existing structures has been widely ignored (van Boxel, Koreman 2012; G. Everraert, interview, July 9, 2014). “According to the land use plan it is the only place in Rotterdam where you can have super high-rise, more than 220m” G. Everraert, interview, July 9, 2014

Regardless of the bad situation of the stock, many buildings in the area are utilised; mostly as antikraak, a legalised temporary use to prevent squatting (G. Everraert, interview, July 9, 2014). A forerunner in this respect is the ‘Creative Cube’. The project awakened the interest of local authorities for the activities of creative entrepreneurs (Rijpers 2014). Also a part of Schieblock has been used in this way since 2001 by the architectural office ZUS (van Boxel, Koreman 2012). The share of public functions was at this point relatively low (G. Everraert, interview, van Dijk 2013). “Years ago I regularly cycled along. Not much to do. Vacant for a decade with boardedup windows, lots of graffiti. Decay within walking distance from Rotterdam Central Station.”13 van Dijk 2013

ZUS took the postponement of the development as an opportunity to transform the Schieblock. The office could convince the owner LSI to pause the plans for five years and to extend the temporary use to the entire building and others in RCD (van Boxel, Koreman 2012; L. Smits, interview, July 7, 2014). The backdrop for this decision is the difficult financial situation of the real estate developer after the financial crisis (G. Everraert, interview, July 9, 2014). Also the municipality agreed on the change of the plans (ibid.). In 2014 the original time span for the temporary use expired. LSI agreed to prolong use for another ten years (de Bruijn 2014). “The facebook page ‘Save Schieblock’ got more than 4000 likes within no time”14 de Bruijn 2014

At Schieblock we recognise the important role of events/incidents in the redevelopment of RCD in opening-up the opportunities for the project today. At Hofbogen and 13 “Jaren geleden fietste ik er regelmatig langs. Een dooie boel. Tien jaar leegstand met dichtgespijkerde ramen, veel graffiti. Verpaupering op loopafstand van Rotterdam Centraal.” 14 “De facebookpagina Red het Schieblock werd in korte tijd meer dan 4000 keer geliked.”

2002

European Cultural Capital Rotterdam

Plans Rotterdam Central district

Scheduled start of project

2006

Concept / design

Opening MINIMALL

Begin construction phase 2

2004

2003

2000

Scandal housing corporations

Start use outdoor spaces

+ Temporary use extended for another 10 years + Codum left project

Completion Luchtsingel

BAR, GROOS, Biergarten

projectbureau

Crimson Architectural Historians left the project, Vestia runs

STIPO and others move in

Winner of city initiative and start Luchtsingel

IABR 2012 ‘City Making‘

City initiative and crowdfunding Luchtsingel

IABR 2010 ‘Open City‘ + De Dependance +

+ City buys area from LSI, provides it for lease hold + Clash demolition + Extend temp. use of entire building

Bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers

2008

ill. 20: Time line Rotterdam-Noord The time line sums up the mliestones in the development of the area. The events in pink indicate the importnant moments where stakeholders got active.

Schieblock

Start antikraak ZUS @Schieblock

2001

Hofbogen

Decision to stop train traffic over Hofbogen

2009

Purchase by Com.Wonen, PWS, Stadwonen (today merged as Havensteder) and Vestia

2007

Stop rail traffic + Begin refurbishing +

2010

Feasibility study

2011

Rijksmonument

2005

Codum starts operating two buildings at the site

2012

ZOHO

Purchase of area by Havensteder

2013

Plans put on hold + Get STIPO involved +

2014

Renovation of ‘Het Gele Gebouw‘ +

2015

Starting from the makers

ZOHO this is quite different. Housing corporations are the main real estate owners. Whereas ZOHO itself was supposed to be transformed into residential buildings (P. Elleswijk, interview, July 8, 2014), adopting a role at Hofbogen was a kind of risk prevention to avoid a further decline of the housing area, where the owners hold many stocks (P. Elleswijk, interview, July 8, 2014; Projectbureau Hofbogen 2013). To bridge the gap between intended and factual development start at the ZOHO-area and to facilitate the desired change at Hofbogen the corporations hire urban development professionals (P. Elleswijk, J. Laven, interview, July 8, 2014). In Rotterdam-Noord the local government did not issue projects; but it would be premature to highlight the development as bottom-up project. On the contrary; in all three projects the real estate owners obtain a decisive and partly steering role for the processes. Why getting active? To understand the stakeholder constellations at the both case studies and the grade of cooperation at the sites, it is helpful to get a picture of the motives that drive actors in their interventions. The general mission behind the coalition of facilities at Schouwburgplein is to realise a lively place of encounter. Stakeholders want to use its potential for the ‘main city square’ and give its richness in culture a higher visibility (Dutrieux 2014; R. Dutrieux, interview, July 18, 2014) . “When you look at this area there are eight cultural institutions in such a small space with such a rich programming, with so many seats. And next to that there are really a lot of monuments in this area … . It’s an area where culture drips from the walls. And still you don’t really feel it that should really be a key feature of this area. We are working on that!” R. Dutrieux, interview, July 18, 2014

Dutrieux highlights the relevance of a broad participatory base in the association and the joined steering. Not only partners who actively add something to the programme are of importance, but also residents and shop owners. The vitalisation will have no chance on the long run, if they experience it as disturbance resulting in noise, dirt and complaints (ibid.).

The coalition building has provided facilities with the opportunity to take an active stake in the on-going change of their surrounding urban realm. It allows them to redeem a kind of ‘symbolic responsibility’ they have for it. Schouwburgplein is publicly owned and maintained by the municipality (G. Everraert, interview, July 9, 2014; Gemeente Rotterdam). However, if the place is not working, cultural facilities are equally addressed and perceived as caretakers, even though they are factually not (R. Dutrieux, interview, July 18, 2014). With the formation of the association, facilities now have a format to develop and communicate their own agenda for the square and work on the realisation. For the cluster in Rotterdam-Noord such a joined agenda does not exist. ZUS, the office behind Schieblock claims to follow very noble aims: Schieblock brings “a new platform for culture in the heart of the city” (van Boxel, Koreman, 2012: 102) as a reaction to the relocation of facilities from Rotterdam’s centre to ‘Kop van Zuid’, to vitalise this newly developed area. This shifting of the photo museum, the cinema ‘Lantaren Venster’, the art education facility Beeldfabriek and other cultural facilities created a cultural void in the inner city (ibid.). It is however questionable if BAR and GROOS can counterbalance this loss. The process at Schieblock highlights furthermore a problem of many Dutch cities that is in Rotterdam very pronounced: the oversupply in offices resulting in a high vacancy rate in this typology (Knight Frank, 2014). Additionally ZUS claims the project as a test site for a step-by-step approach to urban development that takes into account needs of citizens and existing qualities (van Boxel, Koreman, 2012). According to them many classical developer projects have “little empathy for the physical and economic context” (van Boxel, Koreman, 2012: 103) “Instead of fixating a final outcome, the actual initiatives and specific strengths of the area are used as a starting point” van Boxel, Koreman 2012: 107

The development of Station Hofplein was driven by more pragmatic objectives, aiming at the socio-economic balance of the area. Housing corporations hold many stocks in Rotterdam-North, Havensteder alone owns 4000 residential units (P. Elleswijk, interview, July 8, 2014). The reuse is intended to create an attractive mix of functions to stabilize, and preferably to up-grade the adjacent district (Projectbureau Hofbogen 2007).

Starting from the makers

“The reason for the purchase was the dominant presence of the Hofplein Viaduct in the urban environment of Rotterdam Noord, an area of great interest to the corporations concerned”15 Projectbureau Hofbogen 2007

The same motive is the driver for the development of ZOHO into a ‘maker district’: stabilising and counteracting the decline of the area (P. Elleswijk, interview, July 8, 2014). Havensteder considers ZOHO furthermore as a setting for elaborating new roles in the maintenance of estates: “who keeps the thing going are 80% the tenants and 20% Havensteder” (J. Laven, interview, July 8, 2014). The owner experiments here with the intention to give in general a higher responsibility to tenants in its rental policies (P. Elleswijk, interview, July 8, 2014). “Our intention was first to avoid a further decline of the area. But in two years’ time it actually turned around from risk reduction to a possible opportunity to do something about employment, get engaged with the kids …” P. Elleswijk, interview, July 8, 2014

At both Schieblock and ZOHO the temporary use is a means for owners to make revenues, until the real development takes place. Allowing creative entrepreneurs doing ‘their thing’ or inviting them to the sites adds also a positive image to areas that otherwise would lie idle. Owners also assume that this image win translates into momentary revenues (P. Elleswijk, interview, July 8, 2014; M. Fernhout, interview, July 28, 2014). “I think in ten years’ time this will be an interesting part of Rotterdam city centre … we implicitly believe that the value of the building and of the area will have increased … So it could be that if there is the right price offered we would sell, because we are a housing corporation and that’s our business” P. Elleswijk, interview, July 8, 2014

Following this strategy steering parties built on the motivation of individual entrepreneurs to make use of the adjacent urban realm to build a strong address for the own company or even a professional reputation.

15 “Aanleiding voor de aankoop was de dominante aanwezigheid van het Hofpleinviaduct in de stedelijke omgeving van Rotterdam Noord, een gebied dat van groot belang is voor de betrokken corporaties”

“So there is a lot of investment that people do out of a strange mixture of idealism and business sense” J. Laven, interview, July 8, 2014

Entrepreneurs invest in their urban surroundings, because they have established their businesses here and want to maintain these. The interventions at sites respectively investments in the own company and aimed at creating an ‘address’; steering for individual success results respectively in benefits on the cluster scale (J. Laven, interview, July 8, 2014). The interventions at the site can also be step stones in the careers of individual companies/entrepreneurs as for example for ZUS or CODUM. After the success and the broad international reporting on Schieblock ZUS is today an world wide operating architectural practice (ZUS). CODUM runs today “nine buildings in three cities with 600 tenants; in Rotterdam, Amsterdam and Arnhem” (M. Fernhout, interview, July 28, 2014). In the case of Stipo the expertise built in ZOHO is now applied at other sites and a big part in the work of the office. 4.4.3. Formalisation: long-term-coalition building vs. ad-hoc cooperation The institutional regimes characterising the sites also determine the organisational formats collaborations may take. At Schouwburgplein facilities quite ‘naturally’ formalised their coalition. In Rotterdam-Noord where individual projects are driven by different interests such a step has not been taken; and probably will not be taken. At Schouwburgplein the collaboration is based on an official decision of the city government and is formalised as the association ‘Verenigd Schouwburgplein’ (Dutrieux 2014). The highly specialised character of the cultural facilities led to the formation of a small office, as the central agency of the association that actively steers for the square. This ‘superstructures’ facilitates the cooperation (Dutrieux 2014; R. Dutrieux, interview, July 18, 2014). In the first 18 months, before the office had been established the Schouwburg and de Doelen sought to drive the association. However there was basically no experience and know-how in programming a square among the facilities. So the institutions decided to employ an experienced cultural producer as an agenda setter for the square. Involving an ‘external care taker’ strengthened and broadened the contribution of other facilities in the association (Dutrieux 2014; R. Dutrieux, interview, July 18, 2014).

Starting from the makers

The office of ‘Verenigd Schouwburgplein’ grew and is today run by a small team of three part-time employees: René Dutrieux is responsible for the cooperation with the municipality and the general administration; Karen van der Spek as the curator and marketer of the programme coordinates the cooperation between the facilities; Theo Hensen is responsible for the practical production of the events. Together, they communicate the event calendar to relevant public bodies (safety and security services, municipality), make sure that the agenda for the physical improvement of the square is kept (municipality) and keep participants informed (Dutrieux 2014). The small team works with external partners: an architectural office to arrange the layouts of events and spatial interventions; a marketing office to set-up promotional material; a culSCHOUWBURG

tural management firm; and a professional fund-raising service. For other provisions DOELEN in the programming such as technical equipment and acts the resources of the facilitPATHE ROTTERDAMS ies are tapped (R. Dutrieux, interview, July 18, 2014). PHILHARMONISCH

SPACE & PROGRAMME

OFFICE

ASSOCIATION

CODARTS

In comparison with this example of successful cooperation Rotterdam-Noord is at LUXOR

the other extreme. There is currently no formal collaboration of the projects within SKVR IFFR the cluster. Informal exchange sets the base for the occasional co-production (M.

| CH

| RTS DA |CO

|LUXOR|

|SKVR |

Association verenigd Schouwburgplein (VVS)

|OW NE RS

8 cultural institutions, 4 residents’ groups, entrepreneur association (property owners still have to participate)

S| ION IAT OC SS |ENTREPRENEURS’ A S S EM BL Y|

OFFICE & ASSOCIATION SCHOUWBURG PLEIN

| EN EL

| THE |PA

|ROTTERDAMS PH ILH AR MO NI S

Fernhout, interview, July 28, 2014; J. Laven, interview, July 8, 2014).

E |D

S| ER EIN PL

|IFFR|

|SCHOU WB UR G|

|D O

CITY

ill. 21: Organigram The association runs an office that practically sustains the programming and spatial interventions at Schouwburgplein. The office seeks the feedback and contribution of facilities and other members regarding concrete activities at the square. Membering actors are named in the outer ring. | The illustration on the right shows the internal organisation of the association.

Board

Gabriel Oostvogel, director de Doelen, chairman Bert Determan, director Rotterdamse Schouwburg Karel Martens, chairman entrepreneur association Vacancy: external advisor

Calendar meeting

– – – – –

City manager safety Inner city management City surveilance VVS Determining calendar

Square meeting

– Representatives community services – Integral approach

Information meeting

– Services and stakeholders in the area

Core team (total +/- 1 Fte) René Dutrieux – Secretary, Business leader – Collaboration municipality – Adjacent policy areas physical, economy – Physical layout events Karen van der Spek – Program leader – Marketing – Collaboration with institutions Theo Hensen – Cultural production manager – Management of year calendar – Production support institutions – Production of pleinzondag – Host for external players – Collaboration with surrounding area

De Pleiners (i.o.)

– Platform of culturally involved Rotterdammers for the Schouwburplein – An advisory Board

Programme Board

– – – – – –

Hans de Lange, Doelen Walther v/d Heuvel, RS Vacancy, RPhO Frederieke Darius, Codarts Others ad hoc

Technical support

– Technicians Doelen and Schouwburg

Permanent collaborations

– – – –

Firma de Loodsen Arch. LRH BD funding Lonne Wennekendonk

Circa 60 productions, shows and events in 2014 circa 2/3 Association Verenigd Schouwburgplein circa 1/3 External players

CITY: STRUC PROJECT FU SUPPORT

“It is not that all these initiatives have been born together or that we have any kind of meetings where we discuss this. But we all know each other and we do have a good relationship.” M. Fernhout, interview, July 28, 2014

Overlaps of the actors behind the individual projects are of importance for the whole cluster: CODUM has had a guiding role in Schieblock and also rents out two buildings at ZOHO (M. Fernhout, interview, July 28, 2014). Havensteder is the co-owner of both Station Hofplein and ZOHO (P. Elleswijk, J. Laven, interview, July 8, 2014; G. Everraert, interview, July 9, 2014). “Actually some of the people who are involved in the Schieblock are also involved in ZOHO” G. Everraert, interview, July 9, 2014

The construction of the Luchtsingel forms an over-spanning project in the area. ZUS developed the idea and is responsible for the implementation (Stichting de Luchtsingel). For the realisation partnerships with other stakeholders, also parties behind all clustering facilities and individual firms in the sense of sponsoring and support in particular interventions have taken place (ibid.). Common projects such as the Luchtsingel but also events form the incentives for cooperation in this up-coming cluster. Examples for events are ‘Route du Noord’ using all locations in the cluster (routedunord.nl), or the activities accompanying the making and opening of the Luchtsingel such as ‘PomBAR’-festival in 2014 (Stichting de Luchtsingel). Because an overall structure that steers for the development of the cluster is missing, guidance at the scale of individual cases is highly significant. The fact that the up-coming cluster is made-up by small, but many cultural functions and by a certain fluctuation of makers adds to this necessity. At all three projects we recognise a similar principle to achieve a positive development at sites. Some important milestones have marked the development of Schieblock since the start of the temporary use of the building. In 2010 ZUS teamed-up with CODUM (van Boxel, Koreman 2012), a real estate developer specialised in the cost-effective renovation of buildings, and the subsequent renting to creative companies (CODUM). Together they “worked out an alternative business plan” (van Boxel, Koreman 2012: 102); based on workshops they established a network of creative entrepreneurs who even-

Starting from the makers

tually became renters in Schieblock (ibid.). In this constellation ZUS worked on the concept and spatial interventions to develop the area; CODUM led the negotiations among city, tenants and landlord, managed lease contracts and practical maintenance of the building. (codum.nl; G. Everraert, interview, July 9 2014; M. Fernhout, interview, July 28, 2014; Schieblock BV) An important change for the project was the withdrawal of CODUM in May 2014. The developer explained he wants to focus its business activities on fewer and financially more rewarding projects. Schieblock does not fall into this category (M. Fernhout, interview, July 28, 2014). The role of CODUM is now partly taken over by the owner LSI (M. Fernhout, interview, July 28, 2014; L. Smits, interview, July 7, 2014). “The steering team consisted of me and ZUS. … So you could divide it up between: concept which is ZUS and this is for me the software and I did all the hardware.” M. Fernhout, interview, July 28, 2014

Tenants of Schieblock are selected by ZUS (and CODUM), based on the assessment of their professional work and if they fit the concept of the building. The logic behind this is that the steering parties provide an interesting space, but to bring it to life, ambitious users are need (ibid.). “The most important is the tenants, because without the tenants it is just an idea and a concept. We are the fire starter, but we need people to carry the fire.” M. Fernhout, interview, July 28, 2014

Hofbogen is owned by Hofbogen BV, a legal structure set-up in 2006 by the housing corporations Havensteder and Vestia. It is managed by the Projectbureau Hofbogen, responsible for the development of the entire structure and supervising the renovation of the arches (Projectbureau Hofbogen). To fulfil these tasks it cooperates with architectural bureaus. It also conducts a “targeted rental policy to create a magic mix of creative, craft and cultural companies”16 (Projectbureau Hofbogen 2013, 6). Until April 2013 operation of Projectbureau Hofbogen was commissioned to Crimson Architectural Historians. It is now run by Vestia. Since then the project known as ‘Hofbogen’ is called ‘Station Hofplein’ (Projectbureau Hofbogen). This verbalises the changed strategy for the area. The renovation is a prestige project for the housing corporations (G. Everraert, interview, July 9, 2014); however, since the announcement of the finan16 “doelgericht huurbeleid meer dan nu een magic mix ontstaat van creatieve, ambachtelijke en culturele bedrijfjes”

cial problems in 2012, it has backed on necessary provisions from the corporations and a contribution of everything extra from the tenants (Projectbureau Hofbogen 2013, 10). The housing cooperation Havensteder is the real estate owner of the ZOHO-area that is marketed as Rotterdam’s ‘maker district’ (Havensteder, Stipo). It hired the urban development office Stipo to obtain a coordinating role at the site, search for possible tenants and to be an in-between between renters and the owner (Kesselaar, Laven 2014). In two other buildings in the area CODUM takes up this role (CODUM). However Stipo has the assignment to brand and market the entire area. To select tenants “we work with pitches” (J. Laven, interview, July 8, 2014) open for all tenants to join. Selection criteria are the contribution to the mix of uses at ZOHO and the readiness to actively support the cluster (ibid.). All projects show a close collaboration between real estate owners and urbanism offices. These companies have assignments here because they are the agents to achieve an attractive mix of tenants. The final users practically implement the physical improvement of the areas. The owners themselves lack the critical contacts and know-how to achieve this and therefore depend on hiring these studios. To attract creative entrepreneurs, owners use comparatively cheap rents: at Schieblock the sq

LSI

HAVENSTEDER & VESTIA

HAVENSTEDER

ZUS

PROJECTBUREAU HOFBOGEN

STIPO

TENANTS

OWNER

STEERING

SPACE TENANTS PROGRAMME

ill. 22: Organigram The cluster Rotterdam-Noord is not steered by a central facilitating party. The individual projects (Schieblock, Hofgogen, ZOHO) however share a strong conceptual guidance for a certain mix of tenants at the sites. Steering stakeholders obtain therefore an important role. Creating this ‘magic mix’ they attract a distinct group of entrepteneurs to SPACE & LSI PROGRAMME the sites,ZUS putting in place a varied programme. The tenants are also active partners in the spatial improvement of the sites. CODUM CRIMSON

VESTIA & HAVENSTEDER

SPACE & PROGRAMME

CITY: PROJECT FUNDING & SUPPORT

m office space is available for the annual rent of 90€ per sq m (Gemeente Rotterdam). STIPO

HAVENSTEDER

SPACE & PROGRAMME

Starting from the makers

In other parts of central Rotterdam the price ranges between 125€ and 210€ per year (Knight Frank, 2014). 4.4.4. structural support vs. first aid The different modes to put interventions at clusters in place also ask for different modes of support by public bodies. At Schouwburgplein stakeholders highlight the relevance of official support of the association from the local authorities, with money, but also with a certain legitimation (R. Dutrieux, interview, July 18, 2014). At the up-coming clusters not such structural, but project support provides the base for actors to implement their activities (J. Laven, interview, July 8, 2014). “The first question private parties have is: does the government actually take it seriously, and how can we see that? So if the government is not paying, then the private parties are also not participating.” R. Dutrieux, interview, July 18, 2014

The association ‘Verenigd Schouwburgplein’ and its activities are financed “2/3 by Rotterdam and for 1/3 by private funds” (ibid.). Additionally acquired private money includes projects support from foundations and donations from fundraising activities (ibid.). Unfortunately concrete numbers in the budget cannot be presented in this thesis. Associations and foundations that do not reach a critical turnover of 4,4 million € do not have to declare their finances (Kamer van Koophandel). The financial support of the city government and the legitimation of the activities indicate that stakeholder’s concerns and interventions are taken serious. This sets the very base for them to get active (R. Dutrieux, interview, July 18, 2014). The funding allows to pay “a small core team of pros” (ibid.) as the basis for achieving a “consensus among all stakeholders, the steering for a square profile and an according programme” (ibid.). Nevertheless, the association seeks to be less depended on municipal funding and rely more on partnerships with entrepreneurial members. It currently elaborates a business plan to put the activities on a more self-sustaining base (ibid.). None of the three projects at Rotterdam-Noord benefits from structural funding. However, the assumption that there is no public money in the cluster is not true. Even though the projects are not continuously supported with fixed budget, many of the interventions taking places at the site receive public financial support. The interviews

stress this finding (P. Elleswijk, J. Laven, interview, July 8, 2014; G. Everraert, interview, July 9, 2014; M. Fernhout, interview, July 28, 2014). Nevertheless, for the same reason as in Schouwburgplein presenting concrete numbers is difficult. Most entrepreneurs and NGOs in the cluster do not achieve the critical turnovers to report about their financial situation (Kamer van Koophandel). For Schieblock we can however roughly sketch the monetary support of the last years. The city provided an initial funding of 10.000 € to open-up the building and another 200.000 € to help the renovation after the demolition plans had been abolished (G. Everraert, interview, July 9, 2014). “They asked us for a little bit of spending money, I think it was around 10.000 €. … I also & when we just painted walls.” LSI helped them in my own spare time onHAVENSTEDER a Saturday, VESTIA

HAVENSTEDER

G. Everraert, interview, July 9, 2014

PROJECTBUREAU HOFBOGEN

ZUS

STIPO

Beyond financial incentives, all interviewees stress the strong facilitating role of the SCHOUWBURG DOELEN

TENANTS CITY

PATHE

TENANTS

ROTTERDAMS PHILHARMONISCH

ASSOCIATION

CODARTS

OFFICE

SPACE & PROGRAMME

CITY: STRUCTURAL & PROJECT FUNDING & SUPPORT

LUXOR SKVR IFFR

|ROTTERDAMS PH ILH AR M ON IS

OFFICE & ASSOCIATION SCHOUWBURG PLEIN

| THE |PA

LSI

R |ENTREP ENEURS’ A SS EM BL Y|

ZUS

S| ION IAT OC SS

ill. 23: Stakeholder diagram Schouwburgplein The municiplaity called for a closer cooperation between the facilities at the square as a prerequisite for further physical renewal. Subsequently the association ‘Verenigd Schouwburgplein’ and later an office was set-up to work on | |SKV XOR the programming and physical improvement of the square. The municipality supports these activities structurally and R| | |LU RTS |OW DA |CO additionally certain Hprojects. Next to theNERcultural facilities addressed by the city’s claim other parties are members in S | A C the association (see organigram at ill. 21).

| EN EL

E |D

CODUM

SPACE & PROGRAMME

S| ER EIN PL

|IFFR|

|SCHOU WB UR G|

|D O

CRIMSON

VESTIA & HAVENSTEDER

SPACE & PROGRAMME

STIPO

HAVENSTEDER

SPACE & PROGRAMME

CITY: PROJECT FUNDING & SUPPORT

ill. 24: Stakeholder diagram Schouwburgplein Sarting point of the development of the cluster has been the initiative of users (Schieblock) or owners (Hofbogen, ZOHO) to activily use the space and program it. Owners at the sites typically teamed up with (Hofbogen, ZOHO) or got in volved (Schieblock) in the process by urbanism companies. At some cases owners waive this support after projects work successfully. Companies mentioned in lighter tone are such former partners. The city is involved as a facilitator, but is not funding the initiatives in the area structurally.

TENANTS

Starting from the makers

city authorities, with helping permissions and with a decision making in favour of the initiatives (P. Elleswijk, J. Laven, interview, July 8, 2014; G. Everraert, interview, July 9, 2014; M. Fernhout, interview, July 28, 2014). An important decision of the municipality for Schieblock was to allow “the clash … of the permit for the destruction” (G. Everraert, interview, July 9, 2014). As an example for the entire cluster, Jeroen Laven names the access to subsidies of the culture department that are usually just available in the municipal district ‘centre’; the cluster is situated in the district North. The city government embarked moreover on the experiment to let go as many rules as possible (J. Laven, interview, July 8, 2014). “Yes, [the city is active] as a facilitator, but not as an investor.” J. Laven, interview, July 8, 2014

For the cluster as a whole the first ‘city initiative’ organised by the municipality in 2011 marked an important moment (Gemeente Rotterdam; Stichting de Luchtsingel). The initiative asks citizens for their projects for Rotterdam. ZUS participated with the ‘Luchtsingel’ and was announced in early 2012 the first winner (ibid.). Connected to the awarding is a funding for the Luchtsingel project of 4.1 million € (G. Everraert, interview, July 9, 2014). The proposal was submitted in late 2011; earlier in the same year a crowd funding process was started (Stichting de Luchtsingel). The construction of the Singel will be finalised with the landing of the pedestrian bridge on the roof of Station Hofplein in late 2014 (ibid.). That the city is not an agenda setter at a site, but supports the efforts of engaged entrepreneurs defines, according to Gabor Everraert, the new role of the municipality in urban development. “Changing of our role … is one of the most important aspects, and that is: Letting it go. If there are people who want to take that opportunity, we help them. That not so much with money but with counselling, by connecting them to networks … what can we do to make it easier? That’s really the new thing. With Schieblock we proved that we could, with ZOHO, we are on the same way.” G. Everraert, interview, July 9, 2014

4.5. … explains concrete interventions Developing the stakeholder perspective on interaction environments I referred to the cluster discourse and the actor-relational approach. Both describe “institutional,

cultural, organizational and relational” (Boelens 2009: 41) factors as constitutive for spatial formations, they shape tools and jointly implemented projects (Boelens 2009; van Heur 2010; Krätke 2002; Lange 2007; Mommaas 2004). Stakeholder interventions at Schouwburgplein can therefore be clearly distinguished from those at Rotterdam-Noord. To complete my line of argumentation I briefly outline here the concrete activities implemented in both cases. To do so I sum up in a preliminary step the findings on stakeholder constellations in both clusters. Schouwburgplein is made-up by big, presentation centred and to a large extend structurally publicly funded cultural facilities, situated along a shared urban realm. Steering for this space is formalised in an association. A small office facilitates the cooperation. Official support from local authorities sets the base. This stable institutional set-up allows developing strategies to intervene on the site on the long run. Rotterdam-Noord is a very young cluster, established by urbansim companies on the premises of (semi-)private real estate owners; entrepreneurs imprint the site. It has gained its cultural character from the presence of creative producers, novel cultural formats and events in the area. No formal networks link the clustering facilities. Because a ‘super structure’ is missing the steering for quality at the three individual projects is important. Not structural, but project support allows the up-coming cluster to flourish. Rottterdam-Noord has a temporary character. 4.5.1. Space For the spatial development around the square, the association ‘Verenigd Schouwburgplein’ emphasis the realisation of the spatial guidelines agreed on after the city debate. Additional accesses, more wooden surfaces and newly planted trees already bring a big improvement (Lamers 2009; R. Dutrieux, interview, July 18, 2014). The plinths of the cultural facilities are in the process of being opened (R. Dutrieux, interview, July 18, 2014). With regard to the refurbishing of the square the association works as an agenda setter and keeper towards the municipality and external contractors.

Starting from the makers

ill. 25: Spatial interventions With regard to the spatial development of the square the association is an agenda setter for the ‘bigger’ physical improvements, such as the opening of the facade of the Schouwburg. | Moreover it realised the placing of further seating opportunities and a summer stage.

“For the Stadsfestival in 2016 we want the refurbishment to be finished. But we still continue with the programming after that.” R. Dutrieux, interview, July 18, 2014

The association also advocates for the renovation of façades at the adjacent streets and the reordering of street furniture to make the square better suitable for events; and a lighting plan (R. Dutrieux, interview, July 18, 2014). The surrounding urban realm is not the responsibility of the association; the municipal support of the collaboration however provides short links to the town hall. Additionally the association continuously tries to extend its network to involve owners and users of surrounding premises to actively work on these aims (ibid.). Beyond (net)working for a strategic and long-term development of the square, the association implemented a number of small scaled interventions such as the adding of sitting opportunities (2012) and the summer outdoor stage (from 2013) to increase the amenity value of Schouwburgplein (Dutrieux 2014). New is the increasing vacancy in surrounding commercial premises; the association seeks to establish links to real estate owners to develop a joined strategy on this (R. Dutrieux, interview, July 18, 2014). The latest spatial intervention in Rotterdam-Noord is the Luchtsingel. The 390m long wooden pedestrian bridge stretches from Schieblock to Station Hofplein. Situated along it are three public spaces: the roof garden DakAkker on top of Schieblock, ‘Park Pompenburg’, with a recreational use and urban agriculture; and the roof of Station

Hofplein (Stichting de Luchtsingel). The Luchtsingel lands here and is supposed to become a statement and starting point for the intended transformation of the roof into a high line park. By end 2014 the segment at Hofplein should be permanently accessible by the public (Projectbureau Hofbogen). The Luchtsingel-concept takes up plans for RCD (van Boxel, Koreman 2012). A pedestrian way called ‘Mixone’ should line-up buildings and open spaces in the final development stage (LSI project investment nv 2010). This ‘progressive public space’ is supposed to allow a better internal integration of the cluster, and establishes links to the surrounding urban realm (van Boxel, Koreman 2012; Stichting de Luchtsingel). “It is more than 700m pedestrian flows, and that’s really long. So I am not really convinced that that will work, but you going to try that before you can say that … . It doesn’t really need it, especially with all the functions” G. Everraert, interview, July 9, 2014

However, the necessity of the Luchtsingel has been widely discussed in Rotterdam because actors transformed the area already earlier (de Bruijn 2009; G. Everraert, interview, July 9, 2014).

ill. 26: Routing & space making The spatial interventions in the cluster in Rotterdam-Noord build on small scaled interventions. The architectural bureau ZUS used Schieblock and the adjacent Schiekadeblock to establsih a textbook example of routing and space making. A continuous yellow walkway makes the area ‘readable’ . Along the path attarctive open spaces have been created, such as wide stairs that are also seating opportunities. | The Luchtsingel (last two pictures) is a logic perpetuation of these interventions on the scale of the entire cluster. The driving party behind it was again ZUS.

Building on ‘routing’ and ‘place making’ ZUS gradually has changed the open spaces

Starting from the makers

around Schieblock. ‘Routing’ has created a better readability of footpaths; ‘place making’ complements it and uses open areas adjacent to the building to extend public uses to the street (van Boxel, Koreman 2012). The strategy at Station Hofplein was to open up the arches with big glass façades (Projectbureau Hofbogen). The circulation areas around Station Hofplein are used by the gastronomy facilities. The extended outdoor spaces are mainly used by terraces and during events (own observation; Projectbureau Hofbogen 2013). To create a visibility of activities at ZOHO Stipo and Havensteder stress the use of plinths and open areas, the small park is an example (Volder 2014; Vrolijk 2013). Nevertheless, ZOHO currently lacks the aesthetic quality of the other projects. On one

ill. 27: Hofbogen The transformation of Hofbogen is also declared at the walls of the buildings. | At the already renovated part at ‘Station Hofplein’ cafés and shops activate and use open spaces.

hand because the production buildings for the biggest part feature closed façades, on the other hand the five buildings making up the area are not fully utilised (P. Elleswijk, J. Laven, interview, July 8, 2014). Respectively active tenants to practically work on the spaces are not there. 4.5.2. Programme The programme of the cultural facilities at Schouwburgplein follows a fixed schedule and excels largely in classical cultural functions (theatre, concert, film). The jointly programmed square is used more flexible and open towards popular cultural formats, with a strong ‘local colour’. The plinths and the outdoor programme are used to communicate externally what happens inside the buildings. Using the central

ill. 28: ZOHO Closed façades dominate built structures at ZOHO. | In adjacent open spaces a ‘park’ has been realised based on the initiative of stakeholders in ZOHO or associated to the area.

place as a common venue allows established institutions to broaden their offer in the realms street art, new theatre, music, dance, film, media and sport (Dutrieux 2014; R. Dutrieux, interview, July 18, 2014; Gemeente Rotterdam; Vereniging Vereinigd Schouwburgplein). The association highly builds on events in the activation of the square (R. Dutrieux, interview, July 18, 2014). They reach from smaller interventions such as the ‘Zondag Pleindag’ (Sunday-Square day) on 20 Sundays a in the cultural season up to big festivals as ‘Rotterdam Unlimited’ or ‘Motel Moziaque’ (Dutrieux 2014). The Sunday programme on the square includes a morning yoga session and an afternoon short-performance of one of the partnering facilities. Other smaller programmes are the regular in house lunchtime performances or sound installations on the square. They are provided for free. Many of the bigger events are organised by externals but selected based on the joined decision making of all actors (R. Dutrieux, interview, July 18, 2014). “The event square is reasonably successful. But what does the success depend on? It’s mainly the cooperation between the cultural institutions.” R. Dutrieux, interview, July 18, 2014

In 2009 before the association got active Schouwburgplein accommodated 11 foremost big events, such as open air screenings of the IFFR or the Chinese New Year (Chinese Radio & TV, Dutrieux 2014). In 2009 and earlier “permanent complaints over disturbance”17 (R. Dutrieux, interview, July 18, 2014.) were related to this kind of use. In the cultural season 2012/13, 53 events took place at the square (Dutrieux 2014). This success was possible not only due to the efforts in programming the square, but also 17 “permanent gedoe over overlast”

Starting from the makers

ill. 29: Programming at Schouwburgplein The association ‘Vereniging Schouwburgplein’ intervenes at the square organising a range of events. Left: morning yoga session during a ‘Pleinzondag’ organised by the association. Right: The festival Motel Mozaique brings a colourful sub-cultural event to the square.

because of increased communication among all stakeholders (R. Dutrieux, interview, July 18, 2014). “Complaints have dropped significantly, and that’s because we’ve got everyone involved and business owners start to see that they really can gain from that” R. Dutrieux, interview, July 18, 2014

In the last year the programme attracted in total 69.500 visitors (Dutrieux 2014; R. Dutrieux, interview, July 18, 2014). In comparison to the 2.3 million visitors the facilities draw this number seems negligible. However, the difficulties de Hoog encounters limit also the counting of user numbers at Schouwburgplein: there is no central cashier or visitors’ registration for most parts of the programme. The 69.500 users reflect therefore only the guests during events that require the purchase of a ticket (ibid.). Despite the opening of the programme of the square, Schouwburgplein as a cultural interaction environment maintains a clear representation character (Gemeente Rotterdam 2014). Due to Schouwburgplein’s central situation the general provision of supporting functions in all realms is very good (Dutrieux 2014; Gemeente Rotterdam 2014; de Hoog 2013, 58). With exception to additional functions provided in-house, only very few terraces, bars or shops currently have a culture related character. To implement semi-public functions with such an appeal the association aims to attract the creative industries to the square; this is also perceived as a means to actively deal with vacancy (R. Dutrieux, interview, July 18, 2014).

“Can we not give an office there for the cultural producers of Rotterdam Festivals, or can we arrange some ateliers there? In that way we get talents on the place” R. Dutrieux, interview, July 18, 2014

The programme of the cluster Rotterdam-Noord excels in popular and local culture (Havensteder, Stipo; Projectbureau Hofbogen; Schieblock BV; zohorotterdam. nl). The facilities are flexible and interchangeably used to display exhibitions or used for performances (music and other). The cluster features cultural uses in the area of presentation, consumption and production. It is well provided with supplementary functions reaching from cafés, restaurants to a Hostel at ZOHO (Havensteder, Stipo; Projectbureau Hofbogen; Schieblock BV; zohorotterdam.nl). “Special gastronomy, original shopping forms and independent designers”18 dearchitect.nl

Events are of critical importance for the appropriation of the areas the cluster allocates. Establishing spatial connections such as the Luchtsingel is a crucial step to open them up; another one is to ‘introduce’ them to users. Programme and spatial interventions are therefore often critically interlinked. Different than at Schouwburgplein not only the events in public spaces are of importance to activate the area, also longer lasting uses have a pivotal role in this regard. Entrepreneurs at the cluster attract daily traffic to the site. Aside from that they extrapolate their business activities in the surrounding urban realm (van Boxel, Koreman 2012; M. Fernhout, interview, July 28, 2014; J. Laven, interview, July 8, 2014). “Every of these start-up groups have their own guests” J. Laven, interview, July 8, 2014

Events and leisure functions draw bigger visitors’ numbers. To realise these interventions (cultural) producers at the site provide know-how and resources. An example is again ‘Route du Nord’ that uses the presence and creative potential of makers at sites; another one is the ‘BAR BLOCK PARTY’ during which the venue and bar programmed ‘Park Pompenburg’.

18 “special horeca, originele winkelformules van onafhankelijke ontwerpers”,

Starting from the makers

ill. 30: Programming The cluster Rotterdam-Noord is imprinted by sub-cultural functions such as the project-room/gallery Roodkapje and by new cultural uses such as the concept store GROOS. Events draw high visitors numbers to the area and add to the image of the site,

“In summer time we have around 600 people on the terrace. We bring liveliness to the city“19 R. Flierman in Rijnmond TV 2013

Permanent (cultural) uses, but also events are important, both shape the programme of the cluster.

4.6. A stakeholder perspective - getting grip on interaction environments? To answer my research question and draw final conclusions on the terminology on interaction environments, I close the analysis of the case studies with a discussion of them referring to my initial hypotheses.

19 “In de zomer hebben we hier zeshonderd man op het terras staan. Wij zorgen voor levendigheid in de stad.”

4.6.1. Institutional differences = spatial differences? Established and up-coming clusters differ spatially, but also with regard to their institutional make-up. Facilities around Schouwburgplein are classical cultural functions that are largely publicly funded. For the most part they are active in the presentation of cultural products. The square possesses moreover a meaning on city scale and is referred to as the potential “city square of Rotterdam” 20 (Gemeente Rotterdam 2008: 1). This relevance for the urban community, but also the established character of cultural institutions demands a quality design. In Rotterdam-Noord on the contrary we find novel cultural formats and many creative producers. These stakeholders can establish their businesses there because a ‘normal’ development of the sites is not feasible; may it be because the necessary investments cannot be made (Schieblock, ZOHO); or because the structure is ‘unpractical’ (Hofbogen). As a result the rents are a low. Spatially the initial situation at these sites is characterised by decline. A constituting characteristic of established clusters is quality urban design. For up-coming cases the answer is not that easy, because they delineate a highly diverse group of facilities. De Hoog named NDSM, a cultural wharf, but also ArenA, an entertainment district with many commercially run facilities, as examples. Also Rotterdam-Noord depicts a cultural wharf, characterised by mid-term and temporary uses and the presence of creative producers. It covers an area in a rather poor spatial condition. For the comparison between a cultural wharf and an established cluster my hypothesis therefore proved true; to finally validate it the further investigation of case studies is needed. Presentation, production, consumption “A cultural cluster has at least three cultural institutions within a walking distance of not more than five minutes from each other, and draws at least 500.000 visitors per year …

20 “ Het Schouwburgplein heeft zeker de potentie om zich te ontwikkelen tot hét stedelijk plein van Rotterdam.”

Starting from the makers

the major cultural institutions…: museums, theatres, music venues, discussion centres and libraries” de Hoog 2013: 47

The broadened range of cultural facilities as a base of my investigation of case studies helped the discussion of the hypothesis, moreover it adds to the concept of cultural interaction environments. To identify the case Schouwburgplein de Hoog’s definition has been very helpful. The high thresholds to recognise clusters allow capturing the popularity of sites and shift attention to most important places in cities. Regarding the up-coming clusters de Hoog’s typology of cultural interaction environments and especially the term ‘cultural wharf’ provided a rough orientation to pick the case. However, his focus on major cultural institutions hinders a proper classification of these sites in the concept of interaction environments. Extending the range of facilities in the concept from foremost presentation centred sites, to places of cultural consumption and production allows a more distinctive discussion on the cultural character of such up-coming cases. 4.6.2. Institutional and organizational modes delineate interventions? Because institutional and organisational make-up differs, also the concrete interventions of stakeholder at sites are distinct. In the discussion of the first hypothesis I already highlighted that up-coming clusters are made-up by entrepreneurs and many individual stakeholders; whereas the established cluster features numerable publicly funded facilities. Due to this different institutional make-up, facilities follow different motivations using their close urban realm. Steering for Schouwburgplein allows to obtain an active role in the development of the space that is anyways ‘symbolically assigned’ to facilities. In Noord however, it is rather to build a strong address for the own company or even a professional reputation. These different drivers to get active have three effects: firstly, on the scale of the entire cluster they lead to different organisational formats; secondly, they determine the duration for interventions; and thirdly, they shape these interventions directly. ‘Organisational formats’ refer to the extent of formalisation. At Schouwburgplein all facilities share the symbolic responsibility; respectively they want to have the same stake in steering. The founding of an association is a logic step to achieve a fair divi-

sion of responsibilities. Operating an additional team of caretakers for the collaboration matches the established division of labour in these high cultural facilities. At the up-coming cluster motives to intervene at the space are much more individual and related to interests of certain businesses: owners and entrepreneurs, but also urbanism offices. Here Informal networks provide the necessary communication to coordinate interventions. Whereas the formalisation at Schouwburgplein allows long-term steering for the square, informal networks allows ad-hoc interventions. The strategy of facilities at Schouwburgplein builds highly on cultural programming and communication with neighbouring parties. With regard to space the association is merely an agenda setter for the improvement work of the municipality and steers with small scaled interventions for a higher amenity value of the square. A noticeable finding for the cluster in Rotterdam-Noord is the tight correlation between cultural and supportive uses; due to the entrepreneurial character of facilities a concert venue is also a bar. Whereas in Schouwburgplein there is a clear line between activities of individual facilities and those of the association; this distinction is not possible in Rotterdam-Noord. Entrepreneurs â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;allocateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; this site; their companies make up a big part of the programming and the atmosphere. The ad-hoc character of cooperation in Rotterdam-Noord results in many singular projects, such as Luchtsingel or the Park in front of ZOHO, and many events imprinting the area. The different interventions; long-term programming and negotiation vs. ad-hoc events and programming, also receive different governmental support. In Rotterdam-Noord the municipality helps with the letting go of rules, granting project funding, counselling and networking. In the association Verenigd Schouwburgplein the municipality is an active partner and supports it with structural funding. 4.6.3. Processes shape stakeholder constellations? Distinct processes give rise to these stakeholder constellations. The association at Schouwburgplein has been initiated based on a governmental claim; it resembles a typical top-down approach. Today the association acts self-reliant and works as an agent between the facilities to realise the programming. Forming a coalition between the stakeholders was a crucial step to make Schouwburgplein a successful event square.

Starting from the makers

“Spatially concentrating cultural functions is one thing; transforming them into more self-sustaining milieus is quite another.” Mommaas 2004:515

At the cluster in Rotterdam-Noord the municipality did not give input to the formation of stakeholders. For the case of Schieblock the initiative of ZUS was the starting point for the extension of the temporary use. At Station Hofplein and ZOHO the owning housing corporations took an active role and involved urbanism offices to attract creative makers to the site. Irrespective of who approached whom: the real estate owners play an important role for the entire cluster in Rotterdam-Noord. The economic situation of these companies has been therefore an important moment in the establishing of these sites. Bottom-up or top-down seems after the analysis not the relevant question to classify cases. Of bigger interest is: Who is actually benefiting from the activities of stakeholders at sites? The city itself benefits from stakeholder activities at both sites; they deploy interesting uses and achieve an active inhabitation of space. The win at Schouwburgplein is a decrease of continuing debates; at Rotterdam-Noord they allow public bodies to get their grip back on areas that disappeared from their agendas with relatively little input from their own site. “90% was done by the people here. So that makes it really easy for the city to use the energy; … the construction of the park here for let’s say 100.000 €, if you get 300.000 € worth of a park.” J. Laven, interview, July 8, 2014

Real estate owners literally earn from projects that allow them to use space while keeping areas on hold for a later development. To realise these positive effects they however critically depend on companies such as CODUM or Stipo. These ‘new real estate developers’ found a business niche in the cost effective refurbishing of buildings and the subsequent renting to small scaled (cultural) entrepreneurs (M. Fernhout, interview, July 28, 2014; J. Laven, interview, July 8, 2014). 4.6.4. Site specific knowledge for new perspectives? For their interventions at sites stakeholders depart from location specific features. What the work of stakeholders actually allows, and that is its greatest potential:

stakeholders know their site and its issues, spatially but also with regard to other sensitive matters that constitute them. Giving an active role provides them the opportunity to incorporate these crucial measures into development strategies. The work with actors respectively opens-up location specific knowledge and allows discussing it. Schouwburgplein is an interesting example in that respect: including the parties surrounding the square and their demands set the base for the successful use of the square today (R. Dutrieux, interview, July 18, 2014); a success that the redesign of the square alone could not achieve. In Rotterdam-Noord a site specific management opened up a deadlocked situation. Gabor Everraert stresses that the city often does not have the knowhow to factually facilitate such a transformation. Recognising and supporting activities of stakeholders is often a step to vitalise spaces and restore the capacity of municipal stakeholders to act there (G. Everraert, interview, July 9, 2014). “But the major difference between ‘the triangle’ and Schouwburgplein is: Schouwburgplein is really government based, planned and top-down, and the other ones are not looked after for many, many years, but still there is a little seed growing that starts to blossom, whereas we push and try and do everything we can at Schouwburgplein, but still … . So it teaches the lesson that it is really hard for a government or a municipality to direct where people go … and maybe in five years they want to go somewhere else” G. Everraert, interview, July 9, 2014

With the comment Gabor Everraert affirms the importance of stakeholders for a targeted and site specific urban development. Involving stakeholders at both sites allowed to determine relevant fields of action and to open up new perspectives for further development.

Starting from the makers

A stakeholder perspective - getting grip on interaction environments!

This thesis establishes a stakeholder perspective on interaction environments. To answer the research question ‘When looking at cultural interaction environments in different states of development, what can we learn from the different processes and stakeholder constellations in order to apply this term broader in the planning practice?’ I follow a three step approach. Firstly, I introduce Maurits de Hoog terminology on interaction environments and discuss it critically. Secondly, I examine two theoretical concepts, the actor-relational approach and the cluster discourse, to frame a stakeholder perspective on these settings. In a third step I apply this frame on two concrete case studies and discuss these with regard to my research hypothesis. Frame & hypotheses Established and up-coming clusters differ spatially, but also with regard to their institutional make-up. The discussion of case studies can only partially validate the hypothesis. It can however verify that cultural wharfs and established cultural clusters differ: spatially and with regard to their institutional make-up. Because institutional and organisational make-up differs, also the concrete interventions of stakeholder at sites are distinct. This hypothesis can be proven true. This applies also for the statement: Distinct processes give rise to these stakeholder constellations. The work with cases revealed in this respect, that answering the question ‘who benefits from stakeholder interventions at sites?’, is much more rewarding then discussing the distinction topdown/bottom-up. For their interventions at sites stakeholders depart from location specific features. Also this hypothesis can be verified. An important preliminary step to analyse case studies with regard to these hypotheses has been to develop an analytic frame and a definition. My scope broadens the range of facilities from major institutions to fine-grained creative entrepreneurialism. It examines moreover the organisational set-up of cases with regard to the distinction publicly funded or entrepreneurial; permanent or temporarily established; and asks: are interventions a result of a governmental incentive or initiated bottom-up; have formalised coalitions been formed to implement these interventions and how do public bodies support this. This set of indicators allows not only answering the research question; it also provides a bigger picture of cases and helps me to grasp the

Starting from the makers

organisational and institutional make-up of cases. Referring to the actor-relational approach this determines how stakeholders shape space. The cultural cluster discourse is an important guideline to distinguish relevant factors for cultural interaction environments A tourism perspective? “When we started this research we were completely focused on the usual suspects … . So we said … a minimum of 500.000 visitors a year, three or more of the big cultural facilities situated in a three to five minutes walking distance. Well I think today we should take a more flexible approach, also talking about starting and grown-up clusters and involve visitors of festivals and events. Also the whole range from the local to the metropolitan” M. de Hoog, interview, July 11, 2014

What can the discussion of cases according to the outlined frame and the hypotheses reveal with regard to my research question? Analysing cultural interaction environments of different age with a viewpoint on stakeholders and processes, demonstrates that cases are in this regard highly diverse. It shows moreover that these sites are not only constituted by certain spatial measures and the popularity among users, but very practically also by the facilities there. The analysis proved what the actor-relational approach and the cluster discourse suggested: facilities are makers of their sites; respectively these settings cannot be made for but only with them. A stakeholder perspective on cultural interaction environments is therefore a crucial supplementation of the concept. The hypotheses demonstrate how and why this aspect can be included in the existing terminology. “A cluster cannot be conceived just in a spatial sense […] they are also active in the in form of institutional, cultural, organizational and relational proximity” Boelens 2009: 41

Interventions and institutions at sites are indicators and first starting points to grasp stakeholder constellations. Analysing the concrete processes giving rise to cultural interaction environments allows us to identify the stakeholders involved. Understanding a process is respectively an important preliminary step to access location specific knowledge. The last hypothesis recalls the importance of stakeholders as carriers of site-specific knowledge; it is the strongest argument to admit a higher relevance of them for the planning of interaction environments.

The set of indicators operationalising the hypotheses also broadens the view on interaction environments; and allows discussing the character of up-coming cases more distinctively. Beyond that, and this is its strong point, it reveals cultural interaction environments as carriers of novel organisational approaches and spatial interventions. On the contrary to de Hoog, who argues for a planning of interaction environments based on visitorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; numbers and in particular international tourists; for me this innovative moment sets the base for the relevance of this up-coming planning topic. Due to this different starting point my revised definition sheds not only attention to the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;metropolitan showroomsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, but discusses also everyday places of encounter. On the one hand this perspective includes a much bigger number of cases; on the other hand it embraces a development direction and a focus on practical implementation when highlighting novel approaches as a central feature of cultural interaction environments. I conclude therefore that a stakeholder perspective can help the broader implementation of cultural interaction environments as a planning topic.

Starting from the makers

Sources

Starting from the makers

Sources

Audio or Video Document Chinese Radio & TV. 2009. IFFR International Film Festival Rotterdam 2009. Economic Development Board Rotterdam (EDBR). 2013. Videoboodschap Zef Hemel voor Redefining Rotterdam. stipo. 2013. Open House in ZoHo @Zomerhofstraat 76-90. Rotterdam.

Book Ahlava A, Edelman H. 2009. Urban design management: A guide to good practice. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. 242 p. Allmendinger P. 2001. Planning in a Postmodern Age. New York, Florence: Spon Press Imprint; Routledge; Taylor & Francis Group Distributor. 288 s. Baës-Cantillon N. 2012. Changing cultures of planning: Rotterdam, Zürich, Nantes, Randstad, Bordeaux. Brussels: Architecture Workroom Brussels. 302 p. Bishop P, Williams L. 2012. The temporary city. London, New York: Routledge. viii, 248. Boelens L. 2009. The Urban Connection: An actor-relational approach to urban planning. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers. 307 p. Boelens L. 2011. Compacte stad extended: Agenda voor toekomstig beleid, onderzoek en ontwerp. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010. 352 p. Boelens L, Spit T, Kreukels, A. M. J. 2006. Planning zonder overheid, een toekomst voor planning. Rotterdam: 010. 163 p. Brugmans G, Petersen JW, Aboutaleb A. ©2012. Making city: 5th IABR 2012. Rotterdam: International Architecture Biënnale Rotterdam. 223 p., van Boxel E, Koreman K. Cammen, Hans van der, Klerk, L. A. de. The selfmade land: Culture and evolution of urban and regional planning in the Netherlands. First edition. 484 p. Cupers K, Miessen M, James W. 2002. Spaces of uncertainty. Wuppertal: Müller und Busmann. 191 p. Eckardt F. 2001. Rotterdam: Konturen einer globalisierten Stadt. Münster, Hamburg: Lit. 203 S. Fainstein SS. 2001. The city builders: Property development in New York and London, 1980-2000. 2nd ed., rev. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. xv, 310. Glaser M. 2012. The city at eye level: Lessons for street plinths. Delft: Eburon. 224 p. Harms J, Reichard C. 2000. Ökonomisierung der öffentlichen Verwaltung: Anforderungen an die Planung und Funktion der Planung bei sich verändernden wirtschaftlichen und gesellschaftlichen Rahmenbedingungen. 1. Aufl. Dortmund: ILS. 60 p. Heeg S. 2008. Von Stadtplanung und Immobilienwirtschaft: Die \“South Boston Waterfront\“ als Beispiel für eine neue Strategie städtischer Baupolitik. Bielefeld: Transcript. 269 S. Heeg S, Pütz R. Wohnungs- und Immobilienmärkte unter Stress: deregulierung, Privatisierung und Ökonomisierung. 1st ed. Heinelt H, Kübler D. 2005. Metropolitan governance: Capacity, democracy and the dynamics of place. London, New York: Routledge. xi, 211. Helms, Dietrich; Phleps, Thomas (eds.), Sound and the City - Populäre Musik im urbanen Kontext, 1st edition, transkript, Bielefeld, 2007 van Heur, Bas, Creative Networks abd the City - Towards a Cultural Political Economy of Aesthetic Production, 1st edition, transkript, Bielefeld, 2010 Hoffman LM, Fainstein SS, Judd DR. 2003. Cities and visitors: Regulating people, markets, and city space. Malden, MA, Oxford: Blackwell Pub. xvii, 261. Hoog Md. ©2013. The Dutch metropolis: Designing quality interaction environments. Bussum: THOTH Publishers. 208 p. Klotz A, Frey O. 2005. Verständigungsversuche zum Wandel der Stadtplanung. Wien: Springer. xii, 193., Schumacher, F Klotz A, Frey O, Antalovsky E. 2006. Stadtplanung und stakeholder: Managing the flow. Wien, New York:

Springer. 87 p. Lange B. 2007. Die Räume der Kreativszenen: Culturepreneurs und ihre Orte in Berlin. Bielefeld: Transcript. 339 S. Laurini R. 2001. Information systems for urban planning: A hypermedia co-operative approach. London, New York: Taylor & Francis. xvii, 349. Oswalt P, Misselwitz P, Overmeyer K. 2013. Urban Catalyst: Mit Zwischennutzungen Stadt entwickeln. Berlin: DOM publishers. 382 S. Raspe O. 2012. De ratio van ruimtelijk-economisch topsectorenbeleid. Den Haag: Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving (PBL) [etc.]. 1 online resource (63. Ratcliffe J, Stubbs M, Keeping M. 2009. Urban planning and real estate development. 3rd ed. London, New York: Routledge. xii, 704. Salet, W. G. M, Thornley A, Kreukels A. 2003. Metropolitan governance and spatial planning: Comparative case studies of European city-regions. London, New York: Spon Press. xiv, 406. Schlögl, Anita, Mehrwert Musik - Musikwirtschaft und Stadtentwicklung in Berlin und Wien, 1st edition, Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Springer, Wiesbaden, 2011 Selle K. 1996. Planung und Kommunikation: Gestaltung von Planungsprozessen in Quartier, Stadt und Landschaft ; Grundlagen, Methoden, Praxiserfahrungen. Wiesbaden, Berlin: Bauverl. 505 S. Sieverts T, Adrian H. 1990. Zukunftsaufgaben der Stadtplanung. 1. Aufl. Düsseldorf: Werner-Verlag. vi, 229. van Boxel E, Koreman K. 2007. Re-public: Towards a new spatial politics = Naar een nieuwe ruimte-politiek. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers. 160 p. van Heur B. 2010], ©2010. Creative networks and the city: Towards a cultural political economy of aesthetic production. Bielefeld: Transcript. 232 p. van Ulzen P. 2007. Imagine a metropolis: Rotterdam‘s creative class, 1970-2000. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers. 234 p. Ziehl M, Oßwald S, Hasemann O. op. 2012. Second hand spaces: Recycling sites undergoing urban transformation = Über das Recyceln von Orten im städtischen Wandel. Berlin: Jovis. 1 vol. (463. Zukin S. 1995. The cultures of cities. Oxford: Blackwell. 256 p.

Book, Edited Fezer J, editor. 2007. Hier entsteht: Strategien partizipativer Architektur und räumlicher Aneignung; [28. Juni bis 12. Juli 2003, Volksbühne]. 2. Aufl. Berlin: bbooks. 249 S. Klemme M, editor. 2010. Siedlungsflächen entwickeln: Akteure, Interdependenzen, Optionen. Detmold: Rohn. 358 S. Lange B, Prasenc G, Saiko H, editors. 2013. Ortsentwürfe: Urbanität im 21. Jahrhundert. 1st ed. Berlin: Jovis. Wachten K, Knoblauch M, editors. 2012. Wer gestaltet und finanziert den Wandel der Städte?: Redevelopment - die zweite Zukunft ; 19. - 20. Juni 2012. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer-IRB-Verl. 108 S.

Conference Proceedings Vereniging Deltametropool, editor. 2011. report_tIP1_CulturalClusters. Rotterdam. 24 p.

Images ill. 1: Hoog Md. 2013. The Dutch metropolis: Designing quality interaction environments. Bussum: THOTH Publishers., 62 p. ill. 2: Museumsinsel - Berlin (2014). Online verfügbar unter https://www.flickr.com/photos/69193251@ N05/10214197155/in/photolist-qhHWs-87P4oi-cXWDoh-7XDNwB-gyAqXv-9A3XNh-9M2peT-ocpCYu-eGvFgd-mSZMDf-bHUceg-byP8nz-g1VKEA-g1VZPV-6iW1Qt-6j1bR1-6E3JB2-6E7Vub-4mK67x-6E3KiH-6dFya-6dG6E-6dEix-6dDWE-6dGvx-6dE5x-6dGjX-6dFQy-6dGea-6MBMgS-oN4dcE-bCHFT5-b2QEvc-cJVr77-bjPezR-bjP7TB-bjPb1R-bjHVxt-bjPt3X-bjP9CX-bjPfwx-bjNZfc-bjHYWp-bjHVUF-bjPain-bjPoiz-bjJ1gt-bjHYe2-bjHUfX-bjHYyc/, zuletzt aktualisiert am 06.10.2014, zuletzt geprüft am 06.10.2014. map: property of the author ill. 3: 59396354.jpg (1169×1169) (2011). Online verfügbar unter http://static.panoramio.com/photos/ori-

Starting from the makers

ginal/59396354.jpg, zuletzt aktualisiert am 22.09.2011, zuletzt geprüft am 06.10.2014. map: property of the author ill. 4: OTS_quer.jpg (5616×3744) (2014). Online verfügbar unter http://www.jamestown.de/media/bilder/ fonds/jt18/OTS_quer.jpg, zuletzt aktualisiert am 05.10.2014, zuletzt geprüft am 06.10.2014. map: property of the author ill. 5: Spiegelstraat. Online verfügbar unter http://budhaze.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/spiegelstraat. jpg, zuletzt aktualisiert am 22.09.2011, zuletzt geprüft am 06.10.2014. map: property of the author ill. 6: 63146884.jpg (1024×768) (2011). Online verfügbar unter http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/63146884.jpg, zuletzt aktualisiert am 06.12.2011, zuletzt geprüft am 06.10.2014. map: property of the author ill. 7: Westergasfabriek. Online verfügbar unter http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/86473817.jpg, zuletzt aktualisiert am 06.12.2011, zuletzt geprüft am 06.10.2014. map: property of the author ill. 8: NDSM. Online verfügbar unter http://theoptimist.nl/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Highres1_Festival5D_Foto_RGB_door_Susanne_Reuling.jpg, zuletzt aktualisiert am 06.12.2011, zuletzt geprüft am 06.10.2014. map: property of the author ill. 9: Hotel New York. Online verfügbar unter https://malcolmoliver.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/rotterdam-379.jpg, zuletzt aktualisiert am 06.12.2011, zuletzt geprüft am 06.10.2014. map: Hoog Md. 2013. The Dutch metropolis: Designing quality interaction environments. Bussum: THOTH Publishers., 59 p. ill. 10: Hotel New York. Online verfügbar unter http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_aVdC3SxN1bw/TU2SQC5CDfI/ AAAAAAAAA5Y/vfLNrf4dDQQ/s1600/IMG_0410.JPG, zuletzt aktualisiert am 06.12.2011, zuletzt geprüft am 06.10.2014. map: Hoog Md. 2013. The Dutch metropolis: Designing quality interaction environments. Bussum: THOTH Publishers., 59 p. ill. 12-15: property of the author ill. 16: Schieblock: Online verfügbar unter http://i1.wp.com/static.versbeton.nl/uploads/2013/12/Schieblock2.jpg, zuletzt aktualisiert am 31.05.2013, zuletzt geprüft am 06.10.2014. Hofbogen: Online verfügbar unter http://www.spoorbeeld.nl/sites/default/files/images/BSM-2013-BB-BRfotograaf-De%20Hofbogen%20Maarten%20Laupman%20001_DSC2199.jpg, zuletzt aktualisiert am 31.05.2013, zuletzt geprüft am 06.10.2014. ZOHO: Online verfügbar unter http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/7241/img3754u.jpg, zuletzt aktualisiert am 31.05.2013, zuletzt geprüft am 06.10.2014. ill. 17-28: property of the author ill. 29: Rotterdam-in-Balans.jpg (512×384) (2013). Online verfügbar unter http://www.yogamaya.nl/ wp-content/uploads/Rotterdam-in-Balans.jpg, zuletzt aktualisiert am 31.05.2013, zuletzt geprüft am 06.10.2014. Motel Mozaique: Fred Ernst 2013 ill. 30: RK17.jpg (1024×946) (2013). Online verfügbar unter http://blikvangen.nl/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/RK17.jpg, zuletzt aktualisiert am 03.06.2013, zuletzt geprüft am 06.10.2014. groosproject5L.jpg (1280×768) (2014). Online verfügbar unter http://woau.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/groosproject5L.jpg, zuletzt aktualisiert am 13.02.2014, zuletzt geprüft am 06.10.2014. Fred Ernst, 2014. attachment: CBS StatLine - Construction industry; turnover change, index 2010 = 100 (2014). Online verfügbar unter http://statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/publication/?DM=SLEN&PA=81808ENG&D1=a&D2=0&D3=0%2c2-3&D4=16%2c33%2c50%2c67%2c84%2c101%2c118%2c135%2c152&LA=EN&HDR=T%2cG2%2cG1&STB=G3&VW=D, zuletzt aktualisiert am 06.10.2014, zuletzt geprüft am 06.10.2014 CBS StatLine - House Price Index; existing own homes; 2010 = 100 (2014). Online verfügbar unter http:// statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/publication/?DM=SLEN&PA=81884ENG&D1=a&D2=101%2c118%2c135%2c152 %2c169%2c186%2c203%2c220%2c237%2c254%2c271%2c288%2c305%2c322&LA=EN&HDR=T&STB=G1&VW=, zuletzt aktualisiert am 06.10.2014, zuletzt geprüft am 06.10.2014. attachment: station: property of the author Kop van Zuid: Online verfügbar unter http://wilcozpics.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/rijnhaven-kop-vanzuid-rotterdam.jpg, zuletzt aktualisiert am 03.06.2013, zuletzt geprüft am 06.10.2014. attachment: creative industries sectors The Netherlands, Germany: property of the author

UNCTAD: Online verfügbar unter http://unctad.org/sections_images/ditc_dir/img/CItableau_400x304.jpg, zuletzt aktualisiert am 03.06.2013, zuletzt geprüft am 06.10.2014. attachment: Schouwburgplein: property of the author attachment: Singel: property of the author

Internet Document Parlement & Politiek. Parlementaire enquête woningcorporaties - Parlement & Politiek. [Internet]. [cited 2014 September 30]. Available from: http://www.parlement.com/id/vj8qb1nuabtp/parlementaire_enquete_woningcorporaties. 2014. Route du Nord | 26 - 28 september 2014 Zomerhofkwartier. [Internet]. [cited 2014 October 9]. Available from: http://www.routedunord.nl/. Aarts M, van den Beuken F, Boonstra B, Lengkeek A, Quist C. 2014. Bureau Lofvers. [Internet]. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 28]. Available from: http://www.lofvers.nl/projects/details/610,selforganization_in_urban_realm. AFARAI. 2014. MINI MALL Rotterdam | Afarai. [Internet]. Amsterdam. [cited 2014 September 28]. Available from: http://www.afarai.com/uncategorized/minimall/. Agenzia regionale Promozione Turistica „In Liguria“. 2009. The Genoa Aquarium - TurismoInLiguria - Official site of Liguria Region. [Internet]. Genoa. [cited 2014 September 30]. Available from: http://www. turismoinliguria.it/turismo/en/VacanzeAtema/genovaCityBreak.do?contentId=8706. amsterdam.info. 2014. Dam Square in Amsterdam | Amsterdam.info. [Internet]. [cited 2014 September 30]. Available from: http://www.amsterdam.info/sights/dam_square/. Antikraak. 2014. Antikraak / Leegstandsbeheer startpagina. [Internet]. [cited 2014 October 10]. Available from: http://antikraak.startpagina.nl/. archdaily. 2014. Mini Mall / PEÑA architecture + AFARAI. [Internet]. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 28]. Available from: http://www.archdaily.com/173980/mini-mall-pena-architecture-afarai/. architectenweb. 2014. Contract Schieblock minstens vijf jaar verlengd. [Internet]. [cited 2014 September 30]. Available from: undefined. Architecture in Rotterdam. 2014. Architecture in Rotterdam | Schouwburgplein. [Internet]. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 28]. Available from: http://www.architectuurinrotterdam.nl/building.php?buildingid=75&lang=en&PHPSESSID=228f4fae13d7250ef550110c6208b879. Architectuur in Rotterdam. 2014. Architectuur in Rotterdam | Pathé Schouwburgplein. [Internet]. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 28]. Available from: http://www.architectuurinrotterdam.nl/building.php?buildingid=92&lang=nl. Basement Project Development B.V. 2014. Basement. [Internet]. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 October 1]. Available from: http://www.basement-pd.nl/katshoek. Bobbio R. 2011. Genoa Waterfront Development. [Internet]. Genoa: Università di Genova. [cited 2014 September 30]. Available from: http://de.scribd.com/doc/69629718/Genoa-Waterfront-Development. Bruijn T de. 2014. Het Schieblock, de octopus van Rotterdam. [Internet]. [cited 2014 September 28]. Available from: http://www.archined.nl/opinie/2014/het-schieblock-de-octopus-van-rotterdam/. Cambridge Dictionaries Online. 2014. one-size-fits-all definition, meaning - what is one-size-fits-all in the British English Dictionary & Thesaurus - Cambridge Dictionaries Online. [Internet]. [cited 2014 October 10]. Available from: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/one-size-fits-all. codarts. 2014. codarts - university for the arts. [Internet]. [cited 2014 October 9]. Available from: http:// www.codarts.nl/EN/codarts/content/info/general/COD-080121-INFO-general_info.php. CODUM. 2014. Codum.nl. [Internet]. [cited 2014 September 28]. Available from: http://www.codum.nl/. Cornelisse FM. 2012. Schieblock In Zicht. [Internet]. [cited 2014 September 29]. Available from: http:// versbeton.nl/2012/07/schieblock-in-zicht/. de architect. 2014. Mini Mall in Rotterdam - alle projecten - projecten - de Architect. [Internet]. [cited 2014 September 29]. Available from: http://www.dearchitect.nl/projecten/2011/37/Mini+Mall/Mini+Mall. html. Economic Development Board Rotterdam (EDBR). 2014. Projecten. [Internet]. [cited 2014 September 6]. Available from: http://edbr.nl/nl/projecten. Facebook. 2012-14. ZOHO Rotterdam. [Internet]. [cited 2014 September 28]. Available from: https:// www.facebook.com/ZohoRotterdam.

Starting from the makers

Facebook. 2014. Red Het Schieblock. [Internet]. [cited 2014 September 28]. Available from: https://nl-nl. facebook.com/redhetschieblock. Facebook. 2014. Schouwburgplein Rotterdam. [Internet]. [cited 2014 September 29]. Available from: https://www.facebook.com/SchouwburgpleinRotterdam?fref=ts. Facebook. 2014. De Hofbogen. [Internet]. [cited 2014 September 30]. Available from: https://www.facebook.com/pages/De-Hofbogen/227449467424759?fref=ts. Gemeente Rotterdam. 2012. winnaar 2012: luchtsingel rotterdam - Cityportal Rotterdam. [Internet]. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 30]. Available from: http://www.rotterdam.nl/tekst:winnaar2012luchtsingelrotterdam. Gemeente Rotterdam. 2013. vakjury bekroont onderwijscentrum erasmus mc, publiek kiest voor het schieblock - Cityportal Rotterdam. [Internet]. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 28]. Available from: http://www.rotterdam.nl/vakjurybekroontonderwijscentrumerasmusmc. Gemeente Rotterdam. 2014. codum schieblock - Cityportal Rotterdam. [Internet]. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 28]. Available from: http://www.rotterdam.nl/codumschieblock. Gemeente Rotterdam. 2014. klushuizen in rotterdam - Cityportal Rotterdam. [Internet]. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 29]. Available from: http://www.rotterdam.nl/klushuizen. Gemeente Rotterdam. 2014. Het Stadsinitiatief - Zet de stad naar je hand. [Internet]. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 30]. Available from: http://www.stadsinitiatief.nl/. Gemeente Rotterdam. 2014. singels rotterdam - Cityportal Rotterdam. [Internet]. [cited 2014 October 10]. Available from: http://www.rotterdam.nl/tekst:singels. Gemeente Rotterdam. 2014. stadsinitiatief - Cityportal Rotterdam. [Internet]. [cited 2014 October 10]. Available from: http://www.rotterdam.nl/infostadsinitiatief. Government of the Netherlands. 2014. Investing in top sectors | Entrepreneurship and innovation | Government.nl. [Internet]. [cited 2014 October 10]. Available from: http://www.government.nl/issues/entrepreneurship-and-innovation/investing-in-top-sectors. Government of the Netherlands. 2014. Woningcorporaties | Onderwerp | Rijksoverheid.nl. [Internet]. [cited 2014 October 10]. Available from: http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/woningcorporaties. Griffioen R. 2014. Hoe de broedplaats een surrogaat voor echte stedelijke ontwikkeling werd. [Internet]. [cited 2014 September 30]. Available from: https://decorrespondent.nl/1713/Hoe-de-broedplaats-een-surrogaat-voor-echte-stedelijke-ontwikkeling-werd/7981781742-0c00b3dd. Haagsma L. 2011. Mini Mall in de Hofbogen. [Internet]. [cited 2014 September 30]. Available from: http://www.archined.nl/recensies/2011/oktober/mini-mall-in-de-hofbogen/. Havensteder. 2013. nieuwsbericht: Open dag zomerhofstraat 76-90 – het gele gebouw! [Internet]. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 28]. Available from: http://www.havensteder.nl/over-havensteder/nieuws/ nieuwsberichten/nieuwsbericht/artikel/open-dag-zomerhofstraat-76-90-het-gele-gebouw-325/?no_ cache=1. Havensteder s. 2014. Over Zoho | hetgelegebouw on WordPress.com. [Internet]. [cited 2014 September 28]. Available from: http://hetgelegebouw.com/home/. Havensteder s. 2014. Beschikbare ruimte | hetgelegebouw on WordPress.com. [Internet]. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 October 1]. Available from: http://hetgelegebouw.com/gele-gebouw/. Het Nederlands Architectuurinstituut. 2014. Nederlands Architectuurinstituut - Item - S.J. van Embden. [Internet]. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 28]. Available from: http://www.nai.nl/collectie/bekijk_de_ collectie/item/_rp_kolom2-1_elementId/1_8294. Het Nederlands Architectuurinstituut. 2014. Schouwburg Gemeente Rotterdam Schouwburgplein 25 (Rotterdam). [Internet]. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 29]. Available from: http://zoeken.nai.nl/CIS/ project/20996. IABR. 2012-14. IABR. [Internet]. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 29]. Available from: http://iabr.nl/en/ test_site/2014test-site-rotterdam. In-Soo. 2013. R.I.P. SCHIEBLOCK - DANK JE WEL GEMEENTE. [Internet]. [cited 2014 September 30]. Available from: http://bogue.nl/r-i-p-schieblock-dank-je-wel-gemeente/. Jong A de. 2014. ZoHo Rotterdam: Sociaal rendement van de maakindustrie - gebiedsontwikkeling. nu. [Internet]. Delft. [cited 2014 October 1]. Available from: http://www.gebiedsontwikkeling.nu/artikel/12617-zoho-rotterdam-sociaal-rendement-van-de-maakindustrie. Kamer van Koophandel. 2014. Welke organisaties moeten een jaarrekening deponeren? [Internet]. [cited

2014 September 29]. Available from: http://www.kvk.nl/inschrijven-en-wijzigen/deponeren/deponerenjaarrekening/welke-organisaties-moeten-een-jaarrekening-deponeren/. Katshoek. 2014. KATSHOEK | Talent Building | Building Talent. [Internet]. [cited 2014 September 29]. Available from: http://katshoek.com/. Keete M. 2014. „Het is nu of nooit voor de Hofbogen in Rotterdam-Noord“. [Internet]. [cited 2014 September 30]. Available from: http://www.rijnmond.nl/nieuws/20-02-2014/het-nu-nooit-voor-de-hofbogen-rotterdam-noord. Keeton R. 2014. Rotterdam Is Drowning in Empty Office Space – Next City. [Internet]. [cited 2014 September 29]. Available from: http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/rotterdam-is-drowning-in-empty-office-space. Klabbers J. 2013. Wie maakt de stad? [Internet]. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 28]. Available from: http://versbeton.nl/2013/12/wie-maakt-de-stad/. Kortleve A. 2012. ZUS: “Wij bouwen een brug, wat doe jij?”. [Internet]. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 28]. Available from: http://versbeton.nl/2012/10/zus-wij-bouwen-een-brug-wat-doe-jij/. Leeuw K de. 2013. Hofbogen: Do it Yourself! [Internet]. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 29]. Available from: http://versbeton.nl/2013/08/hofbogen-do-it-yourself/. Liukku E. 2013. Denkers met opgestroopte mouwen. [Internet]. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 October 1]. Available from: http://versbeton.nl/2013/09/denkers-met-opgestroopte-mouwen/. Mascini L. 2014. SP en VVD: ‘gemeente moet geen belastinggeld meer in Schieblock steken’. [Internet]. [cited 2014 October 9]. Available from: http://www.dichtbij.nl/rotterdam-centrum-noord/regionaal-nieuws/artikel/3004272/sp-en-vvd-gemeente-moet-geen-belastinggeld-meer-in-schieblock-steken.aspx#. Miles M. 2013. A post-creative city? [Internet]. Vienna. Morgan K. 2014. Five reasons to visit Rotterdam - Lonely Planet. [Internet]. London. [cited 2014 September 7]. Available from: http://www.lonelyplanet.com/the-netherlands/rotterdam/travel-tips-and-articles/ five-reasons-to-visit-rotterdam. NDSM B.V. 2014. NDSM. [Internet]. [cited 2014 September 30]. Available from: http://www.ndsm.nl/. Niederer D. 2014. ZoHo Rotterdam: Innoveren door leren, verbinden en creëren - gebiedsontwikkeling. nu. [Internet]. [cited 2014 September 29]. Available from: http://www.gebiedsontwikkeling.nu/artikel/9815-zoho-rotterdam-innoveren-door-leren-verbinden-en-creeren. Piiparinen R. DENSITY, UNPACKED: IS CREATIVE CLASS THEORY A FRONT FOR REAL ESTATE GREED? [Internet]. Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving. 2014. Over het PBL - PBL Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving. [Internet]. [cited 2014 September 30]. Available from: http://www.pbl.nl/overpbl. Project for Public Spaces (PPS). 2014. Schouwburgplein - Hall of Shame | Project for Public Spaces (PPS). [Internet]. [cited 2014 September 28]. Available from: http://www.pps.org/great_public_spaces/one?public_place_id=918. Projectbureau Hofbogen. 2007. Beheer en verhuur van de boogruimtes - de Hofbogen. [Internet]. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 7]. Available from: http://www.hofbogen.nl/spip.php?article3. Projectbureau Hofbogen. 2007. Een nieuwe toekomst voor het Hofpleinviaduct - de Hofbogen. [Internet]. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 29]. Available from: http://www.hofbogen.nl/spip.php?article1. Projectbureau Hofbogen. 2007. English Summary - de Hofbogen. [Internet]. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 30]. Available from: http://www.hofbogen.nl/spip.php?article39. Projectbureau Hofbogen (Vestia). 2014. Renovatie | Station Hofplein. [Internet]. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 29]. Available from: http://www.stationhofplein.nl/de-renovatie/. Rathenau Instituut. 2014. FES programmes for research and innovation: The Dutch Science System. [Internet]. The Hague: Rathenau Instituut. [cited 2014 September 30]. Available from: http://www.rathenau. nl/en/web-specials/the-dutch-science-system/funding/government/fes-programmes-for-research-and-innovation.html. Rijnmond TV. 2013. Huurders Schieblock ongerust over toekomst. [Internet]. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 29]. Available from: http://www.rijnmond.nl/nieuws/05-12-2013/huurders-schieblock-ongerust-over-toekomst. Rijpers Y. 2014. Schieblock moet afkicken van locatieverslaving. [Internet]. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 30]. Available from: http://versbeton.nl/2014/03/schieblock-moet-afkicken-van-locatieverslaving/. roodkapje. 2014. roodkapje. [Internet]. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 29]. Available from: http://

Starting from the makers

roodkapje.org/. Schieblock bv. 2014. het Schieblock | Homepage. [Internet]. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 28]. Available from: http://www.schieblock.com/. Schieblock bv. 2014. het Schieblock | Over het Schieblock. [Internet]. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 28]. Available from: http://www.schieblock.com/index.php?pageID=5. Schneider B. 2004. Landscape Architecture Study Tour with Professor Jack Ahern. [Internet]. Boston. [cited 2014 September 7]. Available from: http://courses.umass.edu/latour/Netherlands/schneider/. Senatskanzlei Kulturelle Angelegenheiten. 2012. Zahl der Besuche in den Berliner Museen und Gedenkstätten in 2011 deutlich gestiegen - Berlin.de. [Internet]. Berlin. [cited 2014 September 30]. Available from: http://www.berlin.de/sen/kultur/aktuelles/pressemitteilungen/2012/pressemitteilung.94098.php. SKVR. 2014. Cursusaanbod - SKVR.nl. [Internet]. [cited 2014 October 9]. Available from: http://www.skvr. nl/. Smit E. 2013. Rutte 1 in het spoor van Den Uyl - Follow the Money. [Internet]. [cited 2014 October 1]. Available from: http://www.ftm.nl/exclusive/rutte-1-in-het-spoor-van-den-uyl/. Smit J. 2004. NiederlandeNet – Geographie - Raumnutzung und Raumordnung in den Niederlanden. [Internet]: Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster. [cited 2014 October 10]. Available from: http://www. uni-muenster.de/NiederlandeNet/nl-wissen/geographie/vertiefung/raumplanung/. Sorgdrager W, Wijers GJ, Zalm G. 1996. wetten.nl - Wet Fonds economische structuurversterking BWBR0007788. [Internet]. The Hague. [cited 2014 September 30]. Available from: http://wetten.overheid. nl/BWBR0007788/geldigheidsdatum_28-08-2014. Statistics Netherlands. 2014. CBS - Dutch house prices also up in June - Economic monitor. [Internet]. The Hague. [cited 2014 September 30]. Available from: http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/bouwen-wonen/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2014/2014-07-21-m11.html. Statistics Netherlands. 2014. CBS StatLine - New dwellings; input price indices building costs 2000 = 100, from 1990. [Internet]. The Hague. [cited 2014 September 30]. Available from: http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLEN&PA=80444ENG&LA=EN. Stichting de Luchtsingel. 2014. Luchtsingel. [Internet]. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 6]. Available from: http://www.luchtsingel.org/. Stichting de Luchtsingel. 2014. Luchtsingel about. [Internet]. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 28]. Available from: http://www.luchtsingel.org/over-de-luchtsingel/partners/. Stichting de Luchtsingel. 2014. Minister Blok bezoekt Luchtsingel. [Internet]. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 28]. Available from: http://www.luchtsingel.org/2014/04/01/minister-blok-bezoekt-luchtsingel/. Stichting de Luchtsingel. 2014. Luchtsingel - Hofbogen. [Internet]. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 30]. Available from: http://www.luchtsingel.org/locaties/hofbogen/hofbogen-b-v/. Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz. 2014. Home: Masterplan Museumsinsel - Projektion Zukunft. [Internet]. Berlin. [cited 2014 September 30]. Available from: http://www.museumsinsel-berlin.de/home/. Stühn O. 2013. CURE – Cities. Crisis? Creativity! [Internet]. Hagen: CURE. [cited 2014 October 1]. Available from: http://www.ideenpool.de/cure-mailing/cure.html. The Guardian. 2014. Leeds South Bank: Can we learn from Rotterdam and Kings Cross? - The Leeds Guardian. [Internet]. [cited 2014 October 8]. Available from: http://www.theleedsguardian. com/2014/02/26/leeds-south-bank-can-learn-rotterdam-kings-cross/. Times Square Alliance. Times Square. [Internet]. New York. [cited 2014 September 30]. Available from: undefined. top10.nl. 2014. Luchtbrug van Schieblock naar Hofbogen - Luchtsingel -. [Internet]. [cited 2014 October 1]. Available from: http://www.nieuws.top010.nl/luchtbrug-luchtsingel-rotterdam. Travel + Leisure. 2011. World‘s Most-Visited Tourist Attractions. [Internet]. New York. [cited 2014 September 30]. Available from: http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/worlds-most-visited-tourist-attractions/2. Tweede Kamer. 2014. Parlementaire enquêtecommissie Woningcorporaties - Tweede Kamer der StatenGeneraal. [Internet]. [cited 2014 October 10]. Available from: http://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerleden/ commissies/pew/. UNCTAD. 2014. unctad.org | UNCTAD‘s work on the Creative Economy. [Internet]. Geneva: UNCTAD. [cited 2014 October 1]. Available from: http://unctad.org/en/Pages/DITC/CreativeEconomy/Creative-Economy.aspx.

van Dijk G. 2013. We moeten weer trots worden op Schieblock | Cobouw.nl, Dé site voor de bouw. [Internet]. [cited 2014 September 28]. Available from: http://www.cobouw.nl/nieuws/algemeen/2013/12/19/ we-moeten-weer-trots-worden-op-schieblock. van Dijk G. 2014. GROOSheidswaanzin | Transformatieplein. [Internet]. [cited 2014 September 28]. Available from: http://www.transformatieplein.nl/blog/groosheidswaanzin. van Helleman J. 2014. Schiekadeblok. [Internet]. [cited 2014 September 29]. Available from: http://www. top010.nl/html/schiekadeblok.htm. Vereniging Vereinigd Schouwburgplein. 2014. Geschiedenis | Schouwburgplein Rotterdamse ruimte. [Internet]. [cited 2014 September 28]. Available from: http://www.schouwburgpleinrotterdam.nl/geschiedenis/. Vollaard P. 2014. Van wie worden de Hofbogen? [Internet]. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 29]. Available from: http://versbeton.nl/2014/04/van-wie-worden-de-hofbogen/. West8. 2014. Schouwburgplein. [Internet]. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 7]. Available from: http:// www.west8.nl/projects/schouwburgplein/. Westergasfabriek BV, Stichting Westergasfabriek. 2014. Locaties | Westergasfabriek. [Internet]. Amsterdam. [cited 2014 September 30]. Available from: http://www.westergasfabriek.nl/zakelijk/locaties. Westergasfabriek BV, Stichting Westergasfabriek. 2014. Westergasfabriek. [Internet]. Amsterdam. [cited 2014 September 30]. Available from: http://www.westergasfabriek.nl/. Williams RJ. 2013. THE CREATIVE CITY: A CORRECTION. [Internet]. [cited 2014 October 1]. Available from: http://richardjwilliams.net/2013/05/30/the-creative-city-a-correction/. Wirtschaft Sf, Technologie und Forschung, Zukunft GP. Berlin. Networking & Events | Projekt Zukunft Berlin. [Internet]. [cited 2014 September 29]. Available from: http://www.berlin.de/projektzukunft/networking-events/. zohorotterdam.nl. http://zohorotterdam.nl/. [Internet]. [cited 2014 September 29]. Available from: http:// zohorotterdam.nl/. Zuidmeer J. STIPO. [Internet]. [cited 2014 April 10]. Available from: http://www.stipo.nl/Visie_Museumkwartier. ZUS. 2014. ZUS Zones Urbaines Sensibles - News. [Internet]. [cited 2014 October 7]. Available from: http://www.zus.cc/news/items/index.php?1=n.

Interview Material Neumann I. 02.07.14. Interaction environments conception. Amsterdam. [cited 2014 October 1]. 5 p. Neumann I. 07.07.14. Schieblock as an interaction environment. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 October 1]. 5 p. Neumann I. 2014. ZOHO as an interaction environment. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 October 1]. 15 p. Neumann I. 2014. Interaction environments in Rotterdam. [cited 2014 October 1]. 12 p. Neumann I. 2014. Concept interaction environments. Amsterdam. [cited 2014 October 1]. 7 p. Neumann I. 2014. Schouwburgplein as an interaction environment. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 October 1]. 7 p. Neumann I. 2014. Schieblock as an interaction environment. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 October 1]. 8 p. Neumann I. 2014. Consultations with Yvonne Rijpers, Rotterdam. [cited 2014 October 1]. Thoele H. 2014. In that way plans simply matter less. Rotterdam. [cited 2014 October 1]. 7 p.

Journal Article Andres L. 2013. Differential Spaces, Power Hierarchy and Collaborative Planning: A Critique of the Role of Temporary Uses in Shaping and Making Places. Urban Studies 50:759–775. Anita Bouman-Eijs, Thijmen van Bree, Wouter Jonkhoff, Olaf Koops, Walter Manshanden, Elmer Rietveld. 2012. De Top 20 van Europese grootstedelijke regio‘s 1995-2011; Randstad Holland in internationaal perspectief (TNO 2012 R11155 | Eindrapport). Bagwell S. 2008. Creative clusters and city growth. cij 1. Balducci A. 2004. Creative Governance in Dynamic City Regions. disP - The Planning Review 40:21–26. BARGEMAN N, LAAN, LAMBERT VAN DER, Lensik E. 1992. URBAN REVITALIZATION AND THE LABOUR MARKET PARADOX IN THE RANDSTAD. Tijd voor Econ & Soc Geog 83:306–316.

Starting from the makers

Batten D. 1995. Network Cities: Creative Urban Agglomerations for the 21st Century. Urban Studies 32:313–327. Boelens L. 2010. De associatie stad - botto up of outside in. stedenbouw+ruimtijge ordening. Catungal JP, Leslie D, Hii Y. 2009. Geographies of Displacement in the Creative City: The Case of Liberty Village, Toronto. Urban Studies 46:1095–1114. Cohendet P, Grandadam D, Simon L. 2010. The Anatomy of the Creative City. Industry and Innovation 17:91–111. Cook P, Pandit N. 2005. Clusters, Economic Geography and Regional Development Policy: Insights from the UK Broadcasting Industry. Cook, Gary A S, Pandit NR, Beaverstock JV, Taylor PJ, Pain K. 2007. The role of location in knowledge creation and diffusion: evidence of centripetal and centrifugal forces in the City of London financial services agglomeration. Environ. Plann. A 39:1325–1345. CORTIE C, DIJST M, OSTENDORF WI. 1992. THE RANDSTAD A METROPOLIS? Tijd voor Econ & Soc Geog 83:278–288. Dirksmeier P. 2009. «Don‘t believe the hype»: Kommunale Förderstrategien für die Creative Industries. disP - The Planning Review 45:37–45. Dzudzek I, Lindner P. 2013. Performing the Creative-Economy Script: Contradicting Urban Rationalities at Work. Regional Studies:1–16. Evans G. 2009. Creative Cities, Creative Spaces and Urban Policy. Urban Studies 46:1003–1040. Flew T, Cunningham S. 2010. Creative Industries after the First Decade of Debate. The Information Society 26:113–123. Florida R. 2003. Cities and the Creative Class. City & Community 2:3–19. Halbert L, Henneberry J, Mouzakis F. 2014. Finance, Business Property and Urban and Regional Development. Regional Studies 48:421–424. Harris A, Moreno L. Creative City Limits: Urban Cultural Economy in a New Era of Austerity. Indergaard M, Pratt AC, Hutton TA. 2013. Creative cities after the fall of finance. Cities 33:1–4. Kesselaar B, Laven J. 2014. Publiek ontwikkelen in ZoHo Rotterdam. stedenbouw+ruimtijge ordening:36–40. Kloosterman R, Lambregts B. 2001. Clustering of Economic Activities in Polycentric Urban Regions: The Case of the Randstad. Urban Stud. 38:717–732. Kloosterman R, Stegmeijer E. 2004. Cultural Industries in the Netherlnads - Path-Dependent Patterns and Institutional Contexts: The Case of Architecture in Rotterdam. PGM Thema. Krätke S. 2000. Berlin: The Metropolis as a Production Space. European Planning Studies 8:7–27. Krätke S. 2004. City of talents? Berlin‘s regional economy, socio-spatial fabric and ‚worst practice‘ urban governance. Int J Urban & Regional Res 28:511–529. Krätke S. 2010. ‘Creative Cities’ and the Rise of the Dealer Class: A Critique of Richard Florida‘s Approach to Urban Theory. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 34:835–853. Kunzmann KR. 2004. An Agenda for Creative Governance in City Regions. disP - The Planning Review 40:5–10. Leriche F, Daviet S. 2010. Cultural Economy: An Opportunity to Boost Employment and Regional Development? Regional Studies 44:807–811. Markusen A, Gadwa A. 2010. Arts and Culture in Urban or Regional Planning: A Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Planning Education and Research 29:379–391. Mommaas H. 2004. Cultural clusters and the post-industrial city: towards the remapping of urban cultural policy. Urban Studies 41:507–532. Porter ME. 2000. Location, Competition, and Economic Development: Local Clusters in a Global Economy. Economic Development Quarterly 14:15–34. Pratt AC. 2009. Urban Regeneration: From the Arts `Feel Good‘ Factor to the Cultural Economy: A Case Study of Hoxton, London. Urban Studies 46:1041–1061. Projectbureau Hofbogen. 2013. de Hofbogen - project informatie Station Hofplein. Sacco P, Ferilli G, Blessi GT. 2013. Understanding culture-led local development: A critique of alternative theoretical explanations. Urban Studies.

Vrolijk D. 2013. 2013_sro4_s03_rondetafelgesprek. stedenbouw+ruimtijge ordening. Zukin S. 1990. Socio-Spatial Prototypes of a New Organization of Consumption: The Role of Real Cultural Capital. sociology 24:37–56.

Lecture Boix R, Capone F, Lazzeretti L. 2009. Why do creative industries cluster? An analysis of the determinants of clustering of creative industries. Copenhagen. Hoog Md. 2014. cultural clusters - masterclass amsterdam. Amsterdam. 53 p. Hoog Md. 2014. Zaancorridor. Amsterdam. 25 p. Jonker E. 2014. ContinuVrijeTijdsonderzoek (CVTO) 2012-2013 Kerncijfers. The Hague. 7 p. Marcuse P. 2011. The Right to the Creative City – talk. London. Overmeyer K. 2010. URBAN PIONEERS - Kreative Milieus als Chance der Stadt- und Projektentwicklung. 43 p.

Newspaper Article Algemeen Dagblad Redactie. 2014. Weense bankjes voor Schouwburgplein Rotterdam. Andreas P. 2014. Planen ohne Masterplan: Die Architekturbiennale Rotterdam setzt auf die Wirkungskraft aller am Wachstum der Städte beteiligten Akteure. Fernandez Rodrigo. 2012. ‚Meer woningcorporaties, ziekenhuizen en scholen gaan omvallen‘. Haverkate L. Nederland en de aardgasbaten: de toekomst te grabbel.

Special Issue AIR Foundation, editor. 2013. schieblock_luchtsingel_z (4). Rottedam. 3 p. Braams N, Urlings N, editors. 2010. Creatieve industrie in Nederland. The Hague: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. 9 p. Gemeente Amsterdam, Dienst Ruimtelijke Ordening Amsterdam, editors. 2011. 2011_planamsterdam_7-2011_hotspots_-_bouwen_aan_culturele_infrastructuur. 32 p. LSI project investment nv, editor. 2010. PropertyNL_LSI (1). Rotterdam. 8 p. Manshande W, Swets J, Astrid W, editors. 2012. De Top 20 van Europese grootstedelijke regio‘s 19952011: Randstad Regio, TNO. 2 p. ROM Zuidvleugel, editor. zuidvleugemagazine_nummer_3_-_juni_2013. The Hague. 12 p. Urban transformers, editor. 2009. Aangepaste Concept flyer - RTRDM-HofbogenDossier.pdf. 6 p. Volder S, editor. 2014. INTO_ZOHO_Online. Rotterdam. 28 p.

University publications Arie R. 2009. De historie van het Fonds Economische Structuurversterking. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden. Kalfsbeek A. 2013. Schieblock - an urban city adventure. Delft.

Unpublished Work Aboutaleb A, van Gils A. 2008. 2009-375 Bijlage Schouwburgplein (1). Gemeente Rotterdam, Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 30]. Bakshi H, Cunningham S, Higgs P. 2008. Beyond the creative industries: Mapping the creative economy in the United Kingdom: Mapping the creative economy in the United Kingdom. NESTA, London. Blomsteel J, van der Hilst, Frans. Leefbaar Rotterdam - Schouwburgplein definitief, Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 30]. Boer B de. 2007. Van saai einviaduct naar fraai cultureel groenelement, Rotterdam. [cited 2014 October 1]. Bos M. 2014. Jaarverslag+2012-RotterdamFestivals, Rotterdam. [cited 2014 October 1]. Design B. 2013. Havensteder Jaarverslag 2012, Rotterdam. [cited 2014 October 1]. Immobilien 2025: Auswirkungen des demografischen Wandels auf die Wohn- und Büroimmobilienmärkte, Köln. Forschungsberichte aus dem Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft Köln 50.

Starting from the makers

Dirkson H. Jaarverslag Stg JazzPodium - Live@BIRD 2013, Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 29]. Dr Jonathan Vickery. 2011. Beyond the Creative City – Cultural Policy in an age of scarcity. Centre for Cultural Policy Studies, University of Warwick, MADE: a centre for place-making, Birmingham. Available from: http://www.made.org.uk/images/uploads/BeyondtheCreativeCity.pdf. DRO Amsterdam, TU-Delft, Vereniging Deltametropool. 2009. voorstel_Interactiemiilieus. DRO Amsterdam; TU-Delft; Vereniging Deltametropool, Rotterdam, Amsterdam. [cited 2014 October 1]. Dutrieux R. 2014. Organigram VVS, Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 29]. Dutrieux R. 2014. Schouwburgpleinontbijt 24 juni 2014, Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 29]. Gemeente Rotterdam. Locatieprofiel Schouwburgplein (Concept), Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 28]. Available from: http://www.rotterdam.nl/Centrumraad/Document/vergaderingen%202010/15%20 november/Locatieprofiel%20Schouwburgplein%2015%20juli%202010%20v2.0.pdf. Gemeente Rotterdam. locatieprofielen_Schouwburgplein, Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 6]. Available from: http://www.rotterdamfestivals.nl/Assets/Uploads/Documents/locatieprofielen/locatieprofielen_Schouwburgplein.pdf. Gemeente Rotterdam. Ontwerpstructuurvisie Rotterdam Central District, Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 30]. Gemeente Rotterdam. 2007. Rotterdam Urban Vision: Spatial Development Strategy 2030 [Ratified by the Rotterdam Municipal Council on November 29, 2007]. Gemeente Rotterdam, Rotterdam. Gemeente Rotterdam. 2008. BinnenstadCityLounge, Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 30]. Gemeente Rotterdam. 2008. schouwburgplein-debat, Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 30]. Hemel Z. 2002. Creatieve steden!: Creative cities! Vereniging Deltametropool, Ministerie van VROM, Rotterdam. Jansen B, van der Leun, Anneloes. 2012. Stimuleringsfonds voor Architectuur - Jaarverslag 2011, Rotterdam. [cited 2014 October 1]. Janssen-Jansen L, Lloyd G, Peel D, van der Krabben, Erwin. 2012. Planning in an environment without growth: Invited essay for the Raad voor de leefomgeving en infrastructuur (Rli), the Netherlands. Unversity of Amsterdam, Raad voor de leefomgeving en infrastructuur, Amsterdam. Kind S, zu Köcker, Gerd Meier, Mühlhans T. 2012. Developing Successful Creative & Cultural Clusters: Measuring their outcomes and impacts with new framework tools, Berlin. Knight Frank. 2014. Dutch office market report 2013, Amsterdam, London. [cited 2014 September 29]. Kunsthal. 2014. Jaarverslag Kunsthal. [cited 2014 October 1]. Lamers P. 2009. Letter to ‚Commissie Fysieke Infrastructuur, Buitenruimte en Sport‘, Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 29]. Lange B, Streit A von, Hesse M. 2011. Kultur- und Kreativwirtschaft in Stadt und Region: Voraussetzungen, Handlungsstrategien und Governance, Bonn. [cited 2014 October 1]. Lutter H. 2010. Metropolräume in Europa - Kurzfassung einer neuen Studie des BBSR, Bonn. [cited 2014 October 1]. Niederer D. 2014. Praktijkbericht ZOHO, Rotterdam. [cited 2014 October 1]. Prof. Dr. jur. Gerd Schmidt-Eichsteadt. 2001. Baulandbereitstellung nach dem niederländischen Modell: Heft 99 [Forschungen]. Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordung, Bonn. Projectbureau Hofbogen. 2007. de Hbogen - concept, Rotterdam. [cited 2014 October 1]. Projectbureau Hofbogen. 2009. Blend-Contain. Projectbureau Hofbogen, Rotterdam. [cited 2014 October 1]. Provoost M. 2008. Toekomstvisie de Hofbogen. [cited 2014 October 1]. Stichting DOEN. 2014. doen-stichting-doen-jaarverslag-2013, Amsterdam. [cited 2014 October 1]. Stichting Hip Hop Huis. 2014. Stichting HipHopHuis Holland - Jaarverslag 2013, Rotterdam. [cited 2014 October 1]. Vereniging Deltametropool. 2013. Cahier ‚Kultur = Kapital‘, Rotterdam. [cited 2014 September 30]., Neumann, Isabel; Rijpers, Yvonne

Starting from the makers

Statutory declaration

Statutory declaration I hereby affirm that the Master thesis at hand is my own written work and that I have used no other sources and aids than those indicated. All passages, which are quoted from publications or paraphrased from these sources, are indicated as such, i.e. cited, attributed. The thesis was not submitted in the same or in a substantially similar version, not even partially, to another examination board and was not published elsewhere.

Weimar, 14.10.2014 Isabel Neumann

Starting from the makers

100