Plan Amsterdam magazine 3-2018: 'A global review on urban strategies'

A global review on urban strategies

Plan

03| 2018 met Nederlandse samenvatting Internationale conferentie over stedelijke strategieĂŤn

Amsterdam

Amsterdam â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a human-scale metropolis

Contemporary urban challenges and solutions

Lessons and observations

maps Population, area and density of the 12 cities that attended the conference, and their metropolitan areas. Maps: City of Amsterdam population (rounded to the nearest thousand)

area

Londondensity (inhabitants per square kilometre)

Tokyo Greater Tokyo Area population 37.800.000 area 13.500 km2 density 2.800 / km2

Metropolitan area population 14.040.163 area 8.382 km2 density 1.675 / km2

area 2.191 km2 Greater Tokyo Area 6.157 / km2 density population 37.800.000 area 13.500 km2 23 wards density 2.800population / km2 9.390.000 area 627 km2 Metropolis density 14.981 / km2 population 13.491.000 area 2.191 km2 density 6.157 / km2

Greater Paris Metropolis population 7.068.810 area 814 km2 density 8.700 / km2

London

City population 2.206.488 area 105 km2 Greater Parisdensity Metropolis 21.000 / km2 population 7.068.810 area 814 km2 density 8.700 / km2

Paris

23 wards population 9.390.000 area 627 km2 density 14.981 / km2

City population 2.206.488 area 105 km2 density 21.000 / km2

City population 9.401 area 2,9 km2 density 3.200 / km2

Barcelona

Amsterdam

Metropolitan area Berlin2,435,000 Capital region km2 population 2,580 4.67 million area 3.700 km2 density 1.200 / km2 1,520 inh/km2

Urban area no data

Brussels Metropolitan

Metropolitan area no data (indicated)

Greater Helsinki population 1.470.552 area 3.698 km2 density 397.7 / km2

City 3,710,000 892 km2 4,100 inh/km2

Capital region Helsinki population 1.231.595 area 672 km2 Greater Helsinki density 1.800 / km2 population 1.470.552 area 3.698 km2 City density 397.7population / km2 642.045 area 214 km2 Capital region density 3.004 / km2 population 1.231.595 area 672 km2 density 1.800 / km2

MetropolitanCity area population 2,120,000 population 176.545 area 33 km2 Capital region density 5.400 / km2 population 1.191.604 area 161.38 km2 density 7.025 / km2

City 845,000 165 km2 5,130 inh/km2

Helsinki

Urban area no data

5,355,000 Capital region 4,268 km2 population 1.191.604 area 161.38 km2 2 Brussels 1,250 density 7.025 / km2 inh/km

area 892 km2 Capital region density 4.100 / km2 population 4.67 million area 3.700 km2 density 1.200 / km2

Brussels

Berlin

area

Metropolitan area population 2,120,000

Berlin City population 3.710.000

City population 3.710.000 area 892 km2 density 4.100 / km2

Tokyo Metropolis population 13.491.000

Paris

Greater London population 8.787.892 area 1.572 km2 Metropolitandensity area 5.590 / km2 population 14.040.163 area 8.382 km2 City density 1.675population / km2 9.401 area 2,9 km2 Greater London density 3.200 / km2 population 8.787.892 area 1.572 km2 density 5.590 / km2

1 During WeMakeThe.City, a five day festival to tackle urgent everyday city challenges, Amsterdam hosted the Up Close & Liveable conference, with a view to enabling all participants to improve their skills in city making. Photo: Brandeisfotografie

City 1,621,000 City 101 km2 population 176.545 area 33 km2 density 5.400 / km2 16,000 inh/km2

Urban area London Vancouver 4,670,000 Metropolitan area Metro Vancouver 2 population 14.040.163 3,700 km population 2.463.431 area 8.382 km2 area 2.883 km2 density 2 1.675 / km2 density 854.6 / km2 1,200 inh/km City Vancouver population 631.486 area 115 km2 Metro Vancouver density 5.493 / km2 population 2.463.431 area 2.883 km2 density 854.6 / km2 City population 631.486 area 115 km2 density 5.493 / km2

City population 642.045 area 214 km2 density 3.004 / km2

Greater London population 8.787.892 area 1.572 km2 density 5.590 / km2 City population 9.401 area 2,9 km2 density 3.200 / km2

Metropolitan area 2,120,000 no data no data

Urban area 1,192,000 161 km2 7,025 inh/km2

Paris Greater Paris Metropolis population 7.068.810 area 814 km2 density 8.700 / km2

City 177,000 33 km2 5,400 inh/km2

City population 2.206.488 area 105 km2 density 21.000 / km2

Amsterdam Metropolitan region population 2.435.220 area 2.580 km2 density 1.520 / km2

Brussels Berlin

Municipality Amsterdam population 851.573

Seoul

area 219 km2 Metropolitandensity region5.135 / km2 population 2.435.220 area 2.580 km2 density 1.520 / km2

Capital area population 25.514.000 area 11.704 km2 density 969 / km2

Municipality population 851.573 area 219 km2 density 5.135 / km2

city Seoul Special population 9.838.982

Metropolitan area population 5.355.127 area 4.268 km2 density 1.250 / km2

City-state population 5.610.000 area 720 km2 density 7.800 / km2

Special city population 9.838.982 area 606 km2 density 16.249 / km2

City Barcelona population 1.620.809 area 101 km2 Metropolitandensity area 16.000 / km2 population 5.355.127 area 4.268 km2 density 1.250 / km2

Central area Singapore population 60.520

0 km 10 km

area 18 km2 City-state density 3.400 / km2 population 5.610.000 area 720 km2 density 7.800 / km2

50 km

Central area population 60.520 area 18 km2 density 3.400 / km2

Helsinki

0 km 10 km

50 km

Metropolitan area (Greater Helsinki) Paris 1,471,000 Greater Paris Metropolis 2 population 7.068.810 3,698 km area 814 km2 density 8.700 / km2 397,7 inh/km2

Urban area 1,232,000 672 km2 1,800 inh/km2

City population 2.206.488 area 105 km2

London

Greater London population 8.787.892 area 1.572 km2 density 5.590 / km2 City population 9.401 area 2,9 km2 density 3.200 / km2

Amsterdam Metropolitan region population 2.435.220 area 2.580 km2 density 1.520 / km2

City population 1.620.809 area 101 km2 density 16.000 / km2

Seoul

Paris

Tokyo Greater Tokyo Area population 37.800.000 area 13.500 km2 density 2.800 / km2

Metropolitan area no data (indicated) City 2,206,000 105 km2 21,000 inh/km2

Urban area Seoul Capital area 7,069,000 population 25.514.000 area 11.704 km2 density 969 / km2 814 km2 city 8,700 inh/km2Special population 9.838.982

Municipality population 851.573 area 219 km2 density 5.135 / km2

Metropolitan area 25,514,000 11,704 km2 2,179 inh/km2

Urban area Berlin Capital region population 4.67 million no data area 3.700 km2 density 1.200 / km2

Singapore

area 606 km2 density 16.249 / km2

0 km 10 km

City population 3.710.000 area 892 km2 density 4.100 / km2

City-state population 5.610.000 area 720 km2 density 7.800 / km2

City 9,839,000 606 km2 50 km 16,249 inh/km2

Central area population 60.520 area 18 km2 density 3.400 / km2

Tokyo Helsinki

Brussels London

Metropolitan area population 2,120,000 Metropolitan area population 14.040.163 area 8.382 km2Capital region 1.191.604 density 1.675 / population km2 area 161.38 km2 Greater Londondensity 7.025 / km2 population 8.787.892 area 1.572 km2City 176.545 density 5.590 / population km2 area 33 km2 density 5.400 / km2 City population 9.401 area 2,9 km2 density 3.200 / km2

London

Metropolitan area City population population 176.545 14.040.163 area 8.382 km2 area 33 km2 density 1.675 / km2 density 5.400 / km2

City population 208.374 area 25 km2 density 8.330/km2

Metropolitan area Urban area Metropolis (Greater London) 14,040,000 population 13.491.000 area 2.191 km2 8,382 km2 density 6.1578,788,000 / km2 23 wards 1,675 inh/km2 1,572 km2 population 9.390.000 area 627 km2 5,590 inh/km2 density 14.981 / km2 City 9,000 2,9 km2 3,200 inh/km2

Citydensity 21.000 / km2 642,000 214 km2 3,004 inh/km2

Capital region population 1.191.604 area 161.38 km2 density 7.025 / km2

Sydney Barcelona

Singapore

area 606 km2 Capital area density 16.249 / km2 population 25.514.000 area 11.704 km2 density 969 / km2

Metropolitan area population 2,120,000

Sydney

Capital region population 4.67 million area 3.700 km2 Greater Sydney density 1.200 / km2 population 4.700.000 area 10.574 km2 City density 445 / km2 population 3.710.000 area 892 km2 Urban area density 4.100 / km2 population: 4.241.484 area 2.067 km2 Greater Sydney density 2.052 / km2 population 4.700.000 area 10.574 km2 City density 445 /population km2 208.374 area 25 km2 Urban area density 8.330/km2 population: 4.241.484 area 2.067 km2 density 2.052 / km2

Greater Helsinki population 1.470.552 area 3.698 km2 density 397.7 / km2

Paris

Capital region population 1.231.595 area 672 km2 density 1.800 / km2

Greater Paris Metropolis population 7.068.810 area 814 km2 density 8.700 / km2

City population 642.045 area 214 km2 density 3.004 / km2

City population 2.206.488 area 105 km2 density 21.000 / km2

Vancouver Metro Vancouver population 2.463.431 area 2.883 km2 density 854.6 / km2 City population 631.486 area 115 km2 density 5.493 / km2

City population 2.206.488 area 105 km2 density 21.000 / km2

Greater Tokyo Area population 37.800.000 area 13.500 km2 density 2.800 / km2

Tokyo

London

Greater Tokyo Area population 37.800.000 area 13.500 km2 density 2.800 / km2 area Metropolitan population 14.040.163 Metropolis area 8.382 km2 population 13.491.000 density 1.675 / km2 area 2.191 km2 density 6.157 /London km2 Greater population 8.787.892 23 wards area 1.572 km2 population 9.390.000 density 5.590 / km2 area 627 km2 density 14.981 / km2 City population 9.401 area 2,9 km2 density 3.200 / km2

London

Metropolitan area population 14.040.163 area 8.382 km2 density 1.675 / km2 Greater London population 8.787.892 area 1.572 km2 density 5.590 / km2

Metropolis population 13.491.000 area 2.191 km2 density 6.157 / km2

Paris

Seoul

Greater Paris Metropolis population 7.068.810 area 814 km2 density 8.700 / km2

Capital area population 25.514.000 area 11.704 km2 density 969 / km2

City population 2.206.488 area 105 km2 density 21.000 / km2

Paris

23 wards population 9.390.000 area 627 km2 density 14.981 / km2

City population 9.401 area 2,9 km2 density 3.200 / km2

Special city population 9.838.982 area 606 km2 density 16.249 / km2

sterdam

0 km 10 km

olitan region ion 2.435.220 80 km2 1.520 / km2

rlin

tal region ality ulation 4.67 million ion 851.573 93.700 km2 km2 ity 1.200 / km2 5.135 / km2

ulation 3.710.000 892 km2 ity 4.100 / km2

gapore

e on 5.610.000 km2 7.800 / km2

area on 60.520 km2 3.400 / km2

Brussels

Singapore

City 61,000 18 km2 Amsterdam 3,400 inh/km2 Metropolitan region

Helsinki

Metropolitan area population 2,120,000

Greater Helsinki population 1.470.552 area 3.698 km2 density 397.7 / km2

Capital region population 1.191.604 area 161.38 km2 density 7.025 / km2

Metropolitan area population 2,120,000

Capital region area Metropolitan population 1.191.604 area 161.38 km2 (City-state) density 7.025 / km2 City 5,610,000 population 176.545 area 33 km2 720 km2density 5.400 / km2 7,800 inh/km2

Brussels

Urban area no data

City population 176.545 area 33 km2 density 5.400 / km2

Barcelona Metropolitan area population 5.355.127 area 4.268 km2 density 1.250 / km2

Sydney

Greater Helsinki population 1.470.552 area 3.698 km2 density 397.7 / km2

Metropolitan area Capital region London (Greater Sydney) population 1.231.595 area 672 km2 Metropolitan area density 1.800 / km2 4,700,000 population 14.040.163 area 8.382 km2 City 2 density 1.675 10,574 km/ km2 population 642.045 area 214 km2 Greater London 2 density 3.004 / km2 445 inh/km population 8.787.892 area 1.572 km2 density 5.590 / km2

City population 1.620.809 area 101 km2 density 16.000 / km2

Berlin Sydney Capital region Capital region population 1.231.595 Greater Sydney population Vancouver 4.67 million Berlin area 672 km2

Metropolitan region population 2.435.220 area 2.580 km2 density 1.520 / km2 Municipality population 851.573 area 219 km2 density 5.135 / km2

Urban area 4,241,000 2,067 km 2,052 inh/km

Special city population 9.838.982 area 606 km2 density 16.249 / km2

London Singapore Singapore

0 km 10 km

Berlin

City-state population 5.610.000 area 720 km2 50 km density 7.800 / km2 Central area population 60.520 area 18 km2 density 3.400 / km2

Metropolitan area City-state population 14.040.163 population 5.610.000 area 8.382 km2 area 720 km2 density 1.675 / km2 density 7.800 / km2 Greater London Central area population 8.787.892 population 60.520 area 1.572 km2 area 18 km2 density 5.590 / km2 density 3.400 / km2 City population 9.401 area 2,9 km2 density 3.200 / km2

Capital region population 4.67 million area 3.700 km2 density 1.200 / km2

Barcelona Metropolitan area population 5.355.127 area 4.268 km2 density 1.250 / km2

City population 3.710.000 area 892 km2 density 4.100 / km2

Vancouver

Brussels

Metro Vancouver population 2.463.431 area 2.883 km2 density 854.6 / km2

Metropolitan area population 2,120,000

Metropolitan area Capital region population 1.191.604 2,463,000 area 161.38 km2 density 7.025 / km2 2,883 km2 City 2 population 176.545 854 inh/km area 33 km2 density 5.400 / km2

City 631,000 115 km2 5,493 inh/km2

Sydney Seoul Greater Sydney Barcelona Metropolitan area population 5.355.127 area 4.268 km2 density 1.250 / km2 City population 1.620.809 area 101 km2 density 16.000 / km2

density 969 / km2 Urban area 4.241.484 Specialpopulation: city area 2.067 km2 population 9.838.982 density area 606 km2 2.052 / km2

Paris density 16.249 / km2

Capital region population 1.191.604 area 161.38 km2 density 7.025 / km2

Seoul

City population 208.374 area 25 km2 density 8.330/km2

Singapore

City population 176.545

area 33 km2 Capital area density 5.400 / km2 population 25.514.000 area 11.704 km2 density 969 / km2

City population 2.206.488 area 105 km2 density 21.000 / km2 0 km 10 km

Special city population 9.838.982 area 606 km2 50 km density 16.249 / km2

0 km 10 km

Brussels Metropolitan area population 2,120,000 Capital region

Municipality population 851.573 area 219 km2 density 5.135 / km2

Metropolitan region population 2.435.220 area 2.580 km2 density 1.520 / km2

Urban area population: 4.241.484 area 2.067 km2 density 2.052 / km2

Metropolitan area population 2,120,000

City Greater Paris Metropolis population 208.374 population area7.068.810 25 km2 area 814density km2 8.330/km2 density 8.700 / km2

Sydney

Municipality Greater Sydney population 851.573 population 4.700.000 area 219 km2 area 10.574 km2 density 5.135 / km2 density 445 / km2

Brussels

4.700.000 Capitalpopulation area area 10.574 km2 population 25.514.000 density 445 / km2 area 11.704 km2

Amsterdam

City-state population 5.610.000 area 720 km2 density 7.800 / km2 Central area population 60.520 area 18 km2 density 3.400 / km2

50 km

Metropolitan region population 2.435.220 area 2.580 km2 density 1.520 Greater/ km2 Helsinki

Helsinki Tokyo

Tokyo

Greater Helsinki population 1.470.552 area 3.698 km2 density 397.7 / km2

Greater Tokyo Area Capital region population 37.800.000 population 1.231.595 area 13.500 km2 area 672 km2 density 2.800 / km2 density 1.800 / km2

Urban area no data Metropolis

Capital region population 1.231.595 area 672 km2 density 1.800 / km2

City population 13.491.000 population 642.045 area 2.191 km2 area 214 km2 density 6.157 / km2 density 3.004 / km2 23 wards population 9.390.000 area 627 km2 density 14.981 / km2

City population 642.045 area 214 km2 density 3.004 / km2

Vancouver

population 1.470.552

Greater Tokyo Area area 3.698 km2 Municipality 37.800.000 density 397.7population / km2 population 851.573 area 13.500 km2 area 219 km2 density 2.800 / km2 Capital region density 5.135 / km2 population 1.231.595 area 672 km2Metropolis 13.491.000 density 1.800population / km2 area 2.191 km2 density 6.157 / km2 City population 642.045 area 214 km223 wards 9.390.000 density 3.004population / km2 area 627 km2 density 14.981 / km2

Barcelona Metropolitan area population 5.355.127 area 4.268 km2 density 1.250 / km2 City population 1.620.809 area 101 km2 density 16.000 / km2

Metro Vancouver population 2.463.431 area 2.883 km2 density 854.6 / km2 City population 631.486 area 115 km2 density 5.493 / km2

Barcelona Metropolitan area population 5.355.127 area 4.268 km2 density 1.250 / km2

Singapore

City population 1.620.809 area 101 km2 density 16.000 / km2

Central area population 60.520 area 18 km2 density 3.400 / km2

Helsinki Greater Helsinki population 1.470.552 area 3.698 km2 density 397.7 / km2

Helsinki

Greater Helsinki population 1.470.552 area 3.698 km2 density 397.7 / km2

Amsterdam

City-state population 5.610.000 area 720 km2 density 7.800 / km2

Metropolitan region population 2.435.220 area 2.580 km2 density 1.520 / km2

Capital region population 4.67 million

Metropolitan area population 2,120,000

Metropolitan area Urban area City (Greater Tokyo) 13,491,000 population 176.545 area 33 km2 37,800,000 Paris 2,191 km2density 5.400 / km2 Paris Metropolis 6,157 inh/km2 13,500 km2 Greater population 7.068.810 area 2 814 km2 2,800 inh/kmdensity 8.700 / km2 City 9,390,000 627 km2 14,981 inh/km2

City population 1.620.809 area 101 km2 density 16.000 / km2

Seoul

Vancouver

Capital region population 1.191.604 area 161.38 km2 density 7.025 / km2

City population 631.486 area 115 km2 density 5.493 / km2

Amsterdam

Berlin

Helsinki

Brussels

City population 2.206.488 area 105 km2 density 21.000 / km2

Seoul

Municipality population 851.573 Capital area area 219 km2 population 25.514.000 density 5.135 / km2 area 11.704 km2 density 969 / km2

Tokyo

population 4.700.000 area /3.700 density km2 km2 Metro Vancouver area 10.574 km2 1.800 density 1.200 / km2 Capital region population 2.463.431 density 445 / km2 City area 2.883 km2 population 4.67 million City 642.045 density 854.6 / km2 Urban areapopulation area 3.700 km2 population 3.710.000 area 214 km2 population: 4.241.484 density 1.200 / km2 area /892 km2 density 3.004 km2 City area 2.067 km2 2 4.100 density / km2 population 631.486 density 2.052 / km2 City area 115 km2 population 3.710.000 2 5.493 / km2 density City area 892 km2 population 208.374 density 4.100 / km2 area 25 km2 density 8.330/km2

City City population 9.401 area 2,9 km2 208,000 density 3.200 / km2 25 km2 8,330 inh/km2

Amsterdam

population 2.435.220 area 2.580 km2 density 1.520 / km2

Helsinki

50 km

Sydney Vancouver Metro Vancouver population 2.463.431

Greater Sydney population 4.700.000 area 10.574 km2 density 445 / km2

Authors

Closer collaboration between cities

Pieter Klomp Eric van der Kooij

Credits Plan Amsterdam is published by the City of Amsterdam, giving information about physical planning projects and developments in the city and the metropolitan region of Amsterdam. The magazine appears five times per year, of which two issues are in English. Editorial team Stella Marcé, Edwin Raap,

Alice Driesen, Eric van der Kooij

Design Beukers Scholma, Haarlem Main cover image Marcel Kampman, happykamping Photography see the captions Maps and illustrations City of Amsterdam, unless otherwise stated Translation Frank van Lieshout Lithography and printing OBT Opmeer, The Hague This publication has been prepared with the greatest possible care. The City of Amsterdam cannot, however, accept any liability for the correctness and complete ness of the information it contains. In the event of credits for visual materials being incorrect or if you have any other questions, please contact the editors: planamsterdam@amsterdam.nl or tel. +31(0)20 2551550. A free subscription can be requested by sending an e-mail to: planamsterdam@amsterdam.nl. Volume 24, no. 3, September 2018 This magazine can also be read online: www.amsterdam.nl/planamsterdam

03| 2018

In this age of urbanisation, cities around the world are facing challenges urging them to innovate and collaborate, to become smart, sustainable and balanced cities. How can cities foster new solutions to urban challenges? How can cities learn from each other? In Amsterdam, we believe in an international exchange of ideas and best practices. This is why the department of Planning and Sustainability hosted the conference ‘Up Close & Liveable’ last June during the WeMakeThe. City festival. Professionals in the field of urban development from Barcelona, Berlin, Brussels, Helsinki, London, Paris, Seoul, Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo and Vancouver were invited to discuss the challenges their cities are facing. All these cities show a strong performance in the Global Power City Index (see p.4/5). They have plenty of jobs to offer, as well as cultural amenities and green spaces. But they also have to contend with pollution, poverty, crime and segregation. Some have to cope with rapid growth, whereas others are faced with the effects of an ageing and declining population. Some are increasingly vulnerable to climate change, others are struggling to maintain their economic resilience. But even though the issues they are facing are diverse

and require local solutions, they also have something in common: they all face an increasing complexity, requiring new approaches in urban development. The main questions driving this conference were: how do we cope with all these challenges from the perspective of urban planning and design? How do we create compact, sustainable, green, resilient, and accessible cities? How do we promote mixed, open and inclusive communities? And how can we promote participation and include citizens in the decision making process? In this special edition of Plan Amsterdam we present a summary of the participating cities’ presentations and a short analysis of the different ways they respond to similar challenges, as well as a vision for Amsterdam’s future as a human-scale metropolis. Judging from the positive feedback we received from the conference participants, we think we have got off to a great start, and we hope this edition of our magazine will be further inspiration to continue to learn from each other and make our cities more liveable, loveable and likeable. The editorial team

‘This event was a breath of fresh air allowing diverse cities to share not only their successes but more importantly their challenges and indeed...shortcomings. The honesty and frankness of all cities was an inspiration. (…) At a time where some will try to sow division and regardless of current political events, I can only see a future of closer cooperation between the world’s cities.’ Gwyn Richards, Assistant Director, Department of the Built Environment of London

Plan Amsterdam

Top 10 Cities, Global Power City Index 2017. The Global Power City Index (GPCI) seeks to analyzes the ‘magnetism’ of global cities to attract people, businesses, and other resources. Taking a comprehensive approach, the GPCI uses 70 indicators across 6 functions. In the last decade, top cities such as Tokyo and Amsterdam have maintained their positions, while there has been stronger movement among middleranking cities. Since the GPCI’s inception in 2008, major Asian cities have continued to improve their

03| 2018

rankings, including Hong Kong, Seoul, Beijing, and Shanghai. Map: Mori Memorial Foundation, Institute for Urban Strategies economy research & development cultural interaction liveability environment accessibility

Amsterdam – a human-scale metropolis by Pieter Klomp p.klomp@amsterdam.nl

Amsterdam is currently experiencing a period of strong growth. Rather than through a programme of expansion as in previous periods of growth, this time the City of Amsterdam has opted to absorb the increase in population through densification. This means creating highly urban environments, which are not only essential to sustain the attraction of Amsterdam’s metropolitan area, but also crucial for reducing the city’s ecological footprint. The ultimate challenge for Amsterdam is to find a sustainable way to balance its position as a global city, while at the same time retaining its local character and qualities. In short, to build a human-scale metropolis.

Amsterdam is facing the challenge of prolonged rapid growth in population numbers as well as business and tourism. But it’s not the first time this is happening in the city’s long history. In the 17th century, known as Amsterdam’s Golden Age, the city’s population doubled in size several times within one or two generations, profoundly changing the dynamics of the urban society. At the end of the 19th century a second wave of growth, as rapid and radical as the first, led to further expansion and modernisation of the city – this is sometimes referred to as the city’s Second Golden Age. In both periods there was no overall masterplan guiding new developments; even the crescent shaped canal zone was developed in incremental steps rather than from a preconceived grand design. Before building commenced, literally only the outlines of the future ramparts were drawn. The scope of change was simply too large to

Plan Amsterdam

plan ahead, with too many unforeseeable events to take into account.

Shaping Amsterdam’s growth As Amsterdam’s late mayor Eberhard van der Laan stated a few years ago, we may now have entered a Third Golden Age in the city’s development. So for the third time, we need to address the question of how we are going to meet this challenge. What are the designs and strategies which are best suited to accommodate growth in this modern day and age? In this new century, urban growth offers opportunities to create more inter active, productive and rewarding urban environments. These opportunities arise largely from Amsterdam’s position as a global metropolitan area, which is crucial to the city’s current and future prosperity. As well as these economic and social opportunities, modern

1 The Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam was officially opened in 1885, at the height of the city´s Second Golden Age. The reopening of the Museum in 2013 coincided with a rapid growth of tourism in Amsterdam. Photo: Alphons Nieuwenhuis

urbanity also offers opportunities to promote sustain ability and reduce the city’s ecological footprint. Moreover, with a metropolitan area at and in some parts even below sea level, mitigating climate change impact is even more urgent for Amsterdam, and any opportunity to do so should be welcomed. Therefore, we should not look for growth by further expanding into the landscape. Instead, we should opt for physical densification along with an intensification of social and economic tissues. Also, rather than in

03| 2018

isolation, the resulting intensive urbanity should be regarded as part of a larger and varied metropolitan system. In this way, the contours of Amsterdam’s future emerge – not in the form of a masterplan in the traditional sense, but as a general outline and strategy for the city’s growth. While the unique, UNESCO listed canal zone does not only need to be left intact but also requires a buffer zone for high-rise developments, other parts of the city offer great potential for densifica >

2 Map of Amsterdam (1661). The eastern part of the city had not been built yet. Although the city walls already show the outlines for the eastern extension, there was no detailed masterplan for the canalzone as a whole at the start of the project. Map: Stadsarchief Amsterdam

Structural Vision Amsterdam 2040. Currently, new developments are primarily planned within the existing city boundaries (densification). Map: City of Amsterdam Waterfront live/work mix work/live mix work projects in planning stage or recently completed

Plan Amsterdam

Roll-out of centre live/work mix work/live mix limited qualitative impulse for major streets and squares qualitative impulse for major streets qualitative impulse for squares former naval base qualitative impulse for a city park

Southern flank Zuidas live/work mix work/live mix work

projects in planning stage or recently completed

Zaan Wedge Waterland Diemen Wedge IJmeer Wedge

Metropolitan landscape Amstel Wedge

Amsterdamse Bos Wedge

Gardens of West

Bretten Zone

03| 2018

4 Amsterdam is a metropolis on a human scale â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a world city with a dynamic economy, thriving cultural life and plenty of opportunities, while at the same time every part of the city is in easy reach by bicycle. Impression: Serge van Berkel

5 Increasingly, Amsterdamâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s cyclists are getting stuck in bicycle traffic during rush hours. Photo: Marco Keyzer

Plan Amsterdam

Densification is primarily concentrated along the IJ-banks and the bundle of infrastructure between the pre- and postwar city extensions. High-rise developments might be part of that, clustered around public transport nodes or highlighting specific qualities in the urban landscape. Impression: Louis van Amerongen

‘In this new century, urban growth offers opportunities

to create more interactive, productive and rewarding

urban environments’

tion – especially the zone between the traditional and the modern city. This area is largely characterised by relatively low-density housing, combined with excellent public transport connections. Moreover, redevelopment and densification can also serve to bridge existing socio economic boundaries between the generally successful urban core and the sometimes less successful post-war extensions. At the same time, new urban typologies can be developed, including high-rise developments, to address the huge demand for affordable space as well as the changing needs of a changing urban population. This might result in new types of urban environments, while at the same time maintaining the city’s typical streetscape qualities.

Challenges Along with these densification opportunities come the challenges. How do we combine rapid growth with the lessons learnt during the last crisis, when citizens’ initiatives and new development strategies strengthened specific local community characteristics? How do we retain a mixed urban environment, accommodating both high-end office space and production facilities, so all residents have the opportunity to find a suitable job close-by? How do we finance as well as physically accommodate the rising mobility needs resulting from densification and intensification? What new mobility concepts can we develop to offer solutions? What guidelines and incentives are required to speed up the sustainability impact of densification? Where and how can we benefit from economies of scale? How do we strengthen networks of green space and water, not just to help mitigate the local effects of climate change, but also to accommodate the growing demand for leisure space among the city’s residents?

accommodate further growth. Also, despite cycling’s multiple benefits, 60% of (commuting) traffic between city and region is still covered by car, which means the need for an integral mobility approach has not diminished.

A world city on a human scale What then is the best overall strategic outlook? On the one hand Amsterdam is regarded as a world city with high impact in the global economy, featuring among giants like London, New York and Tokyo. The importance of this ranking should not be underestimated. General expectations are that future innovation and cutting edge economic development will concentrate around maybe two dozen metropolitan areas worldwide. Exchanging ideas and experiences with international peer cities will be extremely valuable in addressing the resulting challenges. On the other hand Amsterdam also features high in rankings of liveability, which are often dominated by middle-sized cities like Vancouver and Vienna. Here, local qualities play a decisive role, and should be recognised in the specific urban strategies. It is this double characteristic which might be Amsterdam’s biggest asset to build upon. Amsterdam is a world city with a dynamic economy, a thriving cultural life and plenty of opportunities, while at the same time it’s a relatively small city, where distances within the city can still be expressed in bicycle-minutes. In short, a city that has the best of both worlds: a human-scale metropolis.

These challenges also spawn opportunities. In this sense, the role of the bicycle might be considered to have symbolic significance. As a sustainable, affordable, healthy, interactive and space-efficient mode of transport, it provides a solution to a wide range of problems. With a share in the modal split of around 60% in Amsterdam’s central area and 40% citywide, the impact of cycling is substantial. Yet its very success creates new challenges, as bicycle jams in certain neighbourhoods show the current outlays of streets are insufficient to

03| 2018

London Gwyn Richards Assistant Director in the Department of the Built Environment

Planning and urban design for uncertain futures

1 Arun Jain: “The complexity of our world is growing, and our struggle to comprehend it promises to get only tougher as our operations become more data heavy.” Photo: Tomizak, Flickr

Arun Jain Portrait photos: Brandeisfotografie

Urban Designer and Strategist

Contemporary urban challenges and solutions

At the conference ‘Up Close & Liveable’, urban development professionals from all over the world discussed their ideas on urban challenges and city making. They shared their thoughts about strategies and solutions, taking into account the specific contexts of their cities. Before we present the lessons Amsterdam has learnt from these discussions, in this edition’s third and final article, let us take a closer look at Tokyo, Sydney, Singapore, Vancouver, Helsinki, London, Brussels, Berlin, Seoul, Paris and Barcelona.

Urban designer and strategist Arun Jain kicks off with a plea for developing decision support tools to be able to address complex planning issues more effectively. “The complexity of our world is growing, and our struggle to comprehend it promises to get only tougher as our operations become more data heavy. This is further amplified by the demand for faster decision making and results. In our rush to respond, it is easy to oversimplify or overlook key aspects of what makes our urban life complex, rich and vibrant. In doing so we lose much of the nuance that is important to solve problems in such settings. Traditional planning (urban and regional) synthesizes many related professional disci plines including urban design, architecture, landscape architecture, environmental science, real estate development, urban economics, management, and social theory. There is growing recognition that the profession also needs to embrace an even wider spectrum of complex systems which include soft (social) and hard (physical) infrastructure, but also involve technology, cognition and behaviour. In my view, an understanding of systems thinking and complexity would help as well. To develop good decision support tools, we need to not only understand the larger context in which they apply, but also the role of relevant institutional structures and the way decisions are administered in them.

Plan Amsterdam

We must combine all this with a good under standing of the built and natural environment in which interventions are needed. If successful, such tools help us make better decisions on how to cope with uncertain futures. Urban development, cities and the world would benefit immensely from such efforts.”

Tokyo Hiroo Ichikawa

1 Population changes in urban and rural areas in Japan. During the last decades the urban areas have become increasingly popular. . Source: National Institute of Population and Social Security Research in Japan

Professor Emeritus at Meiji University and Executive Director of the Mori Memorial Foundation

Tokyo has dealt with destruction and rebirth several times. Throughout its history, the city has suffered numerous natural disasters, including earthquakes, fires and flooding. But preparing the city and its inhabitants for natural disasters is not the city’s only concern.

2 Despite an expected stagnation of population growth, construction is booming in Japan. Building activities are for the larger part centred on high rise developments around busy transport intersections such as the Toranomon area in Tokyo, pictured here. Photo: Mori Building

“Tokyo’s challenge for the future is twofold: tackling a declining and aging population, and ensuring a prosperous, sustainable future for the next generation. Tokyo is currently undergoing a large-scale redevelopment in its primary central areas, with the construction of new metro stations, towers and mixed-used developments. This trend is also in line with the overall return of population and activity to the city’s central districts. Adding to this renewal are the ongoing preparations for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, which will boost city infrastructure and tourist facilities. Despite these positive and forward thinking conditions, there are still challenges remaining. Chief among these is an ageing and declining population, and the effects this will have on society. Ensuring sustainability and an improved environment within the urban region is also a concern.”

03| 2018

Sydney Natalie Camilleri Director of Strategic Planning Projects, the Greater Sydney Commission

1a Vulnerability to heatwaves in Greater Sydney’s three cities: Western Parkland City, Central River City and Eastern Harbour City. Central River City in particular is vulnerable to extreme climate conditions. 1b Tree canopy cover. The white areas (low tree canopy cover) are especially vulnerable to heatwaves. Maps: Greater Sydney Commission

For the people of Sydney, climate change is an everyday reality, especially in the poorer parts of the city. This is where temperatures are highest and floods most frequent when the rains finally come. This is why Sydney has embarked on a programme of greening the city, improving water management and spreading economic opportunities. “Greater Sydney is growing rapidly from the coast to the mountains. The Harbour CBD is Australia’s global gateway and financial capital. There is an imbalance between those who have quick and easy access to the Harbour CBD and those who have not. Commuting times are growing and there is increasing pressure on public transport, land values and housing affordability. Our aim is to transform Greater Sydney from one city on its eastern edge into a metropolis of three cities, each with supporting centres. We want all Greater Sydney residents to have quick and easy access to jobs, infrastructure and essential services. The sustainability of Greater Sydney’s environment is intrinsic to the region’s liveability and productivity. Urban tree canopy, green ground cover, bushland, waterways, parks and open spaces will be valued for their economic, social and environmental benefits, and will help to establish the Greater Sydney Green Grid. This Grid is a network of walking and cycling links that will become increasingly important in daily travel arrangements, improving sustainability and the wellbeing of residents.”

2 The Greater Sydney Region Plan is built on a vision of three liveable, productive and sustainable cities where most residents live within 30 minutes of jobs, education and health facilities, services and great places. Map: Greater Sydney Commission

Plan Amsterdam

Singapore Adele Tan Group Director, Strategic Planning, Urban Redevelopment Authority

Singapore is a small island of just 720 square km. It is not just a city, but also a nation. Therefore, unlike many cities, Singapore needs to cater to both the needs of a city and a country. Just like Sydney, Singapore is working hard to heat proof the city, introducing top down planning measures to realise highrises and green spaces.

1 In Singapore, nature trails are another way to incorporate green corridors into the urban fabric, and link up the city’s natural areas, using planting along the lanes. Nature trails are designed to replicate the natural structure of forests, with an undergrowth layer (shrubs which provide nectar for butterflies and birds), understorey layer (smaller fruit bearing trees), mid-canopy layer (trees along lanes), and canopy layer (rainforest trees which provide food and nesting sites for birds such as eagles). Map and photo: National Parks Board, Singapore

2 Singapore, a city in a garden Photo: National Parks Board, Singapore

1a 1b

“Our challenge is to plan in such a way so that we can continue to be a global and connected city, with a high quality and sustainable living environment for our people, even as our population grows and ages. Key planning strategies are: – Integrating land use and transport planning – Bringing jobs closer to homes to reduce travel time to work and peak-hour congestion – Building liveable townships – ensuring that daily amenities and recreational spaces are within easy reach of residents – Optimising the use of land – building high-density districts, utilising under ground space and co-locating facilities On top of this, we aim to let our garden city grow into ‘a city in a garden’. Despite urban development, green cover is 15% higher than in the 1980s. We will need to find ways to maintain the city’s greenery in order to cater to biodiversity and recreational needs, provide shade and manage the city’s temperature. 2

03| 2018

Vancouver Gil Kelley General Manager of Planning, Urban Design and Sustainability

1 Although Vancouver scores high on liveability, the city still has challenges, such as creating a less spectacular form of densification: a greater variety of housing types in residential neighbourhoods, the so-called missing ‘middle density’. Photo: Tourism Vancouver/ Vancouver Convention Centre, Kristopher Grunert

2 Vancouver’s completions of space in Downtown, 1981-2005. Although the city was successful in attracting residential development, office and work space was running out by the mid 2000s. Source: City of Vancouver Million square footage: retail/commercial office hotel residential

Vancouver’s strategy has not only delivered an iconic skyline, but also an international reputation as the world’s greenest city and a mecca of green enterprise. The downside of this achievement is that the city has become prone to property speculation and is in danger of becoming unaffordable. “Vancouver has proven that a city can grow and prosper and still become a green capital – a global leader in addressing climate change. The city has implemented the greenest building code in North America. It is rising to meet the green transportation challenge by creating compact neighbourhoods with higher density to provide easy access to work, shopping and recreation. The City has shifted investment to walking, cycling and transit infrastructure instead of building new roads. In its short life Vancouver has created an iconic skyline, a vibrant shoreline, a mixed-use city centre and an international reputation for sustainable development. Now, Vancouver faces a new set of challenges involving growth and densification, affordability, mobility, sociable public spaces, diversification of its economy, sea level rise and climate change. Resolving these issues may require preparing a first-ever Citywide Plan for Vancouver.”

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

1981–1985

Plan Amsterdam

1986–1990

1991–1995

1996–2000

2001–2005

Helsinki

Christina Suomi

1 Helsinki is regenerating the city’s older estates with infill development. In total, these regeneration projects account for 33% of all new development in the city. Map: City of Helsinki

2 Helsinki’s metro and tram network is expanding. Two new cross-town high-speed trams will connect the eastern and western parts of the city. The outer suburban highways will be modified into boulevards. Impression: 3D Render

Head of the Spatial Planning Unit, Urban Environment Division and Architect at the City of Helsinki

Helsinki aims to strengthen its urban identity by extending the city centre and creating a ‘Network City’. Investments in infrastructure guide the development of opportunity areas. ”Helsinki’s Vision 2050 envisages a compact city-regional structure, a climate neutral network city with a high quality metro, tram and rail system; a city which is socially and spatially cohesive and enjoys a world class Nordic welfare system with low levels of inequality and segregation, and a strong emphasis on public involvement. As nearly 80% of the city’s land is in public ownership, the city is the ‘driver of change’. This special relationship between land practices and spatial planning is a key element in Helsinki’s fast growth. The city has created 15 new development areas and cooperates inten sively in partnership with the private sector. This reduces risk and speculation. Also, spatial planning and transport planning are integrated. This ensures that when large new development areas are built, the metro, rail and tram networks are connected to these areas. The metro and tram networks are expanded with two new transversal cross-town highspeed tram lines connecting East and West. The outer suburban highways will be changed into boulevards. The city aims to create ‘car-free’ quarters. Moreover, the City Council has agreed to make Helsinki carbon neutral by 2035.”

03| 2018

London Gwyn Richards

1 In the coming years, London’s building efforts will include high-rise initiatives in the city centre, with the help of a 3-Dimensional growth capacity model. Model: City of London / GMJ

Assistant Director, Department of the Built Environment

The City of London has to manage rapid growth and increased pressures on infrastructure and public realm. In the coming years, building efforts will include many high-rise initiatives in the city centre. ”One of the main goals is to ensure that the Square Mile is accessible to all, and an easy, attractive and healthy place to work, live, learn and visit. The City is keen to adopt a more proactive planning role rather than a reactive approach to individual development proposals. The strategy involves 3-Dimensional growth capacity modelling, microclimatic city modelling and pedestrian modelling. Tall buildings polarize opinions in London and their presence in the skyline is viewed with unease by many, especially as most are exclusively high-end residential or corporate buildings. Incorporating upper level free viewing galleries for the public ensures that these tall buildings become public assets, delivering a unique new public realm for all. The strategy is intended to transform the way the public regard new tall buildings and major developments.”

Plan Amsterdam

2 Eight free public viewing galleries have already been negotiated on the City of London’s tall buildings and major developments. More viewing galleries are being planned. The public will have a stake in the buildings and they will be viewed as a public asset for all with a sense of ownership. Photo: City of London / GMJ

Brussels Kristiaan Borret

1 Brussel’s Canal Zone was once dominated by bustling industrial and commercial activity. These activities of yore will be reinvented and redefined to create new workplaces and activity clusters. Photo: City of Brussels

3 When small-scale production is encouraged, it can blend in as an integral part of the urban fabric and contribute to the realisation of a truly mixed city. Photo: Bas Bogaerts/Architecture Workroom Brussels

City Architect – Maître Architecte

2 The Brussels Capital Region’s strategic development zones 2015-2025, including the Canal Zone. Kaart: Bouwmeester Maitre Architecte Brussels

The cityscape of Brussels is fragmented and varied, and more diverse than ever before. In a way, Brussels could be seen as a laboratory for the future condition of many European cities, which are also becoming increasingly diverse. “In terms of urban planning, the major issue in Brussels today is the development of a coherent city-wide programme, allowing us to tackle major challenges at the level of the Brussels Capital Region, rather than the city’s individual municipalities. This is why the Canal Plan is of great significance. Cutting right across the city, the Canal Area is Brussels’ major strategic urban development site. The Canal Plan should respond to the need for new housing and amenities, and transform the Canal from a barrier of separation into an urban manifestation of connectivity. The future city is a productive city. Great effort has been made to make the city attractive again for living, shopping and leisure. But developments implemented under the heading of ‘the urban mix’ are less mixed than we believe them to be. We should encourage small-scale production in the city, so it can blend in as an integral part of the urban fabric and contribute to the realisation of a truly mixed city.”

03| 2018

Berlin Manfred Kühne Head of the department of Urban Planning and Projects

1 The map shows the areas with opportunities for transformation. Map: Urban Catalyst GmbH, Berlin und Visuelle Kommunikation Tom Unverzagt, Leipzig für Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Wohnen, Berlin,

2015 Berlin Strategy Transformation Areas - 17 March 2016 Updated Berlin Strategy Transformation Areas Boost Areas City districts with local town centre Transformation areas’ original boundaries

Building Development Areas in the Brandenburg Region New housing development sites in Berlin Future office locations in Berlin Opportunity Areas for business parks > 12 acres

Berlin’s strategy comprises eight focal points

addressing the major challenges that the city will be facing in terms of sustainable development between now and 2030. Source: City of Berlin

Berlin’s key challenges are to provide sufficient and affordable housing, to become climate neutral by 2050, to enable sustainable and barrier free mobility and to improve competitiveness and economic development. The participation of the urban citizens plays a crucial role in these developments. “A century of disruption shaped Berlin as an urban laboratory. The city is now trying to balance its drivers of urban development: a civil society which is deeply rooted in the social movements springing from the cultural revolution of 1968 in West Berlin and the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 in East Berlin; a local economy which has been completely reshaped from scratch by start-up companies; and a public sector which urgently needs more empowerment. The Berlin Strategy (2014) was developed in participation with experts, citizens, politicians and administrators. It describes the direction of development for 10 transformation areas. These are regions that are undergoing many changes and need intervention from the public sector. The creation of new guidelines for public participation is in progress. The goal is to create transparency, accountability and a clear structure for the implementation of participation processes.”

Strengtening the economy with smart knowledge

Improving accessibility and city-friendly mobility

Unleashing strengths through creativity

Shaping the future together

City and nature growing together

Safeguarding employment through education and skills

Laying the groundwork for a climate-friendly city

Plan Amsterdam

Reinforcing neighbourhood diversity

Seoul Tae Hyung Kim Director-General of the Urban Space Improvement Bureau

1 Community centre in Seoul, before (a) and after (b) reconstruction. Public architects redesigned and constructed the public space in collaboration with local residents. Between 2015 and 2019, 402 community centres will be renovated. The public architects act as community designers. In this way, small collective projects can have a big impact on the transformation of the urban space and local residents’ daily lives. Photo’s: Kim Wonjin

2 Seoul experienced very rapid urbanisation in the last half century. Photo: Francisco Anzola, Flickr

Seoul experienced very rapid urbanisation in the last half century. In recent years, the city has entered into an era of low growth. The population is aging rapidly and will start to decline after 2030. “The rapid industrialisation and urbanisation of the Republic of Korea resulted in low life satisfaction among Koreans, and weakened local communities. The economic development has led to growing welfare demands and increasing individualism. Consequently, the existing urban development and management methods used in the past growth period have many side-effects and limitations. To help overcome the limitations of previous urban master plans, the Seoul 2030 Plan – A Friendly City Based on Mutual Communication & Care – has placed priority on ‘people’. The most notable difference between the Seoul 2030 Plan and the previous urban master plans is that the vision and action plans for Seoul 2030 are developed and proposed by citizens, experts and other interested stakeholders. Small-scale urban planning could play a big role in the transformation of the urban space for citizens’ daily lives. The City of Seoul’s architects redesigned and constructed the public space together with residents. The architects have become community designers, focusing on acupuncture points that will reinvigorate the city. In this way, small collective projects together can make a big impact.”

03| 2018

Paris Dominique Alba Director General of APUR (Paris Urbanism Agency)

The city centre of Paris is one of the most densely populated areas in Europe. Easing pressure on public spaces, and promoting heat proofing and air quality are among the main challenges facing the French capital.

The air quality in the Paris metropolitan area, also known as the Ile-de-France, measured as the concentration of nitrogen dioxide (NO2 in µg/m3). The highest concentration was measured in the city centre. Map: Air Parif

”A vision for Paris: a city that relies on its residents, adapts its infrastructure and mobilises its collective intelligence and the territories that surround it to turn the challenges of the century into opportunities, building integrated solutions in which all parties are involved – public and private actors, citizens organisations, and residents – and which have a special focus on the interests of children. Paris is facing many challenges in urban development, including: – Changing planning tools and attitudes – Changes in partnerships and methods to reshape public spaces – Welcoming the more vulnerable people, creating attractive environments for them The main objective in the Paris 2050 Vision is to improve the city’s air quality. The City of Paris wants to re-invent the way it generates and uses energy. Also, Paris is focusing on the following priorities: providing ongoing services, responding to the needs of Parisians, and creating an equitable, inclusive, appealing, forward-looking city.”

Plan Amsterdam

2 Overview of the construction site on the Place du Panthéon, an experimental space created by feminist collective Les Monumentales. Paris is re-designing the city’s major squares by means of a place making process involving local stakeholders in dialogue with professionals. Photo: Apur – David Boureau

Barcelona Albert Arias Sans

1 Tourist flows using Twitter in Barcelona. These maps give new insights into tourists’ mobility patterns. Maps: Barcelona City Council

2 Tourism must not be looked upon as a foreign activity - it’s not ‘out there’ - but as part of the city’s intrinsic dynamics, as part of its daily life. Illustration: Barcelona City Council

Director of the Strategic Plan for Tourism 2020

Barcelona is experiencing high levels of pollution, a housing market under pressure, lack of green areas, the effects of climate change and a rapid growth of tourism. “Quality of life means, among other strategies, reclaiming streets for the people. This is why Barcelona has started to develop strategies on sustainable mobility which foster a walkable and cycle-friendly city. Quality of life also means a greener city, where everyone can enjoy coming into contact with natural elements close to home. Urban green spaces bring ecological values that are essential for a city. The 2020 Strategic Tourism Plan aims to break the dichotomous positions that clearly separate tourism from the rest of the city. Far from being an outside phenomenon, tourism transforms the city and, at the same time, the city shapes tourism’s possibilities. Tourism must not be looked upon as a foreign activity – it’s not ‘out there’ - but as an integral part of the city’s day-to-day activities and intrinsic dynamics, as part of the city’s daily life. Accordingly, tourists should not be treated solely as an economic sector but should be managed through an integrated urban approach in order to guarantee the social return of the activities while diminishing the negative impacts for the city and its residents.”

Morning

Evening

Night

03| 2018

1 GPOP –Greater Parramatta and the Olympic Peninsula in Sydney – can become a successful inner-urban hub. Sydney is enforcing green structures and densification, although high-rise developments are still a delicate subject among the public. Photo: Greater Sydney Commission

Lessons and observations by Eric van der Kooij e.van.der.kooij@amsterdam.nl

Across the world, a new brand of successful modern cities has emerged, with very similar success factors. Whether they are in Asia, the US, Australia or Europe, these cities tend to thrive not only economically, but also in terms of their creativity, cultural life, sustainability and liveability. At the same time, they also share the flip side of this success, facing issues such as increased congestion, exploding tourism and inflated house prices. So how should these successful cities deal with their shared challenges? How can they learn from each other, to increase awareness of their own context and use the right tools to tackle these issues?

This was the central question at the Up Close & Liveable conference last June in Amsterdam, where twelve of these successful global cities gathered to discuss their issues and exchange their views and experiences in order to learn from each other and increase awareness of their own context. In order to lend more focus to the discussion, the participating cities were organised in pairs around specific topical issues, highlighting the existing differences between each pair and the different ways in which they approach these issues.

Complexity and Competition In the Complexity and Competition session, the discussion focused on how to deal with increased complexity and global competition. Dealing with complexity and uncertain futures We learned that in our struggle to respond and adapt to changes and to create balance, we should avoid addressing the increased complexity by over-simplifying our analysis of the drivers of change and disruption which cause this complexity. This is especially difficult

Plan Amsterdam

when cities are confronted with growing uncertainties and an increased sense of urgency when dealing with urban development. Arun Jain, who is an urban strategist from Seattle, brought to the table many insights into the way cities have to deal with growing complexity. With so many public and private stakeholders, local government should involve them in the city’s planning and urban development in a transparent way. They should also make an extra effort to share information about the city’s urban dynamics in a comprehensible manner. At the same time, public government is never a straight forward affair, and different interests have to be negotiated in a democratic setting. This is why our best option is to focus on ‘Decision Support Tools’ to create a shared understanding, setting internal priorities and fostering external consensus. These tools need to be behaviour based and fit in with the city’s urban and spatial frameworks. Jain advised cities to make strong choices, keep their focus on designing and reinforcing robust structures and stick to densification, even during an economic crisis.

Competition Prof. Dr. Ichikawa from the Mori Memorial Foundation explained how the Global Power City Index (GPCI , see p.4/5) uses 70 indicators to rank urban regions. He stated that the inner city comparisons can now be added to the regional rankings. From this index, cities can more easily learn what their strong and weak points are, allowing them to design better urban and economic strategies. Some cities even fall victim to their own success, like Vancouver having become the most liveable but least affordable city in North America. While Amsterdam ranks a credible 7th on the GPCI, scoring particularly well on liveability, Tokyo, Professor Ichikawa’s home base, is in 3rd place. Despite an imminent decline in population, Tokyo is investing in high-rise developments around busy transport intersections. With Tokyo hosting the Olympic Games in 2020, the city is using this global event as a catalyst to create an

03| 2018

economic boost and make the transformation to a ‘hydrogen economy’. Ichikawa advised Amsterdam to use the Floriade World Expo in 2022 as a lever for extra investment in infrastructure and technology, in order to bolster the Amsterdam Metropolitan Region.

Resilience and Sustainability This session focused on Singapore and Sydney, and the question how we should keep our cities green, liveable and compact. Whereas Sydney is facing a serious climate challenge with regard to its overheated inner city, Singapore’s garden city strategy has provided us with groundbreaking concepts for multi-layered green spaces and structures. Sydney is one of the fastest growing global cities in the world. Its population is expected to grow from 4.7 million people in 2016 to 6 million people by 2036 >

and 8 million by 2056. This causes tremendous pressure on the housing market, transport system and public space. As a result of climate change, increases in land surface temperatures during heatwaves result in dramatic differences in temperature between different urban areas, running as high as 20 degrees Celsius and more. This spatial segregation reflects the existing social segregation between rich and poor areas. Guided by the principles of landscape-led urbanism, the city is creating a system of urban parks and green spaces to reduce temperatures and protect the city from flooding in the rain season. While the city aims to create 30 minute cities within the Greater Sydney Metropolitan Area, high-rise densification is a delicate subject in public debate. In Singapore, a very compact and densely populated city with an ageing population, there was no discussion about building high-rise developments; this decision was taken top-down by the government â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the only thing that can be discussed is the design of these developments. Throughout Singaporeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s planning history, sustainability and the planning and quality of green spaces have always gone in hand in hand with the ambition to create a compact city. An ecological system

Plan Amsterdam

of parks and park connectors allows people in the city access to public green spaces within walking distance. But the city is challenging developers to make buildings greener and more sustainable as well. Even though the city is becoming more compact and densely built, the local government managed to increase the size of its green areas by 15% within one generation.

Densification and Affordability In this session, two cities with contrasting traditions presented different tools to handle pressure on the urban environment. Vancouver only owns 4% of its land as a result of an old Anglo-Saxon tradition, whereas Helsinki (just like Amsterdam) owns 90% of its land and has a long tradition of city planning. Vancouver has few or no tools to control its social housing market, and urban planning is negotiated between developers and the city council. Struggling with the flip side of its recent success in densifying the city centre (which has made housing unaffordable for many people), Vancouverâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s main challenge is to make housing more affordable again. The new Housing Strategy sets out to limit speculative developments, promote development of rental housing in new areas and densify existing

2 Vancouver has become the most liveable but least affordable city in Northern America. Photo: Tourism Vancouver/ Barbershop Films

3 Artist impression of a high-rise development planned for 2030 in the Central-Pasila area, Helsinki. Helsinki has only recently made the transition to developing more high-rise buildings. Artist impression: 3d Render Oy. Copyright City of Helsinki

4 London’s Square Mile wlll be further densified in the coming years, mainly with new office space. Instead of mixed-use developments for working and living, the focus is on the creation of public viewing galleries on top of tall buildings and management of the area’s micro-climate (wind and solar) and pedestrian flows. Photo: City of London / GMJ

low-rise areas with medium-rise buildings. Without land ownership and without a master plan, the means to realise these ambitions are limited. Place-making and public dialogue are used to involve citizens in city planning. The city is now in desperate need of a strategic plan to enable densification in more rural areas. Unlike Vancouver, Helsinki is in a position to support its urban strategies with infrastructural investments. This means Helsinki can expand its public transport network to support densification around infra knots and the transformation of major highways into boulevards. Helsinki’s urban quality is a driver of change for the whole country. The city’s compact city strategy has produced high-density and high-rise buildings on strategic points. The quality of the architecture is enhanced by running open competitions. Although Helsinki and Amsterdam appear to have a lot in common, there is one major difference: Helsinki’s interests correspond with national interests, and public transport investments serve as a key driver of urbanisation.

Productivity and Inclusiveness London’s Square Mile was set off against Brussels’ Canal zone in a discussion about modelling urban

03| 2018

designs to fit contemporary economic activities while at the same time improving accessibility, usability and attractiveness for local residents. Both cities cope with strong market driven development and reactive strategies, but the scope is different. London is expecting more radical changes to the Square Mile’s skyline, building even more office space where there is already extreme pressure on the public space and the public transport network. It forces the City to impose new rules on programming alternative public spaces on top of buildings, such as public roof gardens and schools. This measure was taken to compensate for the serious lack of quality public space at ground level. It’s a trade-off which would have been unthinkable in the past. Designs of urban spaces and buildings are regulated by height restrictions and monumental view corridors as well as measurements and models of wind, noise, sun and traffic flows. In this part of the city, office space and related public functions dominate public and social life (after working hours), so much so that mixing with housing is actually not recommended, to avoid conflicts. A new social under standing seems to be emerging: the city centre can only be everyone’s public place if it’s no one’s private place. >

Plan Amsterdam

5 In Berlin, the local residents were invited to help design the public programme for the Molkenmarkt in the city centre. One of the requirements they came up with, was for all ground areas to be open to the public. Photo: Dirk Laubner for Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Wohnen, Berlin, 2008

6 The BerlinStrategy was developed in a participation process that involved relevant stakeholders: experts, citizens, politicians, and administrators. Photo: City of Berlin

The Canal Zone in Brussels is undergoing almost the opposite transition. Here, the challenge is to redevelop a formal industrial zone into an area to live and work for everyone, stretching into the heart of the city. The City Architect’s office (‘Stadsbouwmeester’) is facilitating designers to intervene in the planning process. Through ‘research by design’ they aim to explore the possibilities of integrating all kinds of productive economic activities – front end and back end - into the city’s existing and future fabric. In this way flexible typologies as well as specific urban forms have been developed, showing that it’s possible for different functions to co-exist. What’s more, these designs also demonstrate that unconventional social-economic ambitions can be turned into attractive place-making interventions. In both Brussels and Amsterdam the role of urban design as a guiding principle for densification and mixed use developments is responsive and flexible rather than fixed and absolute.

Public involvement in City Making In many ways, Seoul and Berlin are very different cities with very different histories and traditions, especially in terms of public participation. Seoul has a history of rapid development and population decline, and no tradition of public participation, whereas Berlin faces rapid growth and has a long tradition of self-organising citizen groups. In Seoul there is no public debate about major building developments. As in Singapore, people are simply informed of any plans. They have no opportunity to influence the decision process. On a more local and small-scale level, they are implementing a new urban policy strategy, which focuses on the role of public spaces and buildings within neighbourhood communities. The aim of this strategy is to activate the city’s so-called acupuncture points. In Seoul’s traditional ‘dong’ neigh bourhoods (small neighbourhoods sharing the same well), a system of community service centre projects is being restored. Underused buildings and public spaces are revitalised with architectural interventions and cultural programmes. The public sector, entrepreneurs and local residents are involved through a ‘contract of good faith’.

03| 2018

7 Seoul is pursuing a strategy of activating small public communities and public spaces within a 400 metre radius of so-called acupuncture points. To give these communities a new boost, existing buildings are renovated and the public space is revitalised. Map: John Hong, Seoul National University

Berlin is overwhelmed by its success. The city has a long tradition of grassroots societies with limited budgets but plenty of plans and time on their hands. A concept they call ‘co-ignorance’ allows creative communities to operate as non-profit developers. This has changed over the last decade as Berlin has been facing rapid growth, which has attracted vast investments and increased pressure on the housing market and the public space. In the ‘balance of powers’, these civil community groups are demanding influence in the programming of the city. Despite its efforts to promote participation, the public sector is not trusted, while the private sector triggers new developments in the city. So far, this newfangled socialism has produced a number of high-rise towers for teachers and the House of One, a church which was built to accommodate three different religions. At the same time, new developments are also adding a fresh new spirit into the mix, with new investors and private initiatives moving into areas which are traditionally dominated by social housing and an influential ‘squatter’ scene. A spirit that also leads to new tensions.

Collective intelligence and integrated solutions During this session, Paris and Barcelona focused on managing the pressure on the city centre and the strategies for public spaces. The city centre of Paris is one of the most densely populated areas in Europe. This has led to increased pressure on the public space, an urgent need to ease urban heating, cut back air pollution and improve sustainability in general. In Barcelona, urban pressure is mainly due to overcrowding caused by the large increase in tourism. In both cities new forms of co-ownership involving citizens and other stakeholders in the planning process are high on the agenda. Paris tends to focus its strategy on three types of parti cipation. The first is to challenge developers to devise sustainable and inclusive solutions as part of ‘Reinventing Paris’. The second is to re-design the city’s major squares by means of a place-making process involving local stakeholders. The third is to involve the homeless in social programmes in the banlieus, in order to encourage new ways of participation and support the temporary programming of neighbourhoods. >

Like Amsterdam, Barcelona is confronted with the flip side of its success: overcrowding and pressure on public space and transport. Photo: Francesc Gonzáles, Flickr

‘Hotel-in-a garden’ Parkroyal on Pickering, Singapore. Throughout Singapore’s planning history, sustainability and the planning and quality of green spaces have always gone hand in hand with the ambition to create a compact city. Photo: Finbarr Fallon

In Barcelona overcrowding as a result of tourism does not only affect the affordability of housing in the city (mainly on account of new shared rental initiatives such as Airbnb), it has also increased pressure on the public space and public transport, with tourists accounting for 35% of public transport use. These issues have become highly politicised and have led to heated debates around the question ‘who owns the city?’ Like Amsterdam, Barcelona is confronted with the flip side of its success. Barcelona’s response has been to ask tourists and visitors to be considerate of the local residents. The city also encourages entrepreneurs who profit from the city’s tourism to take their responsibility.

What are the other main characteristics that remain? Density Today, densification is not a choice, but the only option to manage growth and pressure in our cities. And with it come new mechanisms of control. In order to transform (Canal Zone Brussels), design (London, Helsinki), mix and programme new developments, we need new tools, tactics and ways to engage (London’s public viewing galleries). In addition, we need strategies that enable the market to introduce integral and sustainable solutions (Singapore, Paris), whether or not led by strong govern mental initiatives (Helsinki’s boulevards). Densification requires an integral approach, an overall long-term strategy and a hands-on mentality in urban projects and developments (the Anglo Saxon way of planning through negotiation versus the community driven and self-managing urban development in Europe’s Nordic cities). Moreover, densification calls for a vision that transcends the (inner) city, also involving the larger metropolitan area (Tokyo megalopolis – Greater Sydney - Grand Paris). Resilience and sustainability It is generally accepted that densification and transformation should go hand in hand with a green and sustainable approach (Vancouver - Green City; Singapore – City in a Garden and Urban and Skyrise Greening Scheme; Sydney – Landscape Led Urbanism; Helsinki – Carbon Neutral in 2040). In Tokyo, the question is not why, but how and how soon the Hydrogen Olympics 2020 can be implemented. Nevertheless,

Plan Amsterdam

10 Tokyo’s first hydrogen fueling station was built at Tokyo’s Shiba Park in the city centre. The metropolitan government plans to have 35 such stations in operation by 2020. By 2025 it aims to have 80 hydrogen stations in operation and 100,000 fuel cell cars on the roads.

Photo: Iwatani Corporation

there are still many obstacles to overcome to realise this energy transition, not least changing the existing infrastructure. Moreover, cities also need to mitigate the effects of climate change, such as urban heating and flooding, by introducing green solutions in buildings, greening public spaces and realising more green structures. A good example is the re-naturalisation of concrete drains in Singapore, Tokyo and Seoul. The role of public spaces and public buildings In order to ease the increased pressures on public spaces we need to develop new insights into their use. This means we need to find new answers to the question whose city we are making. These pressures challenge us to address safety issues caused by overcrowding (Barcelona City Rhythms) and raise the question of ownership and identity (Barcelona - getting businesses in the leisure and catering industry to help control the tourism flows; Berlin – Tempelhof; Paris - new squares; London - public viewing galleries). These pressures demand that we deal with the city’s mobility and acces sibility issues, urging the need for solid and integrated public transport systems (Helsinki’s boulevards), car-free zones, congestion charge schemes and new logistic concepts. These pressures also challenge us to consider new forms of design, such as small-scale architectural interventions (Seoul – acupuncture points in de city), new types of buildings (Berlin’s House of Teachers and House of One) or more integrated solutions like in Paris (Place de la République and other major squares), where improving the quality of public spaces now takes precedence over traffic flows. All these considerations bring to the fore the importance of integrated urban plans and urban designs which take into account the urban context of the city as a whole and go beyond object driven developments. New recipes for democratic involvement The presentations made clear to us that the challenge in urban development and shaping our future cities is to find new democratic principles that help us to balance societal demands with urban pressures such as densification and transformation. Whether we call it a Just City (Tony Martin, Chicago) which includes all the different social and cultural groups in the city, a Happy City (Abu Dhabi), as presented >

03| 2018

11 For many cities, transformation of existing urban areas is the main challenge when managing growth. Source: City of Vancouver

12 Transformation and densification of existing urban core (potential locations for development of new buildings in Amsterdam). Map: City of Amsterdam Current projects District Plan Elaboration for new projects Strategic space for the city to support district development after 2020 City boundaries Protected areas under the 2009 Covenant (no building of new houses until 2029)

Transformative

Incremental

Baseline business as usual 2017

2050

Plan Amsterdam

13 Professionals from twelve world cities came together to discuss the challenges theyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re facing. At the end of the conference, when asked what they would take home, the speakers stated that they have only just started to truly learn from each other. Photo: Hilde Oversteeg

‘We need flexibility in our planning approach, and frameworks with a small set of strong principles and guidelines’

during the opening of the WeMakeThe.City conference, a deliberative democracy (Vancouver), direct democracy and co-ignorance (Berlin) or a community based approach (Seoul) or whether we are, like Paris, looking for levels of engagement… ‘it’s hard to be democratic’ (Quote by Gabrielle Gomez on the opening night of the WeMakeThe.City festival). Or should we take our cue from Seoul and Singapore, and embrace the view that major, large-scale projects don’t require local involvement, while local initiatives should get all the encouragement and support we can provide? In this quest for the right type of democratic involvement, we have set up new networks and partnerships, and installed public figures (the ‘Stadsbouwmeester’ in Brussels, Seoul’s City Architect, the Parisian Urbanism Agency APUR in Paris) who are able to organise stake holders in a design thinking approach, and intervene in sticky processes. To make this work, we need flexibility in our planning approach, and frameworks with a small set of strong principles and clear guidelines. This should enable us to accept what we cannot control but what is good for the city (co-ignorance), and to give room and trust to informal collectives of stakeholders.

Concluding For every city, the urbanisation process is different, with different roles for planning and design and different tools and strategies. Some cities have a strong local government (Helsinki, Paris, Singapore), while others wield less power and are forced to act out of urgency or necessity (London, Barcelona). Some cities introduce radical plans (Brussels), others opt for more technical (London, Vancouver) or subtle (Seoul) solutions. What Amsterdam can learn from this discussion, is to champion the city’s open and dynamic character while at the same time cherishing its human scale. In addition: 1 We should provide for all the different levels of city making, from a broad vision on the future of the metropolitan area to local area development. We need to be careful that we are not too selective and make sure that we pick up on responsibilities which fall outside the scope of either the project level or the broader city policy level. As the local government we need to play our part and choose the right

03| 2018

approach to deal with these responsibilities. We need to organise discussions with all relevant stakeholders, with a positive attitude. This runs the risk of slowing down the process, making it less effective, hindering progress and stalling the start-up of small interventions to enhance our learning capabilities. We need to show courage and leader ship, and provide clarity on the level of each project and the relevant roles and responsibilities. We need to ensure that we and our contractors comply with good business practices. 3 We need to realise that we are a diverse and inclusive city, but also a city which is finding it increasingly difficult to maintain its affordability and liveability. This is caused by the dramatic growth of population and visitor numbers, as well as market forces. If we make the wrong choices, we run the risk of exacer bating these issues and widening the gap between different parts of the city. For instance, if we fail to create connections between parts of the city or if we create uniform neighbourhoods with small houses and little variation. We need to have a broad view incorporating the important role the metropolitan area can play and make clear to newcomers and temporary users what our values are. 2

What do these lessons mean for Amsterdam on the eve of presenting a new Environment and Planning Vision and setting a new course for the future? How do we organise the conversation with stakeholders, and ensure we consider our common interests as well as personal wishes? Up Close & Liveable has challenged us to share our knowledge and experience in the field of city making. It made us think even more about the question ‘what kind of city do we want to live in’ in five, ten or fifteen years from now. The final remarks of all the speakers when they were asked what they would take home illustrate that we have only just started to truly learn from each other: “Embrace complexity,

Stay curious,

Be humble,

Start small and dare to share!”

Samenvatting

Internationale conferentie

over stedelijke strategieën

Wereldwijd zoeken steden naar innovatieve oplossingen om compact, duurzaam, groen, toegankelijk en leefbaar te blijven. Om van elkaar te kunnen leren, organiseerde de gemeente Amsterdam in juni 2018 de internationale conferentie Up Close & Liveable in het kader van het WeMakeThe. City-festivall. Stedenbouwkundigen uit Barcelona, Berlijn, Brussel, Helsinki, Londen, Parijs, Seoul, Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo en Vancouver kwamen bij elkaar om te discussiëren over hun uitdagingen en mogelijke oplossingen en strategieën. In deze speciale editie van Plan Amsterdam passeren alle deelnemende steden de revue en laten we zien welke lessen deze inter nationale vergelijking heeft opgeleverd.

Amsterdam, metropool op menselijke maat Amsterdam maakt een periode van sterke groei door. In het verleden koos de stad voor uitbreiding om de groei op te vangen. Nu zet men in op verdichting - en daarmee transfor matie - van de bestaande stad om nieuwe, gemengde stedelijke milieus te realiseren. De fysieke verdichting kan niet los gezien worden van infrastructurele investeringen en sociale en economische impulsen. Zo vergroot Amsterdam zijn aantrekkingskracht als wereld stad, terwijl tegelijkertijd het kleinschalige karakter behouden blijft: een metropool op menselijke maat. Stedelijke vraagstukken en oplossingen van nu Tijdens de conferentie zijn de internationale sprekers in tweetallen aan thema’s gekoppeld om onderlinge vergelijkingen mogelijk te maken. Strateeg Arun Jain beet het spits af met een pleidooi voor goede besluitvormings instrumenten gebaseerd op een scala aan disciplines: van stedenbouw, planologie en economie tot nieuwe technologie en gedrags kunde. Dankzij deze instrumenten kunnen steden beter omgaan met complexiteit en een onzekere toekomst. Tokyo moet bijvoorbeeld een antwoord vinden op een vergrijzende en krimpende bevolking. Toch investeert de stad flink in hoogbouw rondom drukke verkeersknooppunten, onder meer als voorbereiding op de Olympische Spelen in 2020.

Sydney en Singapore zoeken naar klimaatbestendige en duurzame oplossingen. Sydney legt een systeem van stedelijke parken en groengebieden aan om de hitte te temperen en de stad te beschermen tegen overstromingen. Singapore is in één generatie 15% groener geworden terwijl de stad toch steeds compacter en dichter bebouwd is. Helsinki en Vancouver kampen beide met toenemende druk op de stad en stijgende huizenprijzen. Helsinki, dat 90% van de grond in eigendom heeft, stimuleert hoogbouw rond knooppunten door in de benodigde infrastructuur te voorzien. Vancouver, met slechts 4% grondeigendom, heeft deze mogelijkheden niet en investeert daarom in een publieke dialoog om draagvlak te verkrijgen voor nieuwe ontwikkelingen. Londen en Brussel zoeken naar manieren om invloed uit te oefenen op de inpassing van economische functies. In het centrum van Londen is door de explosieve bouw van kantoren te weinig publieke ruimte. Londen probeert nu de bovenste verdiepingen van kantoren publieke functies te geven. Brussel transformeert een voormalig industriegebied tot een woon-werkgebied dat zich uitstrekt tot in het centrum. Ontwerpers zijn gevraagd de mogelijkheden te onderzoeken om klein schalige productie weer een plek te geven in de stad. Bijna alle deelnemende steden proberen bewoners te betrekken bij het beleid. Seoul en Berlijn zijn wat dat betreft tegenpolen. In Seoul worden bewoners over grote ontwikke lingen geïnformeerd, niet betrokken. Maar op buurtniveau investeert de stad samen met bewoners en ondernemers in lokale gemeen schappen door de wijkcentra aantrekkelijker en toegankelijker te maken. In Berlijn krijgen sociale groeperingen van oudsher veel ruimte om mee te denken én mee te ontwikkelen, een concept dat door de toegenomen druk op de beschikbare ruimte lastig houdbaar blijkt. De overheid wordt gewantrouwd en intussen zijn het de marktpartijen die hun stempel drukken op nieuwe ontwikkelingen. Parijs en Barcelona worstelen met de vraag: van wie is de stad? Barcelona, dat te maken heeft met een enorme groei van het aantal

Plan Amsterdam

toeristen, doet een beroep op zowel toeristen als ondernemers om meer verantwoordelijk heid te nemen en zo de stad leefbaar te houden. Parijs laat omwonenden meedenken over programmering en ontwerp van pleinen en betrekt daklozen bij projecten in de banlieus.

Conclusies en lessen De conferentie heeft veel waardevolle in zichten opgeleverd, met als meest in het oog springende conclusies: – Veel wereldsteden zetten actief in op verdichting en transformatie om de groei op een duurzame en inclusieve wijze op te vangen. Hiervoor is een brede langetermijn verdichtingsstrategie nodig op alle schaalniveaus (stad én metropoolregio). – Duurzaamheid en klimaatbestendigheid moeten gezien worden als impuls voor veranderingen en als vanzelfsprekende onderdelen van planontwikkeling, in plaats van alleen als aanvullende voor waarden. – De druk op de openbare ruimte en publieke gebouwen verandert, daarom zijn andere vormen van eigenaarschap nodig en moet het ontwerp een andere rol krijgen. – Nieuwe manieren van participatie vragen om flexibele planningsinstrumenten met een beperkt aantal vaste kaders. Maar ook om leiderschap en andere rollen, zodat we via ontwerpend onderzoek kunnen interveniëren in complexe processen en ruimte en vertrouwen kunnen bieden aan alle belanghebbenden. Up Close & Liveable heeft alle deelnemers aan het denken gezet over de vraag in wat voor stad we willen leven over vijf, tien of vijftien jaar. Zij gaven aan in de toekomst nog meer van elkaar te willen leren en besloten de conferentie met de woorden: “Omarm complexiteit, blijf nieuwsgierig, wees nederig, begin klein en durf te delen!”

The Authors

Plan Amsterdam is published by the City of Amsterdam and can also be read online: www.amsterdam.nl/planamsterdam

Pieter Klomp (1967) – Deputy Director of the department of Planning and Sustainability, City of Amsterdam – Studied Landscape Architecture at Wageningen University – Team lead for the 2016 policy paper Space for the City – Setting Course for 2025 (Ruimte voor de Stad – Koers 2025) – Designer for Steigereiland IJburg, author of the Zuidas Vision document, supervisor for the transformations of NDSM and Buiksloterham

Eric van der Kooij (1966) Team Lead Spatial Quality, department of Planning and Sustainability, City of Amsterdam Studied Urban Design & Landscape Architecture at Delft University of Technology Project Lead Up Close & Liveable Responsible for organising knowledge building and exchange, curator of the model exhibition ‘Close to Reality’ (2018), chairman of the Amsterdam City Event – Currently involved in scenario planning and serious gaming, as well as working on collaborations with the cities of Amman, Buenos Aires and Hanoi – – – –

A special thank you to everyone who has helped to set up the Up Close & Liveable conference.

To watch the aftermovie, please visit:

https://vimeo.com/278312485 (password: UPCLOSEANDLIVEABLE).

Also, the conference reader can be read online:

https://www.amsterdam.nl/upcloseandliveable

Up Close & Liveable was part of the WeMakeThe.City festival, the festival that makes cities better.

03| 2018

Cityscape 03/18

Close to Reality

Photo: Maarten Nauw for WeMakeThe.City

A small-scale depiction of urban planning, architecture and public space Amsterdam is facing a huge building challenge which will have an enormous impact on its public space. How will Amsterdam cope with this challenge, what do we imagine this future city to look like and what are the key planning requirements to realise our vision? At the ‘Close to Reality’ exhibition, held in Amsterdam’s Zuiderkerk from June 23 until July 1, sixty scale models and student designs were presented, each representing a vision of Amsterdam. Scale models combine all aspects of urban planning and architecture. Expressing scenarios and exploring planning issues in 3D, they capture the imagination of everyone and spark discussion and debate.

The models exhibited in the Zuiderkerk ranged from regional-scale models to models of individual buildings, from concept to final design models, and from urban design to architecture and public space design models. They presented an overview of future developments and place design, creating a broader context for inspiration, discussion and debate. The exhibition not only showed the tremendous efforts required to get to a final design, it also created an opportunity for the audience to think about and discuss future challenges of Amsterdam’s city planning. Close to Reality was part of the WeMakeThe.City festival, the festival that makes cities better.