International Expert Meeting Randstad 2040

International expert meeting Randstad 2040

1

International expert meeting Randstad 2040 TU Delft organised on Monday 15 and Tuesday 16 December 2008 an international expert meeting on the Spatial Vision Randstad 2040, in co-operation with the Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) and the Vereniging Deltametropool. The purpose was to give critical but constructive criticism of the ‘Randstad 2040’ from a cross-national comparative perspective, so as to inform further action and to assist in developing a research agenda on strategic spatial planning and design at TU Delft. Meetings, site visits, presentations, lectures and discussions took place at various location in the Randstad: Rotterdam centre, Scheveningen harbour, Amsterdam Zuidas, Schiphol airport and Delft old town.

Monday morning December 15th, the international experts joined in an excursion, visiting key sites and routes in the Randstad. Joost Schrijnen (TU Delft) held an introduction presentation at the Euromast in Rotterdam. San Verschuuren (dRO Amsterdam) held a presentation in the information centre Zuidas in Amsterdam. Lunch was taken in Scheveningen. Monday afternoon over 100 interested academics, citizens, stake holders met at Schiphol Airport for three lectures on the Future of the Randstad. Speakers were: Bart Vink (Ministry of VROM) Bob Yaro (Regional Planning Association) John Worthington (DEGW) 2

On Tuesday morning three parallel session were held in Delft. The international experts debated with Dutch academics, practitioners and stake holders. In the afternoon forty participants joined in a round table discussion to wrap up the two day event and focus on the knowledge agenda and the role of strategics projects in the governments long term spatial vision Randstad 2040. All meetings took place in a friendly, upbeat atmosphere. There was a lively debate in which all participants took part. The many social moments in between the meetings allowed for an truly academic exchange of thought, insights and ideas. It goes without saying that our visitors understood the tensions and frustrations involved in the complex relations between strategy and project. They stressed the role of the Netherlands as a pioneer in strategic spatial planning and inspiration for other countries - a role that is perhaps less appreciated in the Netherlands than elsewhere. But they also emphasised that changing conditions require a shift in planning style and process. The Netherlands shares these challenges with many other places, not least the greater reliance on the private sector in the development process; rapidly increasing demands for space and; and critical environmental problems, if not potential crisis. In this minutes TU Delft does not provide a detailed transcript, rather it tries to draw the main conclusions and outlines the lessons to be learned. There is much more that could be said. The Dutch hosts had to exercise some patience with the international guests who lacked detailed knowledge of the Randstad. But our reviewers had a strong grasp of the big picture. They were at times provocative but also constructive. The result is a strong foundation for further collaboration on strategic planning in the Netherlands and internationally. We will be working with out partners to take this work forward in research and further international meetings including a major conference on strategic spatial planning in Delft in 2010. 3

One city region? Discussing the structure of the Randstad many Dutch discussants/ observers see a myriad of boundaries, leading to the qualification that the Randstad does not exist: there are North and South Wings, distinct Metropolitan Regions (Amsterdam) or a free standing urban networks (Utrecht). This might be a temporary situation. After all over the course of time discussions about the Randstad moved up and down the various levels of scale. In the 1960’s there were a North & South Wing. In the 1970’s Randstad was just a place-name, at some other time an integrated urban network (Pronk’s Fifth Report, late 1990’s). Our foreign friends and observers – maybe because of a lack of knowledge about the intricate political cleavages between territorial authorities within Randstad combined with a similar lack of knowledge about the diverse and contradicting results of functional analyses of internal Randstad relationships – see the Randstad as one urban region. This might be the legacy of Peter Hall’s 1966 book on world cities: his reasoning plus the English written publications published during the following decades overwhelming present the Randstad as a single urban region (remember: Dutch scolars seldom present the dirty linen of domestic discourse). Both views – the Randstad does not exist/the Randstad is a fact of life - block an open discussion about the multi-scalarity (dixit Patsy Healey) of the Randstad. Which issues play themselves out at which scales? What are their relationships? What are the trends over time? The latter dimension – the time dimension – refers to a large division between researchers and designer. Designers project a desired state of affairs in the future while researchers are inclined to look back in time. The fragmented (extremely) polycentric governance structure of the Randstad did not play a centre role during the discussions. 4

How to arrive at integrated polymaking at the various relevant Randstad scales (see above) nevertheless remains an urgent issue. Like in other megacity regions the Randstad area incorporates a vast number of governmental jurisdictions at different levels, combined with the sectoral interests of an array of central government departments. Next to that there are quasi autonomous agencies like sea and airport authorities defining and implementing their own territorial strategies plus a host of key private and semi-private institutions taking decisions equally important for Randstad’s urban structure. Finally there are the citizens of Randstad influencing the shape of its urban fabric through their daily territorial choices. A key question is whether Randstad as a fragmented megacity region is in need of novel approaches towards planning and design? Traditionally the planning system – at least in the Netherlands – aims for the production of consensual spatial visions and strategies at regular time intervals which are supposed to guide daily operational decision-making of governments and governmental agencies. Randstad 2040 is clearly the result of such a planning approach. An alternative is to look at long term vision making for Randstad’s future as a learning process amongst key stakeholders. Such a process in its early stages is primarily directed towards the discovery of key planning issues and planning dilemma’s and designing alternative ways of dealing with these. In order to arrive at a consensus possible conflicts have to be discussed in the open. Vision and plan making at the one hand and implementation and decision-making about projects at the other hand are parallel processes. The key issue is the relationship between them: how to make visions operational and how to justify operational decisions and projects? Is the advice of the VROMraad to follow the principle of variable coalitions workable and desirable in context of strategic plan making and design? 5

Randstad The international reviewers firmly acknowledged the existence Randstad, underscored the importance of the Green Heart and reaffirmed the Randstad as a polycentric region with fuzzy borders at best. Because of its polycentricity it can do without a central government. A strategy to go alone, like the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area, is considered flawed: Amsterdam can’t do without the rest of the Randstad. In a similar way should the Randstad work to support the other regions in the Netherlands and the wider delta to become the best for the rest. Randstad 2040 is unequivocal about the importance of planning at the ‘Randstad region’ scale (whilst not ignoring linkages beyond the Randstad). To the surprise of our guests the debate in Delft exposed old and rather tired arguments about ‘the very existence’ of the Randstad. The international reviewers had little time for this question. They recognised that Amsterdam is an important centre (in some benchmarks an ‘alpha city’) but the evidence is heavily weighted towards the growing importance of polycentric regions and the role of the network of ‘second cities’ in the competitiveness of regions. In 1966 Peter Hall included the Randstad in his seminal review of The World Cities. The many changes since then have made the notion of a polycentric Randstad region more, not less, relevant. But this is not a question of choosing between the cities or the Randstad, or choosing between the Delta or Randstad or wings, but about recognising the value of different scales and dealing with the linkages between them. 6

The argument was put strongly that the worst outcome for ‘Future Randstad’ would be one of polarised and compartmentalised cities or wings. The governance question keeps returning – but this is not special for the Randstad. It is commonplace. The key problem is not about creating new government or allocating competences to levels, but about designing mechanisms that encourage, indeed require, collaboration and shared decision-making. The question whether Randstad exists, is irrelevant. The Randstad is a reality on an international stage. So it exists. [Michael Schwarze-Rodrian] The Randstad lacks an obvious spatial structure. Without the Green Heart the Randstad is just a Dutch version of Los Angeles. [Simin Davoudi] Break away from the notion that the Randstad consists of four main cities. It would help to think the Randstad as thirty places and one city. [John Worthington] The boundaries of the Randstad are fuzzy at best. There is no need to create a Randstad level of governance. Region should remain polycentric. [Simin Davoudi] Randstad is the typical region thing. It has the best of both city and state. Its strength is cooperation with its neighbours. Without it, it is weak. [Michael Schwarze-Rodrian]

A discussion between Randstad and the rest of the country is lacking. Is it: the best and the rest? or is it (like Île de France): the best for the rest? [Simin Davoudi] 7

Identity The Randstad 2040 spatial vision falls short in addressing issues regarding quality of place, identity, tradition, heritage, landscape in general and the Green Heart in particularly. As a result it lacks a unique selling point. The reviewers agreed about the principles in the document but found it difficult to identify an unambiguous and distinctive goal for the spatial form of the Randstad. Government representatives defended this position citing, for example, the programme of concentrating housing first in the cities. Nevertheless, there was a strong view the spatial structure of the Randstad was undervalued. The guests called for more bold proposals for the Green Heart, and questioned the partially hidden and weakly explained proposals to relax development regulation in open land the interests of low density ‘green residential and working environments’.

8

The Randstad 2040 document reflects the policy conundrum of keeping the Green Heart or surrender to metropolitan pressures. The Randstad should concentrate on the complementarities on a higher metropolitan level, including the perception of the Green Heart. [Simin Davoudi]

Quality op place should be strengthened by using the green grid as integrator. The way you deal with nature will next bring the questions of climate change and agriculture. Various forms of farming could be developed in the Green Heart. [John Worthington] The Randstad serves only one pont of delivery: the Green Heart. Agriculture is not any longer the driving force. There is a need for a policy that envisions what the Green Heart can be again. [Luuk Boelens] The question of the Green Heart is linked to the intensification of the existing urban areas. [Harry van Huut] Intensification conflicts with suburban culture. Policymakers are not convinced that the city os the best place to live. A cultural change is necessary. Only then there will be money and a market. [Bert Mooren] There must be an unique selling point. I don’t find it in Randstad 2040. [Michael Schwarze-Rodrian] The landscape, the historic city centres, the tradition is a strong selling point, but it is not included in Randstad 2040. [Virna Bussadori] 9

Policy While most reviewers underscored that delivering a long term vision on a polycentric region is a true accomplishment, they did highlight a substantial range of remaining issues. The Randstad 2040 spatial vision seem to lack an international perspective. It doesn’t solve the real tension between growth and sustainability. It deals with climate adaptation without addressing climate mitigation. It integrates many of the existing ideas and policies without making the choices necessary to deliver a comprehensive plan with clear, transparent and tangible goals that can be understood by people and practitioners alike. Finally the reviewers noted that the main national spatial strategies lack true integration. The international reviewers were convinced of the continuing value of the Randstad concept – an urban region with complex and dynamic relationships like their own. But they were less convinced that the explanation of the strengths and weaknesses of the Randstad was sufficiently distinctive. The ‘Future Randstad’, they argued, looks like the proposed future of many other metropolitan regions. They asked if this is sufficient to mobilise the breadth of support that is needed to tackle the critical challenges of climate change, mobility and urban development. Power to change things is now dispersed among many interests that need to be enthused by and engaged in the Randstad 2040 programme. 10

Tension can be seen in Randstad 2040 document. [Simin Davoudi]

Randstad 2040 seems like a recollection of existing ideas and ambitions. Although all ingredients are there, it is not clear what the recipe is. [Dimitri Meessen] Randstad 2040 is looking inward without an international perspective. [Louis Aelbrechts] The issue of growth is not confronted with sustainability. Randstad 2040 should go to the heart of the problem. [Louis Aelbrechts] The Randstad should be climate resilient but the talk is mainly about adaptation, not about mitigation. [Simin Davoudi]

There is a need to make the main ideas of Randstad 2040 tangible for practitioners and people alike. Its goals should be transparent and clear. [Dimitri Meessen] The national spatial planning documents seems contradict: Nota Ruimte, Randstad Urgency programme, the multi-annual program of investments in transportation and spatial planning and the report by the Delta Commission. [Hugo Priemus] Randstad is changing regardless the lack of consistency of policy. [Bob Yaro]

11

Forward The international reviewers contributed with innovative and inspiring concepts on how to move forward. Process project would allow for a bottom-up approach that can address the peoples aspirations, their imagination and their take on the identity of the Randstad. The reviewers said it is pivotal to include key stakeholders in the process and to use pressure cooker models to engage them in positioning them in the debate and force them to action. The debate ranged across widely varying understandings of the notion of ‘strategic project’. There was some agreement that they should focus on triggering further private investment and existing strengths such as water management, but they could include modest local interventions possibly developed through a bidding process, as well as major investments in integrating infrastructure networks. The reviewers also proposed low-cost ‘process projects’ intended generally to strengthen the ‘software’ of civic society and shape attention to critical issues, and specifically to build a sense of common purpose and collaboration around the Randstad project. In answer to questions, VROM gave assurances that evaluation of past and current interventions is high on the agenda, though it does not figure prominently in Randstad 2040. The research community in universities and funding agencies can help by sharing relevant research agendas and working around a common knowledge agenda. TU Delft intends as a first step to work with other partners to provide a compendium of relevant research, information and analysis of the Randstad. 12

Randstad 2040 represents a move towards selective planning with a focus on structural problems. It should focus on ways for implementation: both bottom up and top down. [Louis Aelbrechts] The problem lies in the translation of a spatial concept in a physical plan. The final outcome of Randstad 2040 shouldn’t be a map. It should focus on themes that make (inter)nationally a difference. [Bert Mooren] Work with product projects and process projects. [John Worthington]

Planning is the software and should evolve. Randstad 2040 is version 1.0. You need an version 1.1, 1.2, 2.0. [Michael Schwarze-Rodrian]

The Randstad is not just four cities but probably forty places. Ask every individual to define the Randstad in its own way. Draw a thousand mental maps on what is your city, resulting in a 1000 cities. That would be the typical process project: changing perceptions, to understand better a thousand different places. Give the Randstad back to the public debate. [John Worthington] Put the picture first, create the composition, the architecture. Put the landscape first, its desired quality should be clear. Create a plan in three steps. Assemble all the majors and go to the press the same morning. One week later you meet all the ministers. The third week you repeat this with all the CEO’s. Organise an open discussion without an agenda. [Michael SchwarzeRodrian]

13

Next The international reviewers have made four key suggestions on actions that can effectively expand the success of our first meeting: 1] the process project: draw a thousand cities [John Worthington] 2] apply the ‘pressure cooker’ model [Michael Schwarze-Rodrian] 3] combine climate adaptation and mitigation [Virna Bussadori] 4] comparative study of polycentric planning models [Vincent Nadin] Authors: Prof.dr. Vincent Nadin (TU Delft-BK), Prof.dr. Wil Sonneveld (TU Delft-OTB), dr.ir. Frank van der Hoeven (TU Delft-BK), Ir. Wendy Tan (TU delft-BK), Ir. Herman Rosenboom (TU Delft-BK)

14