In our two projects, we have seen a lot of different aspects and approaches to tackling such a huge project. In the end there was a fundamental difference between Antwerp and Rotterdam. This difference for a large part also defined the relations between neighborhood actors, governmental actors and private/commercial actors. This difference is the conduct of governance; is it decentralized (such as in Antwerp) or centralized (such as in Rotterdam)?
Below you can read our discussion and conclusion on this:
Discussing the cases of Rotterdam and Antwerp, one can see that there are two forms of governance implemented for city center revitalization. In Antwerp there was a very decentralized governance with several loosely connected projects scattered across the central station area. In Rotterdam on the other hand there was a very centralized form of governance. Both forms had aspects to them that were unique, but the researchers will begin with their similarities. Firstly both projects enjoyed high rates of civic participation. Through community meetings, information sessions and input in the decision making processes the plans could be adjusted in both cities. However, the researchers are convinced that in Antwerp there was in principle more space for civic participation as the projects were on a very local level, much more local than in Rotterdam. Secondly there was a distinct increase in both economical and human wealth in Antwerp, and the researchers expect this to happen as well in Rotterdam. This because of the increased livability and infrastructure in both cities. Also there was the encouragement from the government for new establishments and catering businesses in both cities. Third and lastly, both plans experienced conflicts. These conflicts were mostly situated between the local communities and the government or PPP. However, the conflicts were resolved in different ways; in Antwerp, the Kievitsnest sought to pressurize governance through the media and public opinion. This because of an exclusion of the locals in one of the projects. In Rotterdam, the wealthy inhabitants of the Provenierswijk sought to pressurize the plans through legal action and the judicial system.
Now on to the
differences. Because of the smaller
scale in Rotterdam, there was more control, a better overview and in the end a
greater efficiency. Also the communication between actors was better than in
Antwerp, and therefore protest organizations such as the Kievitsnest were not
needed to be formed. However, this smaller scale also meant that the area was
confined, and possible spillover effects such as the dangers of gentrification
might not be absorbed in the decision making process. A second and last
important difference was that the Rotterdam municipality was able to set its
restrictions for the public benefitin the PPP, while Antwerp had more problems
with this since it dealt with more PPP’s or projects at once. For example, the
building of the Kievitswijk garage and office buildings can be considered a
failure from the government to impose the correct restrictions. This lack of
restrictions sparked the protests. Also the coercion of Alcatel-Lucen-Bell on a
certain project can be considered as a failure of the government strength.
In the end, the
researchers do believe that there is no definite best way of governance. This
because of two primary reasons. Firstly, other parties and variables also have
an influence on the success or failure of a place. These are for example the
initial conditions in e neighborhood and its social fabric, the willingness of
people to experience change, the strength of the government and the division of
responsibilities and decisive power in the PPP. Also, the context, the
objectives and the design and planning process do matter in the decision of
which governance to take. If the objective is to reach out to as many people as
possible, a decentralized governance might more beneficial. On the other hand,
a centralized governance might be preferred if the PPP wants to have a specific
focus on just one area.
