Presenting to you: Our results!

Dear all,

The last couple of months have been fun! And we are proud to announce our results! Hope you enjoy watching them!

Thanks to everyone who helped out make this project be a succes!

Urban Geography - Revitalization on Prezi

Dear all,


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.

Preview of the Final Research Paper

Wondering what we've been up to now for the last weeks? Here is a preview of the draft conclusion from our research in Rotterdam! It's still a work in progress but it shows some of our ideas!

"When concluding the case of Rotterdam, one can see that there are special characteristics of the three main actors and of their interrelationships that made this project successful until now. Firstly, the government actor and the private investor actor have balanced out their desires and demands, resulting in both the development of real estate on an excellent location and an improvement in the surroundings and infrastructure. This can be seen as a profit for both the private sector and the public sector. Secondly, the PPP has been defined very clearly and its goals have been set very concretely, enhancing efficiency and communication.  Thirdly, the civic participation of the neighborhoods was active and very enabled by the PPP. The locals were allowed to be active in the planning and decision making.  This also ensured that the noses of all actors are pointed in the same direction and friction is marginalized. The most troublesome relation the researches think will be the development of how the neighborhood actors correlate with itself. How the identity of the neighborhoods will change,  if the social fabric will still be in place and especially how the locals will adapt to their new environment once the project is completely finished.  The authors advise that this is closely monitored by both the municipality and sub-local institutions such as community centers and the women support groups the researchers visited."

Virtual Antwerp Central Station

If you want to experience what we experienced when we were doing research in Antwerp check the link below. Its the virtual Central Station!!

http://www.stationsroman.be

The 10 Most Amazing Station of the World!

Ever thought of the power a trainstation can have in a city?

Here are some of the most beautiful trainstations in the world.

10. Middelburg Station, Middelburg, the Netherlands

9. Atocha Station, Madrid

8. Hua Hin Railway Station, Thailand

7. Centrail Railway Station, Maputo, Mozambique 

.

6. Lahore Railway Station, Pakistan

5. Gare des Bénédictins, Limoges 

4. Central Station, Antwerp

3. Chhatrapati Shivaji, Mumbai

2. Grand Central Terminal, New York

1. St. Pancras, London

Just something quick to share with everybody,

But even Luxembourg Central Station seems to be under construction: It is great to see the variety and architectural differences between renewals of Central Station Areas

"That's one small step for a Antwerp, one giant leap for the Central Station"

Antwerp

On the 7^th of March we started our research by visiting Antwerp. Arriving in Antwerp we had one mission which was divided up into three locations. Our mission was to investigate how the area around the Central Station has changed ever since the renewal of the Central Station.

The three locations around the central station which we looked at were the Klevitwijk, the Keyserlei and the Athenemeumbuurt.

We started our investigation at the central station. It was clearly noticeable that the Central station was supposed to emit a relaxing atmosphere. There were coffee shops and lunchrooms available inside the station. Further away from the central hall there was the Diamond Gallery filled with tiny jewelry shops. Our first impression was that the central station (at around 11:00) was very quiet.

Our second location was the Klevitwijk. Our impression of this area was that the Klevitwijk seemed to have no connection with the central station. The buildings had a different expression compared massive train station. While walking through the area we stumbled upon the Kievetsnest. The Kievetsnest occupied the Provincial church in order to stop it from being demolished. When we looked further into the activities of the Kievetsnest, we saw that they have slowed down the process of renovation.  On our way back, we did see that one block office buildings rose from the ground.

The third location was the Athenemeumbuurt. Before arriving in this area, we passed through a street of Casinos and an Asian street. It quickly became clear to us that this was Antwerp’s multicultural district. Arriving at the Coninckplein, the first building which stood out from the other buildings was a public library called Permeke. It was only until after we left the library that we saw how useful a library actually was. Inside the library a man, Klaas van Gorp, was able to help us extremely well with all the questions we had about the library and the area around it. In short it was possible to conclude that the library had a very positive effect on the neighborhood.

The Keyserlei was the fourth and last location we visited. There was nothing much to see yet, since it was still under construction. We were however informed that the Keyserlei would turn into a car-free zone, making it friendlier for all the people coming out of the Central station. The Keyserlei will eventually connect with the Operaplein, where it will also turn into pedestrian-zone.

In conclusion, our day was very successful.  We received information from locals who we able to give us a better view of the past, and we were able to speak with Klaas van Gorp who researched the library and the area, and Tom Vinck, who was part of the city designing team of the municipality.

We were also tipped by the library that the book Centraal Station Spoorwegkathedraal by Stan Wagemans would be a really helpful book which could give us a lot of information.

http://zeelandboeken.pzc.wegenerwordpress.nl/geschiedenis/centraal-station-spoorwegkathedraal/