Master Thesis
Stefan Buhrmann
Abstract: This case study researches the externalities that the realization of the Tilburg Veemarktkwartier cultural district brought about. There are three
classifications of externalities: economic externalities, social externalities and cultural externalities. Through looking up statistics and gathering data from policy documents and interviews with relevant people operating in the area these externalities were researched. The economic externalities end up being most prominently in the nature of more job opportunity, the social externalities in the nature of keeping graduates in the city and social cohesion and the cultural externalities lay in networking opportunities that operating in an agglomeration brings about.
U n i v e r s i t y o f A m s t e r d a m M a s t e r U r b a n & R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g S u p e r v i s o r : B a s H i s s i n k -‐ M u l l e r
Externalities of cultural districts
A case study of the Tilburg Veemarkwartier
Inhoudsopgave
1. INTRODUCTION ... 4
1.1.CULTURAL DISTRICTS ... 5
1.2.BOTTOM-UP &TOP-DOWN ... 6
1.2.1. Bottom-up cultural districts ... 6
1.2.2. Top-down cultural districts ... 7
1.2.3. Ad-hoc network model ... 7
1.3.CHAPTERING ... 7
1.4.CONCLUSION ... 8
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 9
2.1.CULTURAL DISTRICTS ... 9
2.1.1. Industrial cultural district ... 9
2.1.2. Institutional cultural district ... 10
2.1.3. Museum district ... 11
2.1.4. Metropolitan cultural district ... 11
2.2.EXTERNALITIES ... 13
2.2.1. Social externalities ... 14
2.2.4. Cultural externalities ... 16
2.2.5. Economic externalities ... 18
2.3.PLANNING IN CULTURAL DISTRICTS ... 18
2.3.1. Bottom-up & top-down ... 18
2.3.2. Bottom-up versus top-down & ad-hoc ... 20
2.4.CONCLUSION ... 23 2.4.1. Assumptions ... 24 3. PROBLEM STATEMENT ... 25 4. RESEARCH QUESTION ... 27 4.1.RESEARCH QUESTION ... 27 4.2.SUBQUESTIONS: ... 27 5. METHODOLOGY ... 28 5.1.QUALITATIVE DEDUCTION ... 28 5.2.CASE SELECTION ... 29 5.3.DATA COLLECTION ... 29 5.4.DATA ANALYSIS ... 30 5.5.DOCUMENTS ... 32 5.6.STATISTICS ... 32 5.7.INTERVIEWS ... 33 5.8.CONCLUSION ... 34
6. CASE STUDY: TILBURG VEEMARKTKWARTIER ... 35
6.1.CASE DESCRIPTION AND CONTEXT ... 35
6.1.1. Case description ... 35 6.1.2. Context ... 38 6.2.DATA ANALYSIS ... 40 6.2.1. Framework ... 40 6.2.2. Economic externalities ... 42 6.2.3. Social Externalities ... 42 6.2.4. Cultural Externalities ... 43 6.2.5. Other notables ... 44 6.3.CONCLUSION ... 45 7. CONCLUSION ... 47
7.1.SUBQUESTIONS ... 47
7.1.1. What is the context of the Tilburg Veemarktkwartier? ... 47
7.1.2. What are the most important externalities of the Tilburg Veemarktkwartier? ... 47
7.2.HOW DID THE NATURE OF THE PLANNING PROCESS INFLUENCE THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES OF THE TILBURG VEEMARKTKWARTIER CULTURAL DISTRICT? ... 51
8. DISCUSSION ... 52
REFERENCES: ... 55
1. Introduction
Culture is getting seen more and more as an ‘industry’ (Lewis, 1990). This has led to the speeding up of the formation of cultural clusters and districts in recent years and these clusters are taking up the role of an alternative ‘source’ for urban development (Cinti, 2008). There is an abundance of literature on the topic of cultural districts, but there is also an abundance in variety of cultural districts, as well in terms of
geographic actors and areas involved as financial sources and methods of planning (Cinti, 2008). The purpose of planning for cultural districts might vary from the
enhancement of cultural heritage to urban regeneration (Cinti, 2008). Because of this large variety in cultural districts it is hard to make generalisations. The districts in itself are unique, as well as their context, so the results of the formation of these cultural districts can be as well. Culture is understood as all the forms of art in this research reaching from more clear-cut forms like music production and painting to less obvious forms like fashion and haute cuisine.
The importance of culture for planning lies not only in its artistic value, but also the fact that it is a basic resource for sustainable economic growth (Santagata, 2002). In Europe alone, over six million jobs have been created around art and culture as nearly 3% of the 1995 European labour force was employed in the cultural sector (Eurostat, 2015). In some cultural districts this percentage can even be higher. An example of this is Los Angeles, where the film industry accounted for 5,3% of the city’s employees in 1997 (Santagata, 2002). This is a positive externality of the cultural district. Besides the actual cultural product the district produces, in this case, movies, it also produces a wide array of jobs in the industry and area. These are not only ‘cultural’ jobs, but also jobs in, for example, security. The wide array of
externalities cultural districts can bring about will be further discussed in a later chapter.
1.1. Cultural Districts
Cultural districts are spatial agglomerations defined by the production of idiosyncratic goods based on creativity and intellectual property by differently sized autonomous cultural firms or institutions, with a prevalence of small and medium ones (Santagata, 2002; Santagata, 2004; Scott, 1996). The geographical size of these districts can differ from entire regions in a country to neighbourhoods in towns or cities (Mizzau & Montanari, 2008). There are four different distinguishable cultural districts
(Santagata, 2002), which should be kept in mind while making a comparison between districts. The different kinds of cultural districts will be further discussed in the
theoretical framework section. The four types of cultural districts are:
• Industrial cultural district • Institutional cultural district • Museum district
• Metropolitan cultural district
The reason for cultural districts to exist is for the many beneficial agglomeration externalities that they bring (Santagata, 2002). These positive impacts express themselves in cultural, social, and economic terms (Mizzau & Montanari, 2008). Think of the network benefits, the consumption externalities, the externalities of time that temporary exhibitions bring across and economies of scale and scope, like using one security company for the whole area because it is spatially clustered. This also accounts for reaching economically critical mass, which involves generating enough activities to make sure that economies of scale, inter-firm cooperation and synergy can be obtained (Landry, 2006, p: 245). These districts could put large demands on the labour market for the variety of skills needed for the production of the cultural goods or services that go with it (Scott, 2000). People that go for a specific big and famous exhibition in the area might go see some other exhibitions or shows in the cultural district as well, because they are already there. The understood externalities of cultural districts can be divided as follows: cultural externalities, social externalities
and economic externalities. These externalities will be further expanded on in the theoretical framework of this research.
1.2. Bottom-up & Top-down
Another way of distinguishing cultural districts is by means of how they are
established planning wise. Literature distinguishes between bottom-up, top-down and ad-hoc network as classification types (Chapple, Jackson & Martin, 2011; Kong, 2009; Lin & Hsing, 2009; Mommaas, 2004; Sacco & Tavano Blessi, 2007; Pozini & Rossi, 2010; Stern & Seifert, 2005, 2007). In this chapter there will be a brief
explanation and nomination of these classifications, which will be expanded on in the theoretical framework. This brief explanation is necessary to clarify the meaning and choices of cultural districts in this research.
1.2.1. Bottom-up cultural districts
Bottom-up cultural district are defined as ‘networks of creators, consumers
participants, and collaborators that exist within geographically defined
neighborhoods. They are self-organized, emerge through community-generated action, and are cultivated and reinforced by a diverse range of participants and
residents over time. They can serve as anchors for neighborhood- based economies, and also function as networks across areas, leveraging arts and culture within a regional economy.’ (Stern & Seifert, 2010). The most important factor to keep in
mind here is that they are not initiated by the hands of government but by the people in the district itself. They also used to call this a “natural” cultural district, but
abandoned this terminology because, for one, there is nothing natural about urban development. The advantages and more general theory about these three types of cultural districts will be further expanded on in the theoretical framework.
1.2.2. Top-down cultural districts
Top-down cultural districts are cultural districts that are organized by a central authority (Barthelemy, et Al., 2013). The self-organization that bottom-up planning implies is absent in the most pure form of this. It can be said that top-down is the polar opposite of bottom-up in terms of urban planning and the formation of cultural districts.
1.2.3. Ad-hoc network model
Ad-hoc network model cultural districts are a mix between bottom-up planning and top-down planning (Paiola, 2008). In the end, most cultural districts end up being formed by both central and non-central actors. Think of the absence of possibilities an individual in a country like The Netherlands, which is a welfare state, would have in developing land without government mixing in in terms of urban planning.
1.3. Chaptering
This subchapter discusses the structure of this research. Chapter two will discuss the theory that led to understanding of cultural districts, externalities and bottom-up, top-down and ad-hoc planning natures. The problem statement will be expanded on in chapter three. That will be followed by the research question and sub questions for this research in chapter four. After this, there is the methodology section of this research in chapter five. Chapter six will be the case description, context and data analysis. This chapter also expands on the externalities discovered for the Tilburg Veemarktkwartier cultural district. Following this, there is the conclusion chapter, chapter seven. The research questions are answered in this section. Chapter eight is the discussion section. This chapter expands insights gained while conducting this research and describes what might have been done better. Recommendations for further research in this field will also be described.
1.4. Conclusion
The formation of spatial clusters of cultural activity as an effect of culture being more and more seen as an ‘industry’ (Lewis, 1990) is becoming a source of urban
development (Cinti, 2008). These cultural clusters are also realized for the positive externalities they are said to be able to bring about. The externalities can be divided into three classes: social externalities, economic externalities and cultural
externalities. What this exactly entails will be further expanded on in the theoretical framework chapter. Furthermore, cultural districts can be divided in two ways: the nature of the district and the nature of their planning. There are four kinds of classifications in terms of the nature of the district: industrial cultural districts,
metropolitan cultural districts, museum districts and institutional cultural districts. This research will focus on metropolitan cultural districts for reasons mentioned in
paragraph 2.1.4. The three kinds of distinctions due to the nature of the planning of the cultural districts are bottom-up, top down and ad-hoc. The question is, however, how planning influences these externalities. How can the positive externalities be maximized and how can the negative externalities be minimized? There is a lack of literature on Dutch cases in this field, so this research is looking to explore the Dutch context in this field. The aim for this research is to explore how ad-hoc governance influenced externalities in the Tilburg Veemarktkwartier cultural district.
2. Theoretical Framework
This section forms the literature study of this research. All the theoretical information necessary in order to answer the research question and sub questions will be
provided here. It is comprised out of a section explaining externalities in urban planning and cultural districts and a section explaining the theory behind bottom-up and top-down governance, and in turn urban planning. The section on cultural districts will explain the distinction in nature of the cultural districts and make clear why metropolitan cultural districts were chosen for this research. The section about externalities will explain about the kind of externalities that are anticipated in urban planning. The section about bottom-up, top-down and ad-hoc planning methods will explain what this exactly entails and what the pros and cons of these methods are.
2.1. Cultural districts
This sub chapter will expand on the kinds of cultural districts mentioned in the introduction chapter. The four kinds of cultural districts will each have their own subchapter explaining their characteristics. This should make clear why metropolitan cultural districts were chosen for this research on cultural districts in the Netherlands. The reason for explaining the four kinds of cultural districts this extensively is
because it is important to have a good realization of the boundaries and activities that the Tilburg Veemarktkwartier in this research entails.
2.1.1. Industrial cultural district
Industrial cultural districts are mainly based on their positive externalities, localized culture, traditions in ‘arts and crafts’ and the cultural lock-in of consumers (Santagata, 2002). These are districts like Carpy, Italy, which is known for its high fashion. ‘The
basic components of this peculiar strategy of district building are based on:
sedimentary accumulations of technical knowledge and social capital;
• A low level of product standardization;
• Accumulation of savings and the presence of strongly entrepreneurial
cooperative local banking;
• A leaning towards open international markets;
• Public financial support along the entire chain of the creation of value;
• A high rate of birth of new firms as a result of social capability and interactive
learning;
• The ability to be district minded, to become a local system and to produce
positive externalities in the field of design, technological innovation,
managerial organization, the creation of new products, labour market flexibility and commercial distribution.’ (Santagata, 2002, p: 12)
2.1.2. Institutional cultural district
Institutional cultural districts find their grounding in formal institutions that give them exclusive property rights and trademarks for these specific areas (Santagata 2002). Because these rights are for an entire area, which is the institutional district, they are community or collective property rights. What these rights do is protect the cultural capital of the area. This property rights assignment is mainly a Denomination Of Origin (DOC) and the right to ‘indication of providence’, which legally protects a particular brand or type of design (Santagata, 2002). This could, for example, be used to protect the traditional specific way of making wine in a specific region. So the DOC gives an exclusive right to a certain region which monopolizes their position in a way. The region, or cultural district, becomes the brand in a way. ‘The assignment of
property rights yields particularly interesting positive consequences:
• As they create a monopolistic privilege they allow an increase of prices and of
yields, which contributes to a substantial accumulation of capital;
• Legal protection generates incentives so that producers find their incentives in
the investment and valorization of products that have been selected through a long cultural tradition;
• Legal protection and economic incentives lead to better control of the
productive and distributive process, with a remarkable increase in the quality of the products.’ (Santagata, 2002, p: 15-16)
2.1.3. Museum district
The museum district is the most explicit form of cultural districts. As the name suggests, this is a cluster of museums (Santagata, 2002). It is constructed around museum networks or within an artistic community (Santagata, 2002). Their density creates systemic effects that make them attractive areas for tourists or visitors (Santagata, 2002). This kind of district usually requires top-down drivers of an
institutional nature (Santagata, 2002). In short, in order for a museum district to come about, a municipal decision to establish one is needed. The impact that these
museum districts have creates a multiplier effect (Santagata, 2002): because these districts attract a lot of tourists, there is an increase on the demand of hotels, which has an increase on the job availability in the area, for example. There are also competitive advantages in the agglomeration of museums or creative communities, which will be described in the theoretical framework chapter. A museum district
should not just be the sum of several museums being allocated in close proximity, the challenge lies in creating a greater and new systematic unit (Santagata, 2002).
2.1.4. Metropolitan cultural district
A metropolitan cultural district is a spatial agglomeration of buildings dedicated to performing arts, museums, and organizations, which produce culture and related goods, services and facilities. They breathe new life into communities and their assumed positive externalities contrast economic industrial decline and design a new image of the city (Santagata, 2002). ‘The standard metropolitan cultural district is
centered on two preliminary institutional requirements:
• The existence of an area whose property rights structure is not too dispersed
unzoned land;
• An agency, a trust or a business community charged with developing the
project by facilitating the planning procedures and supporting the management and the marketing of cultural activities. The types of suitable administering bodies may range from private business entrepreneurs, as in the case of Charlotte, Tennessee, to city planners, in the case of the Dallas Art District, and to trusts that can own and operate theatres and visual art exhibits, such as the Pittsburgh Cultural Trust (Frost Kumpf, 1998; Brooks and Kushner, 2001).
Cultural city planning usually includes:
• An initial range of artistic and cultural activities: museums, libraries, theatres,
art galleries, concert halls, studios and art shops;
• A secondary range of activities based on the production of culture: art and
crafts
• workshops, movie studios, recording music studios, local TV stations,
commercial television stations;
• A third range of activities which are the necessary complement for attracting
visitors and tourists: restaurants, cafeterias, gift shops and the like.’
(Santagata, 2002).
This thesis focuses mostly on the metropolitan cultural districts because of its high level of versatility in produced cultural goods, which looks most like the cultural districts in urban areas in The Netherlands. Furthermore, as mentioned above in the section about the third range of activities, the literature explains how these districts are in large about the positive externalities they bring about (Santagata, 2002). This third range is mostly economic externalities, which will be explained in the following sub chapter. Since this research is about how a planning process can influence the externalities of a cultural district, the metropolitan cultural district makes for the most qualified cultural district to research.
2.2. Externalities
This section discusses the externalities connected to the formation of cultural districts, mentioned earlier. Before different kinds of externalities are expanded on, the definition of externalities should be clear. Externalities are uncompensated costs or benefits caused by a decision that have effect on individuals or groups other than the person(s) making the decision (Heijman, 2007). There are two clear distinctions between externalities: positive and negative externalities (Heijmans, 2007). An example of negative externalities, unrelated to cultural districts, is in transport systems. Intense car traffic can produce air pollution as a negative externality (Heijmans, 2007). An example of positive externality is bee-keepers that provide unpaid pollination for nearby fruit growers (Heijmans, 2007). The reason that projects are subsidised is often because of these positive externalities that are being
expected. In order to internalise externalities government can tax or subsidise
externalities. This is because, in the case of positive externalities, the producer pays for positive effects of their product for other parties (Heijmans, 2007). However, not all externalities can be expressed in a monetary valuation, which makes taxing and subsidising these externalities problematic in some cases (Heijmans, 2007).
This sub chapter will be divided in three subsections: social externalities, cultural externalities and economic externalities. In these three subsections, a division will be made between positive and negative externalities. There is an overlap between these externalities as to which subsection to classy them in. The mentioned externalities can also influence each other (Evans, 2005). Furthermore, there is a difference between temporary externalities, like ticket sales for a major event, and sustainable externalities, like jobs generated in the area (Evans, 2005).
2.2.1. Social externalities
This subsection expands on the social externalities that cultural districts can bring about. These can be either positive or negative. By exploring literature on the
different kinds of externalities of social districts, more insight is gained in recognizing externalities in the cultural districts researched here.
2.2.1.2. Positive social externalities
The social externalities connected to the formation of cultural districts are important because local cultural infrastructure appears to play a critical role in determining the quality of places and hence in attracting residents, especially the ‘new middle class’ (Featherstone, 1991; Martin, 1998). The ‘new middle’ class refers to a diffuse group of people with rather mixed and unstable preferences, combining classical-intellectual with more popular taste patterns (van Eijck, 1999; Wynne and O’Connor, 1998). The metropolitan cultural district appeals to these people and their heterogeneous tastes because of its versatility of produced cultural goods. Dutch society is currently experiencing a flexibilisation of the spatial tie between work and home (Mommaas, 2004). This means that people are less bound to their workplace in respect to where they want to live. So if a certain place gets more attractive for them because there are a lot of things to do culturally, they are becoming more able and willing to move there, despite their workplace being somewhere completely else.
Another positive social externality of cultural districts is that they offer the chance to renew the sense of identity for the local community (Mizzau & Montanari, 2008). The local culture could be renewed if the locals are committing to the district and the life around it. This does not only happen by means of preservation of old values and heritage or cultural expression, but also through re-interpretation of cultural characters in new ways (Mizzau & Montanari, 2008).
A last important positive factor is the quality of life and liveability (Evans, 2005). The quality of life indicators include social as well as environmental qualities, such as access to services, fear of crime and community cohesion (Evans, 2005).
2.2.1.2. Negative social externalities
This social upgrading of places does not only bare positive implications. Gentrification is argued to be a negative social and financial externality of the formation of cultural districts. Arts-based economic development, in both the
scholarly literature and public debate, has been linked to displacement or
gentrification (Zukin, 1982)’ (Stern & Seifert, 2009). Gentrification can be defined as
follows: ‘Gentrification, the conversion of socially marginal and working-class areas of
the central city to middle-class residential use, reflects a movement, that began in the 1960s, of private-market investment capital into downtown districts of major urban centres’ (Zukin, 1987). This process of gentrification tends to displace low-income
residents outside of the centre and moved farther from the central business district (Zukin, 1987). The displacees also tend to pay higher rent at their new location (Zukin, 1987). Douglas Noonan (2013), found the following about cultural districts:
“Districts appear to boost property values, incomes employment, and turnover in the vicinity” (p.210). However, he also found that there was no evidence that the positive
impacts on poverty, and education applied to families with kids. He did find evidence showing that locals that were being displaced were overall poorer, which calls for more research on cultural district related gentrification (Noonan, 2013). This might be interesting to keep in the back of the mind in researching the externalities of a cultural district. An important side note here is that there was no distinguishment made
2.2.4. Cultural externalities
Cultural clusters are also expected to attract creative workers to work there
(Mommaas, 2004). This will help keeping the arts and design graduates in a city for a longer period. If they function well, a wider symbolic and infrastructural spinoff is anticipated that will attract other creative workers ranging from designers to information and communication specialists (Mommaas, 2004). This is why these cultural districts are also referred to as ‘magnets’ (Scott, 2000) or ‘artistic gravitation’ areas (Menger, 1993). This could have a range going as far as worldwide. This allows the district to have a constant fresh input of creative workers, keeping
innovation and new creative styles alive (Mizzau & Montanari, 2008). When a cultural district functions properly, it tends to perform well and create a distinguishable style from the other districts, which makes for a chance of differentiation and gaining the upper hand in competitive advantage (Scott, 2000). Take music, for example.
Manchester’s pop scene in the 1980s brought forward some of the most iconic artists of its time with The Smiths, New Order and Happy Mondays, and all from the same city. This success could be accounted for by the general Manchester atmosphere of producing music (Mizzau & Montanari, 2008). Another example is the Seattle grunge scene of the 1990s with Nirvana, Pearl Jam and Dinosaur Jr. This is a social
externality and it is characterized by a high level of embeddedness, which refers to the fact that the actors in these cultural districts are influenced by the social context in which they operate (Mizzau & Montanari, 2008). In short, this means that the cultural producers in the district meet each other face to face quite often. This makes for increased cohesion and relationships with each other, which, in turn, makes for more cohesion in the area. This all increases the number of linked parties. The importance of networking is also supported by the cycle of urban creativity by Landry (2008) (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Cycle of urban creativity
Source: Landry, 2006.
This cycle can be thought of as five stages (Landry, 2008):
1. Helping people generate ideas and projects. 2. Turning ideas into reality.
3. Networking, circulating and marketing ideas and projects.
4. Delivery mechanisms such as cheap spaces for rent, incubator units or exhibition and showcasing opportunities.
5. Disseminating results to the city, building markets and audiences and discussing these so that new ideas are generated.
This cycle of urban creativity should lead to a better understanding and capability of recognizing cultural externalities while conducting this research. Apparently, artists getting along and working together is also a form of a cultural externality, because it will make the artists in the cultural district function better, since it is part of the cycle of urban creativity (Landry, 2006).
2.2.5. Economic externalities
A positive economic externality that cultural districts are supposed to bring about is that they make an area more attractive for CEOs to invest and set up office in (Pratt, 2008; Mizzau & Montanari, 2008). In this, the available cultural consumption is key to attracting these CEOs. Cultural districts could also attract tourist flows, renewing its attractiveness (Mizzau & Montanari, 2008). Especially areas that lost function due to post-industrialization seem to be fit as cultural districts to regenerate the area
(Mommaas, 2004). The artists take up residence in cheap and dilapidated property here (Pratt, 2008). This conversion of former industrial urban sites to cultural or artistic usage makes for economic benefits for property owners in the area in the long run (Mizzau & Montanari, 2008).
2.3. Planning in cultural districts
Before going deeper into the theory about bottom-up and top-down governance, it is important to first define what exactly governance means in this research, and where its place lies in the field of urban planning. ‘....governance is defined as the reflexive
self-organisation of independent actors involved in complex relations of reciprocal interdependence, with self-organisation being based on continuing dialogue and resource-sharing to develop mutually beneficial joint projects and to manage the contradictions and dilemmas inevitably involved in such situations.’ (Jessop, 2003,
p:101). Urban planning is part of this process.
2.3.1. Bottom-up & top-down
As mentioned earlier, in the field of planning there is a distinction between bottom-up, top-down and ad-hoc planning. In the case of top-down planning, there is a central authority doing the planning, playing an important role in the city, and leaving long standing traces in the development of said city (Barthelemy, 2013). In contrast to this, bottom-up planning is centered around self-organization (Barthelemy, 2013). Ad-Hoc planning is a mix between top-down and bottom up (Paiola, 2008). In bottom-up
planning, the actors plan their own environment and this should therefore address their needs. The question this always raises is, however: if everybody has an equal vote in things. Is everybody able to voice his or her opinion accurately, not being an expert on urban planning in the first place? This way of planning the urban landscape also goes for cultural districts. There are four essential differences between a bottom-up and most other approaches to governance (Bang, 2003):
‘
1. It’s point of departure is in the actual practices of the network.
2. These networks, albeit formed around politics and/or policies, are not necessarily:
(a) Tied to any pre-given societal ‘needs’ or actor goals or preferences. (b) Connected with steering from a single centre.
3. It stresses the endogenous character of both network change and the identity formation of the involved actors (including goals, preferences).
4. It sees problems of democracy or power as possible starting points for an analysis of governance on an equal footing with problems of management, steering and effectiveness.’ (Bang, 2003, p:56).
A case study of industrial policy in a region of Denmark, showed that approval of a certain municipal discourse on ‘growth and quality of life’ was a condition of inclusion in the network, and that non-acceptance of this discourse could be a reason for exclusion (Bang, 2003). This points out that in order to be granted access to a network, not only resources are important, but also acceptance of the dominant discourse of the network and being accepted by the other actors in the network (Bang, 2003). In short, actors also determine policy discourse in a bottom-up
network. This could also be true for cultural districts. Exploring the attitude the artist has toward government policy might proof to be important in the functioning of the cultural district and should hence be included in the interviews.
2.3.2. Bottom-up versus top-down & ad-hoc
Literature suggests differences in the positive and negative externalities in bottom-up, top-down and ad-hoc planned cultural districts. Where gentrification is generally linked to top-down planning, more long term, deep connections between the artists and area are supposed to be brought about by bottom-up planning (Paiola, 2008; Noonan, 2013). Researchers from around the world find that the externalities of the bottom-up driven cultural districts are more equally distributed, more sustainable and apply more to artists and long-term residents than those brought about by top-down driven cultural districts (Chapple, Jackson & Martin, 2011; Kong, 2009; Lin & Hsing, 2009; Mommaas, 2004; Sacco & Tavano Blessi, 2007; Pozini & Rossi, 2010; Stern & Seifert, 2005, 2007). This will be explained using examples in the next three
subsections.
2.3.2.1. Dumbo – New York City
In top-down driven processes, there are more examples of speculation being in the way of development and escalating real estate prices driving out local communities and artists than in the other two processes. This is because real estate developing companies, which tend have more money than average citizens, can buy property in the area to anticipate a future rise in value if, by means of top-down planning, a cultural district is to be realized in the are. An example of this is DUMBO in Brooklyn, New York City (Haridas, 2013). This area was rumored to become the next SOHO, so two real estate agents bought up a lot of property and rented it out for low prices to artists. They patiently waited for fifteen years for this to become a real cultural district and started developing luxury loft apartments between 1500 and 3000 square feet that were selling for 1000 dollar a foot. This led to a mass exodus of the artists that ‘pioneered’ the area and the moving in of the upper class that was able to afford these luxury apartments. So this cultural district did bring about positive cultural externalities, but these were not sustainable, as it was a top-down organized cultural district and the power was in the hands of real estate developers that eventually chose for profit over cultural development.
2.3.2.2. Lincoln Centre – New York City
Another negative externality of top-down processes is that the entire sense of identity may not be the one of the local population if it is imported by means of top-down urban planning interventions. An example for this lies in the Lincoln Center in New York City. Zukin and Braslow (2011) argue that the Lincoln Center and the social milieu it brings about sends a message to people outside of the Western high art scene that they do not belong in the area. Even though those people inhabited this area before the Lincoln Center was put there. It was a poor area, with many people of color, which is not the typical visitor of the Lincoln Center (Zukin & Braslow, 2011). The high art displayed in the Lincoln center was not something the locals would ever visit or would want in their area. This makes for an area they may not be able to identify with. So the positive social externalities are not very valid in this case,
because the local inhabitants of the area do not gain anything from the realization of the cultural district. They end up feeling alienated and unwelcome with a prominent building that has nothing to offer them. The accessibility of the cultural activities in the area should therefore also be considered in exploring and assessing the externalities of a cultural district.
2.3.2.3. New York City High Line – New York City
Top-down can however, also be somewhat necessary. It would be difficult to build an enormous museum with high construction costs and an expensive art collection from a strictly bottom op initiative. This indicates that a mix of both bottom-up and top-down processes might be most beneficial: the ad-hoc network model (Paiola, 2008). If the resources of top-down methods would be mixed with the supposed social benefits of bottom-up methods, the total of sustainable positive externalities might be maximized, while minimizing the negative externalities. The New York City High Line is an example of this (Brooks, 2010). The construction of the original New York City High Line started in 1929 and was part of the West Side improvement project and it was opened in 1934. It was a railway used for the delivery of goods between all the
factories and warehouses in the area. The owner was railway giant CSX
Transportation. The meatpacking industry where this railway served purpose for, disappeared from the area over time and the interstate highway system and the
transformation of freight transport in the 20th century were the new means of
transportation. This led to an aboveground railway in Manhattan that was not in use anymore from 1980 until 2005, but just took up space in a dense and expensive city like New York City. The Highline was purchased from CSX Transport by the city of New York for one dollar in 2005. What the state now owned was a large object with no value or function and even wrecking costs, something had to be done. That all started when ‘Friends of the high Line’ was founded, which was a non-profit
conservancy. “It raised funds necessary to design, develop and implement the plans
for the new public park, partnered with the city to find solutions to roadblocks in the development process and gained the buy-in of local groups, such as Chelsea Property Owners, by finding creative solutions to meet the needs of the High Line’s neighbours.” (Brooks, 2010, p: 20). Because the High Line was bought by the City of
New York, it could be made sure that it could become a public use facility through a ‘trail-use agreement’. This agreement stated that the High Line was only to be used for public recreation. Landowners in the high line area that did not fare well with these restrictions were allowed to sell the development rights that they held to parties that wanted to develop in this district. So instead of the original landowners wanting to demolish the structure, they now could simply sell their property without having to go through the costly process of demolishing it. This was a legal construct called the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. Development underneath and next to the High Line was restricted through the High Line Transfer Corridor (HLTC). Owners of development rights in this area could now transfer their development rights through areas outside of this corridor through the TDR program, which
increased their development potential. These development rights were coupled with Floor Area Ratio (FAR), which held further restrictions. It entailed, for example, the provision of inclusionary housing. This measure offered an incentive for creating a dynamic mixed-use neighbourhood. Today, the High Line is a public park-like facility. Through bottom-up driven processes, facilitated by local government, facility is realized for and by the public. Government made sure private party landowners were
not able to drive the price up, so that development could be driven by the
neighbourhood’s desires for the area. This example is explained in detail in order to explain an ad-hoc process of planning and to describe how successful an approach this could be. This example explains how and why the end result was successful in the case of the New York City High Line, something to keep in mind while exploring cases in The Netherlands.
2.4. Conclusion
Previous sections have described how bottom-up, top-down and ad-hoc cases have led to different sets of externalities. Obviously an end result with maximized positive externalities and minimized negative is desirable. Ideally these positive externalities are sustainable and the negative externalities unsustainable. The explored cases described how an ad-hoc planning approach led to the most desirable outcome in the case of the New York City High Line in terms of its externalities.
Figure 2: Conceptual framework
The image above systemizes the externalities in cultural districts, which is the subject of this research. As mentioned earlier, there are three different kinds of externalities to be distinguished, which are supposed to come with the formation of cultural districts (Mizzau & Montanari, 2008):
• Economic externalities • Social externalities • Cultural externalities
It is important to keep in mind that these externalities can also interact with one another and influence each other and influences the cultural district itself and vice versa as well (Evans, 2005). For example, economic externalities such as a higher general income in the area could make for a generally higher education of the localized population.
2.4.1. Assumptions
The assumption based on the theory described earlier, is that bottom-up driven processes lead to more positive and less negative externalities. Another assumption is that top-down driven processes will lead to less or less sustainable positive
externalities and more negative externalities, mostly in the form of gentrification. This is because of the inclusive nature of local communities that is paired with bottom-up cultural districts. The ad-hoc approach is supposed to offer the best midway between the two previously mentioned planning methods. People have more control about their own living environment, which will make them not feel pushed out by culture they cannot relate to, while being protected by government that can fend off strictly market driven processes. The goal of this research is to find out how the ad-hoc driven process behind the Tilburg Veemarktkwartier has led to its externalities.
3. Problem Statement
Cultural districts, with all their positive and few negative externalities seem ideal for a city to plan for. The question is, however, how well this applies to reality. With respect to the positive externalities, the money spent by locals, for example, is money not spent on something else local. This could lead to an economic boost by means of more money spent locally, which is often anticipated (Stern & Seifert, 2010), but the question remains if that is really the case. A top-down approach of just creating a cultural district from scratch could end up being counterproductive. This is because creative people, or artists, tend to adhere to a counter-establishment and rebellious ethos when they feel that institutions are ‘deciding for them’ (Mizzau & Montaziri, 2008). Another problem with these supposed positive externalities is that cultural districts are seldom created for the sake of the arts, but for spatial development purposes (Mommaas, 2004). This could result in the alienation of the local art scene for the purpose of economic gain. This strategy commodifies art and puts commerce first, only appreciating it in terms of its ‘experience value’ (Mommaas, 2004). Also, if real estate prices rise after a cultural district is realized or an area is designated to become a cultural district, the trend in real estate in the rest of the country or city should also be taken into account. Furthermore, the high expectations addressed by policy makers in terms of urban revitalization and regeneration effects for these cultural districts are often not met (Ponzini, 2009). However, the use of arts-related programs for revitalizing city centres as a ‘quick-fix’ is widespread in Western cities and regions (Quinn, 2005). This means that whenever an area needs ‘fixing’ or revitalization, arts and culture is often seen as an easy means to bring this change about. This all raises questions on what exactly applies to reality and what does not.
Another problem is the before mentioned distinguishment between top-down planned cultural districts, bottom-up planned cultural districts and ad-hoc planned cultural districts. Which process makes for an ideal situation in relation to which goals? Most importantly, there is little literature on how all the mentioned externalities apply to cases in The Netherlands. This calls for a case study in order to explore the reality in which The Netherlands practices urban planning. This is especially interesting
because of the welfare state that The Netherlands is. All the cases explored in the theoretical framework in order to find relations between externalities and planning methods were in the United States. In the United States there is a neoliberal style of governance (Weber, 2002). This means government through and by the market (Weber, 2002). In The Netherlands, this is less so, so maybe the understood
negative externalities like gentrification through market mechanics are less apparent. In the Netherlands, the process can never be fully bottom-up, because there will always be government interference. The case in the theoretical framework of this research that worked out best had an ad-hoc planning nature. The aim of this research is to find out how this governance style influenced externalities in the cultural district of the Tilburg Veemarktkwartier.
4. Research question
This chapter describes the main research question of this research and the sub questions that need answering in order to eventually answer the main research question. The means to answer these questions are described in the methodology chapter.
4.1. Research question
How did the nature of the planning process influence the positive and negative externalities of the Tilburg Veemarktkwartier cultural district?
4.2. Subquestions:
1. What is the context of the Tilburg Veemarktkwartier?
2. What are the most important externalities of the Tilburg Veemarktkwartier? a. Which of these externalities are sustainable?
5. Methodology
This chapter will expand on the methodology section of this research. The research methods will be explained and motivated.
5.1. Qualitative deduction
This is a qualitative research because the emphasis is in part on how individuals perceive their social world (Bryman, 2003). In order to get thoroughly into this, a qualitative method is called for. This research design is deductive. The theory leads to the hypothesis that ad-hoc planned cultural districts bring about more positive externalities, also in terms of their sustainability, than strictly top-down or bottom-up planned cultural districts. The mode of research is a case study, an observation method that should go deep enough into the case to answer the research question and sub questions. The case study is chosen in order to really be able to get deep into the case and collect the primary data that is necessary to answer the research question and sub questions.
Because the aim of this research is to find out how theory relates to a case in reality, a case study is the best fitting method of research. Strictly theory would not do the research justice, for the theory on the topic of cultural districts is generally not about the Dutch context. The case study design allows the researcher to apply various methods of data collection (Wolsink, 2015), which will hopefully end up in a deeper understanding of matters. The different methods of primary data collection will
hopefully lead to a deeper understanding of the case. Also, the case study approach excels at bringing an understanding of a complex issue through detailed contextual analysis of a limited number of events and their relationships (Wolsink, 2015). This definitely applies to cultural districts and this research. ‘The relevance of cultural
‘clusters’, ‘districts’, or ‘quarters’ in urban economy is widely recognized even if the extensive economical and geographical debate about how to measure their direct and indirect economic impact is not yet unanimous.’ (Ponzini, 2009, p: 436). This
Standardised performance indicators and qualitative benchmarks are neither desirable nor useful measures in this situation (Evans, 2005). In the wide array of possible evaluation techniques (Appendix 1), a pick and mix approach is required as valuing in cultural districts tends to be highly specific to the district in question
(Evans, 2005). The units of analysis in this case study are cultural districts in The Netherlands.
5.2. Case selection
For this research, one Dutch case is carefully selected. It is important that the case has established a certain ‘maturity’ in the sense that the long term, or sustainable, externalities are by now clear and the short-term externalities have proven to be only short-term. The case should also not be too old. The situation before the cultural district was formed should also be known when researching, for example, the increase or decrease in housing prices or employment rates. The selected case is the Tilburg museumkwartier, because it has reached a certain level of maturity and stability. The other reason is that this is a pure ad-hoc planned cultural district. It is done with government funding, both local and European Union (TIC, 2008) but also partly organized by the artists themselves and through the creative industry that was already there. A key player in this district was a concert venue that inspired the district to become cultural (Studio VMK, 2016). A final reason for going for the Tilburg Veemarktkwartier is for the overall standard context that is the city of Tilburg. As described in subchapter 6.1.2, Tilburg is a fairly average city for The Netherlands. Exploring how the ad-hoc planning nature of the Tilburg Veemarktkwartier cultural district lead to its externalities can help in bringing about a clearer vision on a desirable way to plan these districts.
5.3. Data collection
There will be a primary data collection as well as a document analysis. The interview guides and document analysis are made with the insight gained from the literature study that led to the theoretical framework. The idea was to hld with artists-,
residents- and entrepreneurs associations, key players in the area and policy makers for the cultural districts, in order to provide different views on the topic. Later, it turned out Studio VMK will provide gathered insight for all the before mentioned parties, since it is an association for everybody operating in the Tilburg Veemarktkwartier. Some conducted interviews are left out because no externalities or other notables were discovered in it. The interviews that ended up being included are: Adriaan van der Sande (project leader for the Tilburg Veemarktkwartier), Stefan Lanselots (Owner of Avec and board member of Studio VMK), Joep Schmitz (Hall Of Fame) and Gijs Bernard (013). The interview transcripts are included in Appendix 3. Other people to be interviewed can be sought in the direction of real estate developers and more corporate associations. The aim of the interviews is to attain a deeper insight in the workings of the externalities of the cultural district and their relation to the ad-hoc planning method. Whether or not the artists are really experiencing benefits from a good network in the area is not very possible to research from policy documents or theory, for example.
5.4. Data analysis
The type of qualitative data analysis to be conducted is a thematic analysis for the documents and interviews. This type of analysis can be useful for indicating important themes in the data. This is useful in order to find out which externalities have come to expression in the cases. Ryan & Bernard (2003) recommend to look for social
scientific concepts as a springboard for themes. Themes are described as follows:
“By and large, we can say that a theme is:
• A category identified by the analyst through his/her data;
• That relates to his/her research focus (and quite possibly the research
questions);…
• …And that provides the researcher with the basis for a theoretical
understanding of his or her data that can make a theoretical contribution to the literature relating to the research focus.” (Bryman, 2015, p: 580).
The theme of this analysis will be the externalities of the cultural districts. The general strategy for assisting a thematic analysis of qualitative data is Framework, an
Kingdom (Bryman, 2015). Framework is a “matrix based method for ordering and
synthesizing data” (Ritchie et Al., 2003, p: 219). An example of how this could look in
this research is displayed in the table below:
Theme: Externalities of cultural district
Positive economic externaliti es Negative economic externaliti es Positive social externaliti es Negativ e social external ities Positive cultural externaliti es Negative cultural externaliti es Bottom-up plannning Top-down plannin g Interviewee 1 “Store in the area generated a lot more net revenue”
Interviewee 2 “I just love how many young profession als moved here”
Table 1: Example of thematic analysis
After ordering these externalities in categories there is another divide that can be made, as mentioned earlier. This is the division between temporary and sustainable externalities (Evans, 2005). That divide will be made with colour distinctions. Some things, like an arts festival for example, will just attract a short tourism hype but not necessarily any long-term positive externalities.
As advised by Evans (2005), a pick and mix approach of evaluation techniques (Appendix 1) will be used. Different externalities require different means of research. The quality of life indicators to be researched are access to services and fear of crime. The economic externalities to be researched are the amount of generated jobs, average income (also related to the rest of the city) and employment rates. This is to be found while conducting interviews, document analysis and searching
statistics. The social externalities to be researched are the sense of identity in the area and general social environment, crime rates and population growth (relatively to the rest of The Netherlands), this will also be found while conducting interviews, document analysis and statistics. The cultural externalities will become clear by means of interviewing artists and artist associations.
While researching these externalities, there will also be an indication of whether or not this is assumed to be a sustainable or a temporary externality. Interviews and document analysis are thought to be most suitable for researching this. The
externalities that will be recognized in the interviews and document analysis will be recognized as such due to extensive literature research. The literature research points out what to look for thus will make it easier to recognize an externality when it is mentioned. The mentioned externalities to be researched are selected because of their comparability and because it is at least possible to apprehend these without having to conduct a long-term study. Many externalities are subjectively experienced, and these are externalities that are concrete and can be expressed clearly, so that they can be compared.
5.5. Documents
The policy document analysis will, as mentioned earlier, help point out the
externalities that were anticipated in planning the cultural districts and point out the further specifics of the plan. In terms of extracting externalities from policy documents to Framework, only one policy document ended up being useful. More policy
documents were treated, but no externalities were found in them, so they will not be displayed in the framework for the data analysis. This will help in answering the subquestions. The document analysis will also assist in making interview questions and in assessing who to interview.
5.6. Statistics
This research also includes a search on Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS) for relevant employment, crime rates and accessibility of cultural services. Other
important demographics such as average income and relative population growth will also be searched for.
5.7. Interviews
The reason to use interviews as a means of primary data collection is because they are most suitable for finding out individual opinion, meaning or experience (Hay, 2000). Besides that, interviewing is a method that is useful when the interviewee has to feel appreciated in order to get the right information (Hay, 2000). Interviews also allow the interviewer to ask further questions if something interesting comes up to go deeper into the matter at hand. The interviews will be held with local policy makers, artists and entrepreneurs in the cultural district. Interviewing chairmen of associations in the area will give the more global view of the people in the association, so fewer interviews will be needed.
The interview questions are based on a policy document analysis and a literature study. The theory about externalities already expressed, for example, the importance of networking factors in the cycle of urban creativity (Landry, 2008). The literature study points out which externalities are to be anticipated as a result of the formation of a cultural district. The policy document analysis will point out which positive externalities were targeted with the plan for the cultural district. Since the interviews will all be semi-structured, there is not a strict interview guide. The transcripts of the interviews are included in Appendix 3. The local policy makers will be asked to point out what positive externalities they hoped to achieve and which they think they have achieved through the formation of the cultural district. The artists working in the cultural districts will be asked about their experiences in the cultural district and whether or not it has helped them execute their crafts there. This will help in answering the sub questions and finally in answering the research question. It will also give insight in the impact of the cultural externalities. Interviews with real estate developers will give a deeper insight on the economic externalities and interviews with neighbourhood organisations might shed light on quality of life improvements or decreases. Entrepreneurial organisations can provide insight in social and economic externalities. These interviews will provide a deeper insight into how governance led to the externalities of this cultural district. By asking how governance facilitated the business or artist studio of the interviewee, insight is gained that might not be so easily gained by document analysis.
5.8. Conclusion
This is a qualitative deduction research. Beside literature research there are two methods of data collection. The data will be collected through interviews and document analysis. After collecting the data it will be analysed using Brymans
thematic analysis and Framework. This will give an overview of the results, which will make it easier to draw conclusion about the gathered qualitative data. Besides that, statistics about Tilburg and the Veemarktkwartier area will be looked up and
documented. Different combinations of methods for data collection will be used for the different externalities. Eventually, all the results of the data collection will be displayed in an aggregated Framework.
6. Case Study: Tilburg Veemarktkwartier
In this chapter the qualitative research will be described through the case study part of this research. The case and its context will be described and the results of the data collection will be displayed and expanded upon. This is a critical section for
answering the research question and the subquestions.
6.1. Case description and context
This subchapter explains the case, how it got to be and its relevant context. This context will also include the statistics mentioned in the methodology.
6.1.1. Case description
The Tilburg Veemarktkwartier is an area in the city centre of Tilburg that is a former textile production area. In this area, there is a core area selected, where all the cultural activities that make the area a cultural district are being promoted to take place (Veemarktkwartier, 2016). As Figure 3 illustrates, this is only a small part of the entire Veemarktkwartier area. The rest of the area is meant for more mixed city centre purposes (Veemarktkwartier, 2016).
After the textile industry disappeared from this area, the industrial buildings were demolished in order to make room for modern services (Mommaas, 2004). Before it became a cultural district, the Veemarktkwartier area mainly consisted of residential dwellings and office spaces. Then the municipality of Tilburg decided to actively create a cultural district (Mommaas, 2004). The reason for the desire to create this cultural district was to enjoy positive social and economic externalities (Mommaas, 2004). This case study tries to find out if these externalities are realized and how they came about. The project was funded by national government (Mommaas, 2004). Arts and culture started playing a big part in the area with the concert venue ‘013’ and incubator spaces for new media enterprises (Mommaas, 2004). In the original plan, stemming from the 1990’s, the Veemarktkwartier would have an art space, a rock academy, a pop-music museum, housing for musicians, and business hubs
(Gemeente Tilburg, 2016). Except for concert venue 013, none of these things were realized in the Veemarktkwartier cultural district. The rock academy was realized, but in a different area. Now, there are various cultural business located in the area, as figure 4 shows, and the area gets more and more market driven in order to not have
Figure 3: Location Tilburg Veemarktkwartier
to keep subsidising everything. The new plans that led to the current Tilburg
Veemarktkwartier cultural district were presented in 2007 (Gemeente Tilburg, 2016).
Figure 4: Most important buildings
Source: Veemarktkwartier, 2016
The following is a list of the most important facilities, or ‘big players’ in this core area identified through document analysis and interviews (Veemarktkwartier, 2016):
• Clusterbuilding De Plint. This is a large building that hosts 25 local
entrepreneurs in the creative industry. The building was made possible by the contributions of the European Fund for Regional Development, National Government, Local Government as part of the OP-Zuid initiative (Deplint013, 2016).
• Pakhuis-West, which is a compound for apartments, non-rental and non-social housing.
• Creative supplies store Avec. This is a large store that sells supplies for creative professions or hobbies (Veemarktkwartier, 2016).
• Het Duvelhok. This is a creative hub for all kinds of cultural activities (Duvelhok, 2016). The activities organized here range from expositions to dining to even workshops for the elderly (Duvelhok, 2016). Chaos and activity are key here, dynamic is the mindset.
• Poppodium 013. This is a large concert venue and one of the biggest attractions in the area (Veemarktkwartier, 2016).
• ICT-Cluster Faxx2.0. This is a sustainable office building that offers free meeting places for business meetings ranging from two to eight people, free workplaces and it hosts lectures on various topics.
The reason these ‘big players’ are mentioned is because they were prominent in being mentioned in policy documents and interviews (Gemeente Tilburg, 2015).
Because arts and culture are fully used for the purpose of urban regeneration here (Mommaas, 2004), the question is, however, if the externalities are actually
sustainable and still prominent. The reason for the desire to create this cultural district was to enjoy positive social and economic externalities (Mommaas, 2004). The data analysis and conclusion chapters will go further into these externalities. The Tilburg Veemarktkwartier project was funded by OP-Zuid (Veemarktkwartier, 2016), which is a fund that is used to make the southern provinces of The Netherlands more prominent (TIC, 2009).
6.1.2. Context
Tilburg is a city in the South of The Netherlands that counts 212.929 inhabitants on January first, 2016 (Gemeente Tilburg, 2016). This makes it the sixth biggest municipalitiy in The Netherlands (CBS 2016). The municipality of Tilburg is 88,79 square meters big (Wereldbank, 2016). The Tilburg Veemarktwartier is funded with the support of OP-Zuid, which is Operationeel Programma Zuid-Nederland (TIC, 2008). This is a subsidising programme by the provinces of Limburg, Noord-Brabant and Zeeland together with the cities of Breda, Tilburg, Maastricht, Venlo, Helmond, Heerlen and Sittart-Geleen, so it gives the city a promotional attitude towards the development of a cultural district, since there is money to subsidise it. The main goal for OP-Zuid is to make the southern Dutch region a stronger region in means of technological development. This is subsidised in part by the EU through the European Fund for Regional Development (EFRD). The city of Tilburg has one
university and two universities of applied sciences. There is also a rock academy and one of the univiersities of applied sciences has an arts school (Gemeente Tilburg, 2016).
The age distribution for the city of Tilburg approaches the Dutch average, but is has a slightly larger percentage of people in the age group between 20 and 30 (Appendix 2). This is the group where usually the higher education graduates are in. The total amount of people in the city of Tilburg grew between 2000 and 2015, but that growth also approaches that of The Netherlands as a country. Also the housing prices curve for Tilburg is comparable to the rest of The Netherlands (Appendix 2). The medium income has been slightly below the Dutch average for Tilburg over the last ten years, but not notably (Appendix 2). The grade that Tilburg gives for their average feeling of safety also approaches the Dutch average with a 7,2 for Tilburg versus a 7,1 for The Netherlands (Appendix 2). The average distance to cultural services or facilities is lower than the Dutch average for Tilburg, although there is a cultural district available (Appendix 2). Another statistic, however this one is more notable, is that Tilburg has been doing better than the Dutch average in terms of employment over the last years, as illustrated by Figure 5.
Figure 5: Unemployment in Tilburg Vs. Netherlands
Interesting to point out is the turning point in 2007, where Tilburg suddenly had lower unemployment rates than the rest of The Netherlands. This supports the externality discovered that there are more jobs generated through the development of the Tilburg Veemarktkwartier, which will be discussed in the next sub chapter.
All these statistics point out that in general, Tilburg approaches the Dutch average in terms of income and liveability. This also supports the statement that the Tilburg Veemarktkwartier cultural district is a good case to research the reality of the externalities of cultural districts for The Netherlands with.
6.2. Data Analysis
In this subchapter, the gathered data of the policy documents and the interviews will be discussed and analysed. It will provide an overview of the externalities,
highlighting positive and negative externalities and sustainable and unsustainable externalities, displayed using Framework. Furthermore this data will be interpreted. The data is gathered as described in the methodology section of this research. The transcripts of the interviews are attached in Appendix 3 and the independent
Frameworks from the thematic analysis (Bryman, 2015) are included in an Excel file for comfortable viewing.
6.2.1. Framework
This section displays the Framework from the aggregated results for the primary data collection. This way the balance in discovered externalities is easy to see and
oversight is provided. The Framework is presented in Figure 6. A clearer, larger version is also included in the Excel file uploaded as an attachment to this research.
Figure 6: Aggregated Framework
This framework shows that the balance of externalities is highly skewed toward positive externalities and that the positive economic externalities just slightly outweigh the positive social and cultural externalities. The Framework is in Dutch, because the interviews were in Dutch as well. The next subchapters will cover the externalities per group: economic, social and cultural. After that, there will be a
