UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES MASTER’S URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING
The Temporality of Temporary
Uses of Space:
An Actor-Centred Institutionalist Analysis
of Decision-Making Processes
Thomas Reus
August 2014
Master thesis
Colofon
The Temporality of Temporary Uses of Space:
An Actor-Centred Institutionalist Analysis of Decision-Making Process
18th of August, 2014
University of Amsterdam
Graduate School of Social Sciences Master’s Urban and Regional Planning
Author Thomas Reus Stavangerweg 164 1013AT Amsterdam thomasreus@gmail.com 06 5053 9298 Supervisor Dr. B.M. Hissink Muller b.m.hissinkmuller@uva.nl
List of abbreviations
ACI Actor-centred institutionalism
BBp Bureau Broedplaatsen
Chw Crisis- en herstelwet
PMB Projectmanagementbureau (Wibaut aan de Amstel)
RCD Rotterdam Central District
REO Ruimtelijk-economische Ontwikkeling
RMC Rotterdams Milieucentrum
SUC Studio Urban Catalyst
VKG Volkskrantgebouw
Wabo Wet algemene bepalingen omgevingsrecht
Wkl Wet kraken en leegstand
asd
List of tables and figures
Chapter 1: Introduction
Figure 1.1: Schieblock 2
Figure 1.2: Volkskrantgebouw 2
Chapter 2:
Temporary use of space
Figure 2.1: Phases and actor responsibilities
in temporary use of space processes. 10
Chapter 3:
Actor-centred institutionalism
Figure 3.1: The framework of actor-centred institutionalism 15 Figure 3.2: The framework of actor-centred institutionalism for temporary use of space decision-making process 19
Chapter 4: Methodology
Table 4.1: Case selection 22
Table 4.2: Overview of the respondents 26 Table 4.3: Reduced scheme for thematic analysis 27 Table 4.4: Operationalisation of variables 28
Chapter 6:
Case study: Schieblock
Table 6.1: The actors with their capabilities
and orientations 40
Figure 6.1: The Schieblock 36
Figure 6.2: Location of the Schieblock in RCD 36
Figure 6.3: Façade 36
Chapter 7:
Case study: Volkskrantgebouw
Table 7.1: The actors with their capabilities
and orientations 51
Figure 7.1: The VKG in 1969. 47
Figure 7.2: Location of the VKG. 47
Figure 7.3: ‘Stay’ in the VKG. 47
Figure 7.4: The Volkshotel. 48
Figure 7.5: Canvas terrace 48
Table of contents
Chapter 1: Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Problem statement 2 1.3 Relevance 3 1.4 Motivation 3 1.5 Outline 3 Chapter 2:Temporary use of space 5
2.1 Introduction 5 2.2 Definition 5 2.3 Background 7 2.4 Process 9 2.5 Breeding places 11 2.6 Conclusion 12 Chapter 3: Actor-centred institutionalism 13 3.1 Introduction 13 3.2 Overview 13 3.3 Framework 14 3.3.1 Institutional setting 15 3.3.2 Actors 16 3.3.2 Actor constellations 16 3.3.4 Modes of interaction 17 3.3.5 Policy environment 17 3.4 Application 17 3.5 Conclusion 19
Chapter 4: Methodology 20 4.1 Introduction 20 4.2 Research question 20 4.3 Research design 21 4.4 Case selection 22 4.5 Case descriptions 22 4.5.1 Schieblock 22 4.5.2 Volkskrantgebouw 23 4.6 Data collection 23 4.6.1 Documents 24 4.6.2 Interviews 24 4.7 Data analysis 27 4.8 Operationalisation 28 4.9 Conclusion 28 Chapter 5: Institutional setting 29 5.1 Introduction 29 5.2 Legislation 29
5.2.1 Spatial planning act (WRO) 30
5.2.2 Environmental Licensing (General
Provisions) Act (Wabo) 31
5.2.3 Crisis and Recovery Act (Chw) 32
5.2.4 Building Decree of 2012 32
5.2.5 Terminating temporary use 33
5.3 Conclusion 33
Chapter 6:
Case study: The Schieblock 35
6.1 Introduction 35 6.2 The Schieblock 35 6.3 Narrative 37 6.4 Decision-making process 39 6.4.1 Policy environment 39 6.4.2 Actors 39 6.4.3 Actor constellation 42 6.4.4 Mode of interaction 43 6.5 Conclusion 44 Chapter 7:
Case study: The Volkskrantgebouw 46
7.1 Introduction 46 7.2 The Volkskrantgebouw 46 7.3 Narrative 48 7.4 Decision-making process 50 7.4.1 Policy environment 50 7.4.2 Actors 50 7.4.3 Actor constellation 52 7.4.4 Mode of interaction 53 7.5 Conclusion 53
Chapter 8:
Conclusion 55
8.1 Conclusions 55
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Background
The idea that crisis breeds opportunity may be a cliché, but it does indeed open windows for new ways of thinking and doing. The 2008 global economic crisis has surely left its mark on the Dutch real-estate market. Signs of recovery are present, but for more than five years, the issues on the real estate market have resulted in many urban development projects coming under pressure (Van der Krabben, 2011). With large-scale interventions suffering from severe financial uncertainty, there has been a shift towards new types of smaller scale projects (Franzen & De Zeeuw, 2009). One particular type is temporary use of space. While the concept of it is not actually new, it has come to be of renewed interest in urban planning as an alternative path towards future growth in times of economic downturn and increased vacancy durations (Stevens, 2012).
But it is not just the economic climate that has put temporary use of space in the limelight. Creativity and culture have become increasingly important factors in establishing city
distinctiveness for the purpose of growth within the context of interurban competition (Evans, 2009; Pratt, 2008). The concept of temporary use of space fits these policy discourses very well, because temporality enables people to experiment with their interpretations of creativity and (sub)culture in the physical environment (Groth & Corijn, 2005). Furthermore, it can satisfy needs that the real-estate market focused on permanence is unable to meet (Bishop & Williams, 2012: 30).
The word ‘permanent’ is derived from the Latin verb ‘permanere’, which means ‘to endure’ or ‘to continue’. Do temporary uses of space have the ability to become permanent, or to endure? Many years ago, Jane Jacobs already argued that “cities are an immense laboratory of trial and error, failure and success, in city building and city design.” (Jacobs, 1961: 16). Temporary uses of space can be seen as a prime expression of this notion.
1.2 Problem statement
While temporary use of space is increasingly becoming a permanent strategy for area development, the projects themselves are by definition not permanent. With generally small investments and for a limited and sometimes uncertain amount of time, they can become an extremely successful, inclusive and innovative part of contemporary urban culture, by bringing new forms of economic, social and cultural expression to residual places scheduled for transformation (SUC, 2003: 4). In some cases, this leads to such projects becoming permanent, whereas in others, the projects remain to be of temporary existence (SUC, 2003: 24).
The employment of temporary uses is a collaborative process that involves several actors. Andres (2012: 764) articulates that in this process, strategies are put forward by actors that have a decision-making power on the development and on place-making. Thus, the development of temporary uses is determined by actors in decision-making processes, and it matters to the ‘making’ of a place whether there are temporary uses of space present or not. The latter is underpinned by a number of studies (e.g. Crang, 2001: 190; Stevens & Ambler, 2010). This means that these processes not only have internal consequences for the actors, but also have external consequences for the place. This comparative case study therefore explains the processes behind the decisions to make temporary uses of space permanent or not. It does so by applying Scharpf’s framework of actor-centred institutionalism to the decision-making processes of two
cases: the Schieblock in Rotterdam and the Volkskrantgebouw (VKG) in Amsterdam (figures 1 and 2). The central research question that follows is:
What elements in the decision-making processes of the Schieblock and the Volkskrantgebouw determine whether or not these temporary uses of space become permanent?
The cases show a range of similarities: both the Schieblock and the VKG are primarily breeding places, have an additional entertainment function, are located in modernist office buildings in the inner city, are of roughly the same age and size, and are privately run and owned. There is however one big difference between the cases: The Schieblock is a temporary use remaining temporary, whereas the VKG has become permanent. The cases are further described in chapter 4, as is the case selection process.
Figure 1: Schieblock. Source: Blikvangen (2013). Figure 2: Volkskrantgebouw. Source: Parool (2011).
1.3 Relevance
In academic literature, the concept of temporary use of space has been gaining attention for some years, but there are still many aspects to explore and study. The existing body of literature is focused mainly on potential transitory benefits in place-making (e.g. Andres, 2012; Németh & Langhorst, 2013) and its relation to creative policies (e.g. Stevens, 2012; Groth & Corijn, 2005). Furthermore, much of the research that has been conducted is based on temporary uses in Berlin. Because this city has a rather unique path dependency, Berlin-based research might not be as applicable in other contexts. This study contributes to the knowledge of temporary use by focusing on the end of temporality, and by shifting the geographical focus to the Dutch context. Investigating how temporary uses do or do not become permanent, furthers the understanding of what roles temporality plays and can play in area development.
In society, temporary use of space has the potential to revitalise urban areas and to enrich creative and cultural climates. Many temporary uses are therefore considered to be beneficial to users, neighbourhoods and cities. This has attracted the attention of policy makers, who have translated the concept of temporary use into urban policies. The positive effects they see are likely to vanish when these uses come to an end. This study can provide insights into actors’ interactions that could help policy makers who are interested in these effects.
1.4 Motivation
What gave rise to my interest in the end of temporality are my personal experiences with temporary uses of space. Ever since I have moved to Amsterdam in 2009, I have lived in temporary student housing. My home was erected in 2005 to meet student housing shortages and to utilise an interesting area, for which the plans for permanent development were being revised. Its destruction was planned for 2010. Now it is 2014 and I still call it my home. In the nearly five years that I have been living here, I have seen how the area is gradually changing and how the future development is being prepared. The temporary use will be here for a period that is at least twice as long as initially intended, but it seems unlikely that it will be here for another ten years. Everything points in the direction that the student housing will eventually make room for other types of housing.
In other parts of the city as well, I have seen how temporary uses of space have contributed to the diversity of urban life. Places that I liked to visit have ceased to exist, and new things have taken their place. This has prompted me to investigate how decisions on the end of temporality actually come about. How are these choices made, and by whom?
1.5 Outline
This study is structured as follows. Chapter 2 goes more deeply into the concept of temporary use of space. It defines the concept, describes its background and explains how and why they are realised. Chapter 3 explains
the concept of the decision-making process in terms of actor-centred institutionalism. It also explains how this framework is applied in this study. Chapter 4 is about the choices and considerations concerning the metho-dology. Chapters 5, 6 and 7 constitute the actual analysis. Chapter 5 describes the formal institutional setting of both cases. Chapter 6 explains the decision-making process of the Schieblock case, while chapter 7 does the same for the VKG case. Chapter 8 is the conclusion in which the cases are compared and the research question is answered.
Chapter 2
Temporary use of space
2.1 Introduction
To analyse how decision-making processes influence the duration of temporary uses, it is essential to have a sound theoretical knowlegde of the concept of temporary use of space. The aim of this chapter is to provide that knowlegde in a structured manner.
Section 2.2 tries to find a workable definition for the concept. Section 2.3 discusses its background and the role of temporality in society in general, and in urban planning in particular. Section 2.3 focuses on the process of temporary use, the typical actors that engage in them, and why they do so. Section 2.4 narrows in on one particular type of temporary use – the breeding place – since both of this study’s cases are breeding places. Section 2.5 concludes with a brief review of what has been discussed in this chapter.
2.2 Definition
‘Temporary’ is a term that is not defined easily. It has no unequivocal
meaning, since the concept itself is associated with diverse connotations and usages. It at least refers to a finite period of time, with a beginning and end. From that line of thought everything is temporary, because in the end, nothing lasts forever. Some things just last longer than others. It may be evident that such a definition is not very helpful in this case. A fundamental problem with any temporary phenomenon is that it can only be accurately identified in hindsight. Something cannot be proven to be temporary unless it has ended. This would implicate that nothing in existence today can be called temporary. Why then are temporary uses of space called temporary, even if they have not disappeared yet?
In scientific literature, authors have adopted varying definitions of temporary use. Andres (2012: 759) defines it as “a set of practices with short-term return developed in a context of economic, urban or political disorder in a more or less unplanned way.” She places more importance on the characteristics of temporary use and omits the temporality itself,
although she adds that their life span varies from a couple of months to several years.
Haydn and Temel (2006: 17) have developed a definition that comprises both the characteristics and the element of temporality, stating that temporary uses are uses that are “planned from the outset to be impermanent” and “seek to derive unique qualities from the idea of temporality”. Their definition implies that it is irrelevant whether or not a temporary use remains temporary or becomes permanent; it only matters that the initial idea is impermanence.
This is much like the definition used by Bishop and Williams (2012: 5), except that they purposefully leave out the element of characteristics because of the diversity of temporary uses: “for the sake of simplicity our definition is not based on the nature of the use, or whether rent is paid, or whether a use is formal or informal, or even on the scale, endurance or longevity of a temporary use, but rather the intention of the user, developer or planner that the use should be temporary.”
This definition is also adopted by others (e.g. Németh & Langhorst 2013), and appears to be a useful definition for this study, in which the open-endedness of temporary uses are central. ‘Intention’, however, is a vague and difficult concept to pin down. An initiator might have intended all along that he wanted to do his project for as long as possible and make it permanent, but the circumstances, such as the real-estate owner’s preferences, may have led him to sign a temporary contract anyway. Thus, a project that is temporary in one actor’s eyes might not necessarily be temporary in another’s.
To overcome the problem that ‘intention’ poses, this study adds to Bishop & Williams’ definition that temporality is defined by the contents of the formal agreement concluded by the actors involved, and not the intention of the individual actors. It is the nature of the agreement that counts: a use is temporary if the basis of the agreement is temporality, and a use is permanent if the basis of the agreement is permanence, i.e. for an indefinite period rather than interim.
With this being said, it is still unclear what temporary uses entail in practice. They come in all shapes and sizes, and can have numerous functions. Housing, work space, restaurants, night clubs, urban beaches, swimming pools, sport facilities, art galleries, breeding places, and various combinations of them: it has all been done. Very often, the development of temporary uses is done in a grass-root manner, with little financial invest-ment, minimal interventions, and a high degree of recycling existing structures (Colomb, 2012: 137).
Temporary uses of space can perform different roles within area development. Studio Urban Catalyst (SUC) has studied the effect of temporary uses on the development of certain locations in Berlin, where much of the recent thinking on this topic is coming from. SUC (2003: 14-15) came to the typology shown on the next page, from which it can be concluded that there are four ways in which a temporary use can become permanent: consolidation, coexistence, parasite and pioneer. This typology will be returned to in later chapters to explain how the Schieblock and VKG cases fit into it.
1. Stand-in: Temporary use does not have any
lasting effect on the location, but only uses the vacant space for the time available.
2. Impulse: Temporary use gives an impulse for
the future development of the site by establishing new programmes / a new programmes cluster at a certain location.
3. Consolidation: Temporary use establishes
itself at a location and is transformed into a permanent use.
4. Coexistence: Temporary use continues to
exist (in a smaller size) even after establishment of a formal permanent site at the location.
5. Parasite: Temporary use is developed in
dependence of existing permanent uses and takes advantage of existing potentials and availability of space.
6. Subversion: Temporary use is interrupting
an existing permanent use by squatting as a political action. Even so this occupation is normally of a very limited time period.
7. Pioneer: Temporary use is the first ‘urban’
use of the site, establishing a way of settlement, which might become permanent.
8. Displacement: A permanent institution is
displaced for a limited period of time and is during this time established in an impoverished way as a temporary use.
2.3 Background
In the world today, many city authorities charged with the task of urban redevelopment and revitalisation are finding that they often lack the resources, power and control to implement formal masterplans. Instead, some have begun to experi-ment with looser planning visions, linked to phased development of smaller, often temporary initiatives, designed to unlock the potential spaces of now, rather than in ten years time. Such approaches are increasingly finding resonance and sympathetic response from property owners and developers, some of which are now recognising the value of flexibility in plan-making, and of the potential of temporary use in the face of economic uncertainty (Bishop & Williams, 2012). This emergence of temporality in urbanism is a relatively recent phenomenon. It shows similarities with other emerging forms of urbanism, such as organic urban growth and bottom-up approaches. They all describe a way of gradual development, often without a blueprint, with as its building blocks small-scale initiatives undertaken by parties other than the ‘major players’.
Research on temporality in urban planning is still in its infancy. Up to some years ago, both urban planning theory and practice have been mainly interested in permanence. At the basis of the increasing popularity of tempo-rality lie a number societal and economic drivers.
In society, there is a noticable change in people’s lifestyle choices and attitudes. Richard Florida (2002a) explains how an increasing amount of people are beginning to work and live
much as creative types, such as artists, with the result that people’s values and tastes, personal relationships, choices of where to live, and sense of use and time are changing. He has dubbed these people the creative class. They do not view themselves as a class, but share a common ethos that values creativity, individuality, difference and merit (Florida, 2002b: 3).
Temporary uses have proven to fit this ethos, both from the point of view of the entrepreneur and that of the user (Colomb, 2012). The fact that temporality allows experimentation with new ideas and concepts can help to form the sense of identity creative people seek (Lehtovuori & Ruoppila, 2012). Florida’s conclusion that creativity and creative people are becoming increasingly important in the generation of growth in contemporary, knowledge-based urban economies, then, has led city policy makers around the globe to adopt creative policies aiming to accommodate the creative class. Among other things, these policies foster temporality in general because it allows creativity to be expressed (Stevens, 2012).
Moreover, in the resulting interurban competition, many cities turn culture and subculture to good account and deploy them as distinctive qualities (Evans, 2009). Some cities have also devised specific policies to protect the places of subculture from displacement caused by the global economies of land use (Shaw, 2007). Because many temporary uses can be considered to be (sub)cultural in one way or another, they are used to put forward the image of a culturally rich city (Kunzmann, 2004).
This gradual process of enlist-ment of new (temporary) forms of
creative and cultural expression by policy makers is inherently contra-dictory and conflictual, because it changes the way such spaces work and often threatens their very existence by raising the interest of investors in previously neglected areas (Colomb, 2012). This contradiction generates resistence on the part of the iniators and users of temporary projects threatened with displacement, and leads to localised conflicts around the places that are subject to these public policies. Altogether, their effect might by paradoxical, but they surely encourage the popularity of tempo-rality.
Economically, the 2008 economic crisis and the resulting recession have opened up opportunities for temporary use tremendously. Caused by the speculation and over-valuation of assets in a global economic boom, the crisis has caused businesses to fail, consumer wealth to decline, and housing and office markets to collapse in many areas. The immediate withdrawal of finance from the property market has led to halted, postponed or simply cancelled develop-ment projects, and to an increase of vacancy rates. The vacancy rates can in addition be attributed to more long-term processes such as economic restructuring and suburbanisation (Bishop & Williams, 2012: 23-24).
The ready availability of vacant spaces appears to be significant in allowing temporary activities to take hold and flourish. “Vacancy represents both a temporal and spatial vacuum between old and new uses, and temporary users tend to select those sites that are of little interest to property investors at a given time” (Bishop & Williams, 2012: 25).
Furthermore, temporary solutions from the private sector appear to be more appropriate to achieve the intended policy goals concerning vacancy rates than the permanence-focused, government-led solutions (Németh & Langhorst, 2013; Bishop & Williams, 2012: 23).
2.4 Process
In general, temporary uses of space require the engagement of at least two types of actors: an initiator delivering an idea, and a private real-estate owner supplying the space1. Obtaining the
permission to use vacant space involves negotiations between the initiating party and the owner. Whether temporary uses are made possible, accepted, or repressed depends partly on the attitude of the owner, which may range from sympathetic support to outright opposition (Colomb, 2012: 137). A related, crucial condition is trust between the owner and the initiator. One problem with this is that the initiators are often informal actors, coming from outside the domain of urban planning, whereas the real-estate owners are institutionalised (Groth & Corijn, 2005: 506, Lehtovuori & Ruoppila, 2012: 36).
The common interest of initiators and real-estate owners is not always easy to find. The process can then also require mediators and a clear supportive role of public authorities. In a lack of direct investment resources, they can initiate and mediate processes by, for example, assisting in locating sites, licensing or giving financial
1
In the vast majority of temporary use cases, the real-estate owner is not the initiator as well, and the real-estate is privately owned.
advice (Lehtovuori & Ruoppila, 2012: 32).
In the Netherlands, there are a number of such public authorities in existence. In Rotterdam, for example, there is the Transformatieplatform (Transformation Platform), which aims to reduce the amount of vacant space by bringing together interested parties. Similar organisations in Amsterdam are the Stadsloods and Kantorenloods (City Pilot and Office
Pilot, respectively). Another interesting
agency within the Municipality of Amsterdam is Bureau Broedplaatsen (Bureau for Breeding Places, BBp), that, as its name would imply, is concerned with the development of breeding places.
These organisations play a role of facilitation; the management and exploitation of temporary uses do not belong to their tasks, but are the responsibilities of the initiator and the owner (see figure 2.1 for the phases and actor responsibilities in temporary use processes). The game they play to get to an agreement can, within the context of the commodification of place, be interpreted as a struggle between use value and exchange value (Logan & Molotch, 1987). To put it black and white, an owner will try to extract the financial exchange value from a place, while an initiator will protect the social use value of that same place. Since the temporary use of a space is often not the use that generates the most revenue for the owner, he would want to see the permanent use developed as soon as possible. The initiator on the other hand attaches most value to the temporary use of a space, and would therefore want to see the development
of the permanent use put on hold for as long as possible. In practice, however, things are more nuanced because other factors come into play. It is unlikely
that an owner will have total disregard for the use value, and similarly, that the initiator will have total disregard for the exchange value (Andres, 2012).
The types of actors that have been mentioned – real-estate owner, initiator and municipality – have different motives for their involvement in the collaborate process of temporary uses of space (Andres, 2012). The owner finds in them a source of rental income for property that at the moment does not have another demand. Renting on basic level does not exclude potential upgrading later on. If temporary tenants are unable to pay for market rents, their rents provide at least some financial gain for the real-estate owner, and helps to decrease the maintenance, security and insurance costs of the properties standing otherwise vacant (Lehtovuori & Ruoppila, 2012: 36). Moreover, it prevents them from potential fines imposed on them for vacancy2, and it
prevents them from having to devaluate their real estate. Providing space for temporary uses can also raise the profile of the real estate and the image of its owner, which can help to attract the attention of investors to the property.
For the initiator, temporary uses of space provide opportunities for experimentation with new ideas at relatively low cost. With minimal interventions and the access that low rents ensue, financially weak players can mature in a protected, often appealing environment and can become active participants in the shaping of their city (SUC, 2003). The
2
The Squatting and Vacancy Act (Wkl) of 2010 contains an instrument called the vacancy order, which, under certain conditions, municipalities can use to impose fines on real-estate owners for vacancy. Idea Initiator Available space Owner Negotiations Initiator Owner (Municipality) Temporary agreement Initiator Owner Development Initiator (Owner) (Municipality) Exploitation Initiator Termination Initiator Owner New negotiations Initiator Owner (Municipality) New (temporary) agreement Initiator Owner (Municipality)
Figure 2.1: Phases and actor responsibilities in temporary use of space processes.
initiator is motivated by the aim to claim vacant spaces as breeding grounds for innovation and niche activities. He can acquire and sometimes sustain a position in the area’s development process (Andres, 2012).
Municipalities are interested in temporary uses of space, because they can help to them to attain a wide array of city-wide policy goals. They can be instrumentalised in creative or cultural policies, but may also be used to bring down vacancy rates, create jobs or attract capital investment. Temporarily unused spaces provide spatial and temporal windows of opportunity for the public appropriation of of real estate for alternative needs that are not met by the open market (Stevens, 2012). Municipalities may choose to subsidise temporary projects, depending on the type of use. On a more localised scale, temporary uses can be important elements in place-making strategies, i.e. the shaping of the physical, social and economic character of a neighbourhood by public, private, non-profit and community actors (Markusen & Gadwa, 2010; McCann, 2002; Stevens & Ambler, 2010). They are a good tool in creating attractive, lucrative and active urban spaces, recognised by the wider public (Lehtovuori & Ruoppila, 2012). They can help to create a sense of identity and social cohesion, and can furthermore increase public safety, combat degradation and contribute to remedy certain shortages (Alkemade, 2010).
2.5 Breeding places
As both of the cases used in this study are breeding places, or incubators, this
particular type of temporary use deserves extra attention. Breeding places are collective company buildings that offer affordable work space and studios to creative start-ups and artists, and fit therefore well in the framework of creative policies (Hospers, 2003). In many cases, the work space and studios are accompanied by the presence of some kind of bar and other semi-public spaces. Breeding places serve various purposes that often blend. They are places for experiment, encounters, collaboration, presentation, discussion and debate. They are not necessarily temporary, but in the Netherlands at least they often are, with temporality comprising a period 3-10 years (BBp, 2013). Because site-specificity of breeding places is an important factor for success, they cannot simply be moved to a new location when the temporary agreement expires (Lehtovuori & Havik, 2009).
In terms of management, they are generally either self-organised or ran by dedicated, more professionalised foundations or enterprises, that are positioned in-between the tenants and the owner. Examples of such organisations in the Netherlands are CODUM, Urban Resort and Creative Spaces. In terms of financing, some breeding places are funded privately by the initiator and occasionally the owner, whereas others have received subsidies. It partly depends on the specific segments of the market they cater to whether government aid is provided.
Breeding places are assumed to be able to function as catalysts in urban redevelopment and place-making strategies, which has drawn the eyes and increased the expectations of cities, housing associations and developers. In
recent years, they have put effort into stimulating their realisation (Claassen et al., 2012; Verschoor, 2010). Under the right mix of users, functions and activities, breeding places can have a social, economic and cultural impact on their environment, but since every context is different, every breeding place concept must be tailor-made (Verschoor, 2009). This makes that within the existing variety of temporary uses, breeding places are especially interesting research subjects.
2.6 Conclusion
This chapter has offered the theoretical framework for the concept of temporary uses of space. It has tried to shed light on what they are, where their recent attention originates from, why they are of interest to initators, owners and cities, and how these actors relate to one another.
The previous sections have learned that the real-estate owner is most likely to maximise his revenues when the site or building of a temporary use is redeveloped. To him therefore, temporality is a means to an end. For the initiator on the other hand, temporality is an end, or at least running the project is, whether it is temporary or permanent. So if the owner does not redevelop, one could assume that the circumstances are not right for redevelopment. And when circumstances are not right today, they might not be in five years or ten years time. Many things can happen in a such a time frame; the temporary use can become very successful, while the demand or financing for the permanent use is still lagging. The initiator meanwhile is ready to feed and stimulate these spaces, and is ready to
be part of the redevelopment. What then, in this decision-making process of initiators, owners and, to a lesser extent, municipalities, leads to the termination or continuation of temporary uses? To get to an answer to this question, the next chapter focuses on the decision-making process as a framework for analysis.
Chapter 3
Actor-Centered Institutionalism
3.1 Introduction
This chapter continues the theoretical part of the study and focuses on the concept of the decision-making proces. It does so by discussing actor-centred institutionalism (ACI), the framework used to analyse the decision-making processes of the Schieblock and VKG cases. The purpose of this chapter is to explain what a decision-making process is in the context of ACI, and how this information is used in this study.
Section 3.2 discusses the purpose and some conceptual aspects of ACI. Section 3.3 gives a thorough explanation of the contents and workings of the framework itself. Because the framework is not specificly designed with the decision-making processes of temporary uses of space in mind, section 3.4 explains how it is applied in this study, and presents the conceptual framework that is used throughout. Section 3.5 concludes with a recap of this chapter.
3.2 Overview
What Fritz Scharpf has called actor-centred institutionalism is a framework of conceptual tools for policy research, which he has explicated is his 1997 book Games Real Actors Play. ACI can be understood as an analytical approach that focuses on the behaviour of and interaction patterns between actors as causal factors in order to explain decision-making processes in public policy, though it offers a tailor-made approach for research on the problem of governance on the level of entire social fields (Scharpf, 1997: 51). One should bear in mind that ACI is a framework, and not a theory, meaning that it provides guidelines for the search for explanations and causal mechanisms, rather than present powerful, abstract generalisations that would need to be empirically ascertained accordingly. The implication is that interaction-oriented research is relatively dependent on empirical data that must be be collected specifically for each case (Scharpf, 1997: 54).
ACI is a fusion between rational-choice and institutionalist paradigms. The approach starts from the assumption that social phenomena are to be explained as the outcome of interactions among intentional actors, but that these interactions are structured, and the outcomes shaped, by the characteristics of the institutional settings within which they occur (Scharpf, 1997: 14). In ACI, decision-making processes are conceptualised via the strategic interaction of actors endowed with certain capabilities and specific cognitive and normative orientations, within a given institutional setting (Scharpf, 1997: 53-54). Institutional settings, to the extent that they are able to influence actor choices, are understood as remote causes of certain outcomes, whereas actors and their courses of action are the proximate causes. Although they are influenced by institutions, it is simply actors that have the ability to make decisions.
Scharpf stresses the importance of game-theoretic thinking in ACI, not in the least because game theory itself is a framework for studying strategic interaction between actors in a decision-making process (Myerson, 1991: 1, Scharpf, 1997: 18). Like all variants of rational-choice theory, the premise of game theory is that actors are perfectly rational. They will single-mindedly maximise their own self-interest, meaning that they will always choose an alternative that they regard as at least equal to the other alternatives. Scharpf, however, nuances this premise by stating that it is not realistic to think of human actors as single-minded self-interest maximisers who will exploit all opportunities for individual gain regardless of others.
Game theory consist of three fundamental concepts: players, strategies and pay-offs. The concept of player may apply to any actor that is assumed to be capable of making purposeful choices among alternative courses of action; strategies are the courses of action available to a player. A game exists if these courses of action are in fact interdependent, so that the outcome achieved will be affected by the choices of more than one player. Payoffs represent the valuation of a given set of possible outcomes by the preferences of the players involved (Scharpf, 1997: 20). Scharpf contends that the game-theoretic conceptualisation of interactions is appropriate for modeling various types of decision-making processes that involve a limited number of actors that are engaged in purposeful action, under conditions in which the outcomes are a joint product of their separate choices, and the actors are aware of their interdependence (1997: 18).
3.3 Framework
The primary business of interaction-oriented research within the framework of ACI is to explain the outcomes of decision-making processes and to produce systematic knowledge that may be useful for developing feasible policy recommendations. The framework defines a set of interactions, i.e. the process, that is subject to analysis (Scharpf, 1997: 61). Figure 3.1 shows schematically that, alongside the problem and the policy outcome, the framework consists of the institutional setting, actors with their capabilities and orientations, actor constellations, modes of interaction, and the policy
environment. The meanings of these elements are discussed in the following subsections.
3.3.1 Institutional setting
Institutions are defined as “systems of rules that structure the courses of actions that a set of actors may choose.” (Scharpf, 1997: 54). This definition does not include only formal legal rules that are sanctioned by the court system and the machinery of the state, but also
informal social norms that actors will
generally respect and whose violation will be sanctioned by loss of reputation, social disapproval or withdrawal of cooperation.
This definition remains at a high level of abstraction, which could be reduced by the introduction of functionally defined subcategories. But even such attempts of classification are overwhelmed by the variety of existing institutions. It would have to cover all areas of legal rules, and it would also have to include the full range of informal rules, norms, conventions and expectations that extend, complement or modify the normative expectations derived from the ‘hard core’ of formal
legal rules (Scharpf, 1997: 55). And even though they may be classified under abstract categories, the point remains that these rules are highly individualised and that they produce causal effects only in their concrete shape.
In ACI, therefore, the concept of the institutional setting does not have the status of a theoretically defined set of variables that could be systematised and operationalised to serve as explanatory factors. Rather, it is used as a shorthand term to describe the most important influences on those factors that in fact drive the explanations, namely actors, actor constellations and modes of interaction (Scharpf, 1997: 55).
Institutions have explanatory value because sanctioned rules will reduce the range of potential behaviour by specifying required, prohibited or permitted actions. In game-theoretic terms, the positive and negative incentives attached to institutionalised rules will increase or decrease the pay-offs associated with the use of particular strategies and hence their probability of being chosen by the players. Moreover, institutions
Figure 3.1: The framework of actor-centred institutionalism. Source: Scharpf (1997: 61)
constitute the important players of the game and shape their perceptions and valuations of potential pay-offs.
3.3.2 Actors
Actors are the participants in the decision-making process. Although strictly speaking only individual actors are capable of intentional action, in reality individuals often act in the name and the interest of another person, a group or an organisation. Whether such individuals are capable to act on the behalf of others is determined by the internal interaction between the individuals participating. The aggregate effect is then a result of individual choices, but is not in itself an object of anyone’s purposeful choice (Scharpf, 1997: 71). Scharpf uses the term ‘composite actor’ to refer to a capacity for intentional action at a level above the individuals involved. The intentional action is the joint effect of coordinated action expected by the participating individuals. In other words, the use of actor-centred approaches above the individual level presupposes that the individuals involved intend to create a joint product or to achieve a common purpose.
In the framework of ACI, actors are characterised by their specific capabilities and orientations (Scharpf, 1997: 61). Capabilities are relative to specific outcomes. The term is meant to describe all action resources that allow an actor to influence an outcome in certain respects and to a certain degree. These include personal properties such as intelligence or human and social capital; physical resources such as money or land; technological capabilities; privileged access to
information, and so on. What matters most, however, are the action resources that are created by institutional rules.
Orientations consist of characteristic perceptions and preferences. These may be relatively stable, or they may be changeable through learning and persuasion. Perceptions relate to an individual’s unit of reference, i.e. the unit or organisation on whose the behalf the individual takes action (Scharpf, 1997: 79). Preferences refer to the desirability of the status quo, of the causes of a perceived problem, of the courses of action, and of the outcomes associated with these (Scharpf, 1997: 61). Preferences are determined by an actor’s basic self-interest, normative duties and expectations, and identity. When there is a lack of hierarchy or a conflict between a specific actor’s courses of action suggested by considerations of self-interest on the one hand, and those dictated by normative duty on the other, the actor will have to choose his effective preferences based on his defined identity (Scharp, 1997: 82-85).
Actors respond differently to threats, constraints and opportunities because they may differ in their intrinsic perceptions and preferences, but also because their perceptions and preferences are very much shaped by the specific institutional setting within which they interact (Scharpf, 1997: 53).
3.3.3 Actor constellations
It is unlikely that any actor will be capable to determine the outcome of the decision-making process according to the actor’s own perceptions and preferences and through the use of the actor’s own capabilities. What is
determinative is the constellation among the plurality of actors that are involved in the interactions (Scharpf, 1997: 62). The constellation describes the actors involved, the courses of action available to them, the outcomes associated with these courses of action and their combinations, and the preferences of the actors over these outcomes. This still represents a static picture rather than the actual interactions within the game that produce the outcome. The constellation thus describes the level of potential conflict, but it does not yet include information about the interaction through which that conflict is to be resolved (Scharpf, 1997: 93). This is because what is generally considered a game in game theory, is in the framework of ACI described by a specific actor constellation in combination with a specific mode of
interaction. This distinction ensures greater precision and a higher level of abstraction (Scharpf, 1997: 62).
3.3.4 Modes of interaction
Modes of interaction refer to the specific ways in which the actors are assumed to interact with one another to produce the outcomes of decision-making processes. They are shaped by institutional rules regulating their use, or by the absence of such rules. Any given constellation could be played out in a variety of modes of interaction, which differ widely in character. Scharpf describes these different modes of interaction by using the labels ‘unilateral action’, ‘negotiated agreement’, ‘majority vote’ and ‘hierarchical direction’ (1997: 63).
In the case of unilateral action, actors are able to produce an outcome
one-sidedly. In a negotiated agreement, the courses of action of the actors are interdependent; they will try to agree on a joint decision. Majority vote occurs when a course of action is chosen by majority rule. When the mode of interaction is hierarchical direction, one of the actors creates a capacity to override the preferences of other actors.
3.3.5 Policy environment
Scharpf is very brief on the concept of the policy environment. Because ACI is a framework for interaction-oriented rather than problem-oriented research, the explanatory value of the external policy environment is limited. Policies do not directly structure the interactions between the actors, but are the outcomes of intentional action (Scharpf, 1997: 34). Policies then become part of the policy environment, which subsequently can give reason to produce new policies for new problems. Policies therefore have a way of creating a feedback loop in the framework of ACI. Policies can also shape the institutional setting, but this effect is left out of the framework because it lies outside the scope of interaction-oriented research.
3.4 Application
The previous section has sought to explain Scharpf’s framework of actor-centred institutionalism. As has been pointed out, ACI is designed as an analytical approach to the decision-making processes of public policy. These processes differ from the decision-making processes of temporary uses of space. This section
explains how they differ, and what implications these differences have for the framework of this study.
Scharpf proposes a set of conceptual tools that are ultimately meant to improve the conditions under which politics is able to produce effective and legitimate solutions to policy problems (1997: 14). Typical policy problems include unemployment and social security, and require the involvement of public policy-makers, e.g. governments and labour unions, if they are to be solved. The processes described by Scharpf take place in the public realm and on the national level of scale, and their outcomes are new policies.
Decision-making process of temporary use of space, on the other hand, take place outside the public realm do not produce public policy. The actors they involve are not policy-makers, but primarily private organisations, i.e. real-estate owners and initiators. Municipalities are generally involved as well, in one way or another, but they play a different role than the public actors in Scharpf’s conceptualisation. They are not in it to produce policy, but rather to execute it.1
Furthermore, temporary use processes are highly localised. The projects they concern produce effects mainly on the neighbourhood level of scale. It is unlikely that their effects will reach further than the city level.
These differences in actors, realms and scales do not mean that ACI is not useful for explaining temporary use processes. As Scharpf states himself, “the framework as such is
1
It should be noted that municipalities are no monolithic entities. They consist of various departments and agencies that have various goals and responsibilities. This is further discussed in section 4.4.
more general than are the purposes of this book.” (Scharpf, 1997: 14). They do however have a number of implications for this study that need to be addressed. Firstly, the formal institutional settings in which temporary uses of space are embedded do not require a description characterised by a high level of abstraction, because the contexts are relatively concrete. The area of law that is most likely to structure the actors’ capabilities and orientations is that of planning law2, which regulates
tempo-rary use of space. Chapter 5 describes planning legislation in more detail.
Secondly, the policy environment serves a different function in the framework. In Scharpf’s conceptualisation, the outcome of a particular decision-making process is a particular policy, that then becomes part of the policy environment. In temporary use of space, the outcome of the process is a decision on temporality, i.e. the duration of a temporary use. Since the temporary uses analysed in this study are individual and localised cases, it is unlikely that they will bring about serious changes in the policy environment. On the other hand, it is likely that the policy environment will have a direct effect on the actors with their capabilities and orientations, on the actor constellations, and on the modes of interaction. The policy environment consists of formalised plans and policies that have to do with the economic, social and physical contexts of temporary uses of space. It therefore shapes the interactions in a
2
In the case studies, other areas of law, such as property law, might also turn out to be relevant. Where they do, it is discussed in the cases’ respective chapters.
way similar to that of the institutional setting, by reducing the range of potential behaviour. And like the institutional setting, the policy environment can be relatively concrete when it comes to temporary uses of space. In this study, it consists mostly of local and municipal spatial policies. These are discussed in the case chapters.
The framework discussed in the previous section brought together with the considerations discussed in this section results in the conceptual framework depicted in figure 3.2. This is the study’s central framework for the analysis of the temporary use cases.
3.5 Conclusion
The purpose of this chapter has been to explain the concept of the decision-making process according to actor-centred institutionalism. It has been shown that such a process consists of an institutional setting, a policy environment, actors, actor constellations and modes interaction. These elements constitute a conceptual framework that should be able to
provide a sufficient explanation based on interaction for the outcome of the Schieblock and VKG cases.
Figure 3.2: The framework of actor-centred institutionalism for temporary use of space decision-making process.
Chapter 4
Methodology
4.1 Introduction
The aim of this study is to explain the outcomes of the decision-making processes that determine the temporality of temporary uses of space, and in particular of the Schieblock and VKG cases. Aside from the theoretical aspects, the previous chapters have also discussed some methodological considerations regarding the subject. The purpose of this chapter is to further elaborate on the methodology adopted in this study.
Section 4.2 returns to the research question and clarifies its content. Section 4.3 explains why the answer to it is sought through the use of a comparative case study research design. Section 4.4 describes the process of the case selection, while section 4.5 describes the cases themselves. In section 4.6, it is explained what methods are used to gather data from documents and interviews; section 4.7 focuses on the thematic analysis that is applied to this data. All this then leads to an operationalisation of the central concepts, which is presented in section
4.8. Section 4.9 is a brief summary of what has been discussed in this chapter.
4.2 Research question
Whether a temporary use of space is continued or terminated is not a decision made solely by its initiator. It is the result of the game that is played by the initiator, the real-estate owner and the municipality. Hence the central research question:
What elements in the decision-making processes of the Schieblock and the Volkskrantgebouw determine whether or not these temporary uses of space become permanent?
The concept of temporary use of space has been discussed in chapter 2. It refers to the use of a vacant building or vacant land under a temporary agreement. The decision-making processes of the Schieblock and the VKG constitute the units of analysis. As has been explained in chapter 3, the processes consist of the actors with
their capabilities and orientations, actor constellations, modes of interaction, institutional setting, and policy environment. These elements are the independent variables, since they are expected to determine whether or not temporary uses of space become permanent (see figure 3). These decisions on temporality – in other words the outcomes of the processes – are the dependent variables.
The nature of this study is primarily explanatory; it tries to explain the outcomes of particular decision-making processes by testing them with the framework of actor-centred institutionalism. To some extent it is exploratory research as well, since theories that provide insight into the ending of temporality are far from abundant. There seem to have been no scientific attempts yet to provide a theory of which the research question could be derived, nor have there been studies of temporary uses that apply ACI. To put it differently: there does not seem to exist a solid theoretical foundation that indicates what elements of the decision-making process are the most decisive for the duration of temporary uses of space.
4.3 Research design
A research design is the logic that links the empirical data that is to be collected to the research question (Yin, 2009: 24). This study is designed as a comparative case study. Such a design makes it possible to investigate particular phenomenona within their real-life contexts. These phenomena can be better understood when they are compared in relation to multiple meaningfully contrasting cases
(Bryman, 2008: 58). In this study, the phenomenon is temporary use of space, and the contrast between the cases is found in the outcomes of the decision-making processes (more on this in the next section).
An advantage of the multiple-case study as opposed to the single-multiple-case study is that its evidence is considered to be more compelling, making the overall study more robust (Yin, 2009: 53). The number of cases determines the ability to generalise the outcomes of the research. A disadvantage of the multiple-case study is that it is more time-consuming than a single-case study would be. A higher amount of cases comes at the expense of the depth of the case analyses. To find a balance between these considerations, this study includes two cases.
The generelisability is important, because the relation between theory and data is inductive; this study attempts to extract theoretical generalisations from the empirical findings. The fact that there are multiple cases included, however, does not imply that it is legitimate to generalise this study’s findings to all temporary use projects in Rotterdam and Amsterdam. The high degrees of variation and site-specificity of all of these projects affect their decision-making processes, decision-making many of them uncomparable to the two included in this study. At the most, the findings can shed light on temporary breeding places in similar institutional settings and policy environments. Nevertheless, the comparative case study design is particularly appropriate to create a deeper understanding of the mechanisms behind the decisions on the temporality of temporary uses.
4.4 Case selection
The selection of case studies is often based on replication logic. Each case is then carefully selected so that it either predicts similar results (a literal replication) or predicts contrasting results but for anticipatable reasons (a theoretical replication) (Yin, 2009: 54). Because of the exploratory nature of this study, however, it is not possible to determine prior to the data collection process what the most appropriate theoretical base is to guide the case selection process. The decision is therefore made to select cases that resemble each other in as many respects as possible, but differ when it comes to the outcome of the decision-making process. This provides the best opportunities to identify patterns of difference and similarity in the relation between the decision-making process and the outcome, and it prevents comparisons of apples and oranges.
Aside from the difference in outcome, a number of other conditions have provided the basis for the case selection. Firstly, and very practically, the access to potential data should be sufficient. There needs to be at least some relevant information present on the Internet, and the cases must not be located too far away. Secondly, the cases should be temporary, in the sense that there are existing plans for permanent developments on their locations. Thirdly, the cases should be similar types of temporary use (i.e. both are breeding places or urban beaches), because different types are more likely to pollute the findings. Finally, there should be incentive present for one or more actors involved to continue the temporary project. This means that at least one actor (generally
the initiator) has made known in the media or elsewhere that there is an eagerness to continue.
These conditions ensure that the cases are researchable and that the question of temporary or permanent is applicable. The method described above (see table 4.1) has led to the selection of the following cases: The Schieblock in Rotterdam, and the Volkskrantgebouw in Amsterdam.
Selection conditions Similar Different
Outcome of process X
Access to information X
Existing plans for location
X
Type of temporary use X
Incentive to continue X
Selected cases Schieblock VKG Table 4.1: Case selection. Source: own creation.
4.5 Case descriptions 4.5.1 The Schieblock
The temporary use of the Schieblock was officially initiated in 2009, when architecture and design office ZUS and creative work space developer CODUM concluded a five-year contract with real-estate owner and developer LSI and the Municipality of Rotterdam. ZUS and CODUM aimed to establish an urban laboratory for entrepreneurs and start-ups that are concerned with the city and its improvement. During these five years, the initiators experimented with new concepts in and around the building. A rooftop garden and a platform for debate and urban culture were developed, as was a footbridge that reconnects certain parts of the area.
The Schieblock has gradually become a valuable addition to the area,
especially in the light of public space. It has generated new types of activity in what had in the years before turned into a desolate location where people did not want or need to be. Although LSI and the municipality had plans for large-scale redevelopment of the Rotterdam Central District, in which the Schieblock is located, the actors signed a new agreement in 2014 that ensured the continuation of the temporary use for at least five more years. The case study tries to explain how the actors came to this decision.
Referring back to the typology of temporary uses presented in section 2.2, the Schieblock is considered to be of the ‘impulse’ type: a temporary use that stimulates the future development of the area by establishing new programmes, that are not meant to become permanent. In the future, the Schieblock could become an example of ‘consolidation’ or ‘coexistence’. The former depends on whether the Schieblock will actually be terminated or will acquire permanent existence; the latter depends on whether the temporary use in one way or another will be incorporated in the redevelopment plans.
4.5.2 The Volkskrantgebouw
The temporary use of the VKG was initiated in 2007, when breeding place operator and manager Urban Resort concluded a temporary rental contract with real-estate owner and housing association Stadgenoot. At the time, it was the largest breeding place in the Netherlands. It was off to rough start, partly because of the bad state of the building and the fact that the newly founded Urban Resort needed to get adjusted to running an operation of this
size. It pulled through and similar to the Schieblock, the VKG turned into catalyst for social and economic activity in an inner-city area with a negative repuation.
In 2011, Stadgenoot sold the building to Magnificent8 and Brouwershoff, who planned to turn it into a hotel where creative tourists and entrepreneurs would meet. Because the building’s temporary use already was very much creativity-based, they wanted to incorporate the temporary use into their permanent plan. They worked together with the city district to execute the plan, and concluded rental contracts for ten to twenty years with Urban Resort and the operator of restaurant/club Canvas, which was also located in the building. The case study further explains how the actors have arrived at the decision to retain the VKG’s creative and cultural function, and to make the temporary use permanent.
In the typology of temporary uses, the VKG is a combination of ‘coexistence’ and ‘consolidation’: the breeding place is transformed into a permanent use, but continues to exist in a smaller size because the hotel has taken up part of its space.
4.6 Data collection
This study requires a qualitative research strategy. Not only because quantitative data about these cases (or any cases of temporary use for that matter) is basically non-existent, but mainly because the framework of actor-centred institutionalism necessitates qualitative data in order to investigate the actors, the capabilities, the orientations, and so on. These specific
