Coping with challenges in inner-city waterfront redevelopment projects : opportunities and limitations for transferring policy practices from the case of HafenCity in Hamburg to the case of Haven-Stad in Amsterdam

(1)

1

Coping with challenges in

inner-city waterfront redevelopment

projects

Opportunities and limitations for transferring policy

practices from the case of HafenCity in Hamburg to the

(2)

“In these possibilities, we remember that urban development is not just for profit, or person aggrandizement, but for the benefit of humanity and the planet as well. It is on the urban waterfront that these visions of the city are finding form. These are the sites of post-industrial city space-making”.

(3)

COLOFON

Title: Coping with challenges in inner-city waterfront redevelopment projects – Opportunities and limitations for transferring policy practices from the case of HafenCity in Hamburg to the case of Haven-Stad in Amsterdam.

Author:

Yte Elbrich Schukking Student number: 11767162

E: schukkingyteelbrich@gmail.com T: 06 81 90 38 72

MASTERTHESIS URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING Universiteit van Amsterdam

Graduate School of Social Sciences Nieuwe Achtergracht 166

1018 WV Amsterdam The Netherlands

Supervisor: Sara Özogul

Second reader: Tuna Tasan-Kok

(4)

ABSTRACT

The number of inner-city waterfront areas that are being redeveloped or where plans for regeneration are being made, is increasing. The shift of traditional industries and structural changes in the economic system of former harbour areas has led to dramatic changes in the functions of these areas. Waterfront regeneration projects are often seen as prestige projects, in which a lot of different stakeholders cooperate. Projects like this have frequently led to changes in the governance system of cities.

This research focusses on to what extend institutional conditions (formal and informal institutional frameworks), can be used to deal with challenges coming along with the planning process of inner-city waterfront redevelopment projects. The main case study of this research is the project of HafenCity in Hamburg. HafenCity Hamburg GmbH, a private law cooperation owned by the municipality of Hamburg is created to steer and guide the planning process of this new urban neighbourhood. Due to the fact that in this project the public sector has a strong role, the amount of faced challenges is quite limited. Moreover, the project experienced challenges which were not mentioned in the literature. To deal with these challenges, the public sector created a framework in which they utilized the knowledge of the private sector and other important individual actors. Since this research follows a constructive approach, it is argued that the current literature does not address the fact that waterfront redevelopment projects in different urban contexts can learn something from each other. Therefore, the planned project of Haven-Stad in Amsterdam has been chosen as a pilot study for this research. Success factors have been identified from the case of HafenCity in Hamburg. It is argued that some of these success factors, such as policies, institutional conditions and best-practices, are transferable from the case of HafenCity to the pilot study of Haven-Stad.

(5)

1

PREFACE

By writing this preface of my master thesis, an end has come to my years at university. After graduating from my bachelor at the University of Utrecht, I started in September 2017 with the master Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Amsterdam. I can say that I am still very happy that I made this choice and that I cannot imagine any other master’s degree being more interesting to me. The last months I have worked with pleasure (and of course, with a little bit of reluctance sometimes) on this final product of my academic career. This research has brought me to the beautiful city of Hamburg, gave me new (personal) insights and put me in contact with interesting respondents from the field.

I want to say thanks to my friends and boyfriend for always being around, providing me with enough coffee breaks and funny meme’s during a long study day and the good times we had together working on our master theses. It will be hard getting used to not spending every day with all of you in the library anymore. Moreover, I want to thank my family for showing their interest in my research and keeping me company for a few days on a trip to Hamburg. It made doing the fieldwork even more fun! Many thanks to all the respondents who participated in this research as well. Last but not least, I want to thank my supervisor Sara for her helpful, constructive (always fast!) feedback and the pleasant cooperation.

Good reading! Yte Elbrich Schukking June 2018

(6)

2

1.

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Context and matter

Brownfields occur in every industrialized country or region. The main reason for the emergence of derelict land is the change of traditional industries towards a service-based economy, and therefore the structural changes in the economic framework of a country. This makes that the appearance of derelict land often goes along with the loss of jobs. Due to that, whole neighbourhoods can get into decline or even whole cities around those brownfields can get neglected (Grimski & Ferber, 2001). Europe is currently confronting the challenge of regulating these sites, since brownfield redevelopment has proved to be one of the major tools that can lead to urban development in a sustainable way. Public actors often see brownfields as a source of strategic policy delivery, and as a source of strategic profit making by private actors (Adams et al., 2010). This makes it essential to reach a better understanding of the different ways, contexts and policy focuses various cities have in addressing those brownfields.

One particular type of derelict areas in cities are the former inner-city harbour areas. During the past decades, these places have undergone the transformation from an economy based on production to a service-based economy; which led to an increasing demand for new facilities in post-industrial cities. Port cities all over the world follow these broad changes in the post-industrial regime and need to restructure their former harbour areas to meet the new challenges and needs that arise (Kostopoulou, 2013). Urban waterfront redevelopment projects, aiming at reconnecting the abandoned harbour areas with the urban fabric, became a phenomenon of urban renewal all around the world. Currently, waterfront redevelopment is a global trend, which has been carried out in metropoles, cities and towns on every continent. Since former harbour areas are often located close to the city centre and on the interface between the built environment and the water, these waterfronts are provided with highly exploitable urban spaces (Hall, 1998); (Gospodini, 2001).

The characteristics of waterfront redevelopment have led to the problem statement of this paper. It is argued that since the emerge of waterfront redevelopment in the 60’s, the planning process of these projects has changed during the following decades, due to broader discourses such as the rise of public-private partnerships and the emergence of collaborative planning. Waterfront regeneration projects are often seen as prestige projects on a large-scale, part of a broader growth strategy to reimage a city. Previous planning styles and new innovative ones are often combined by cities to meet their redevelopment aims for the projects. That is why these projects have frequently been mentioned as the successful transformation towards a new form of governance (Basset et al., 2002); (Galland & Hansen, 2012). These new forms of governance often include an increasing cooperation between public and private actors. In the opinion of the researcher, the relationship between public- and private actors and the institutional conditions in which they work together, have changed during the last years. It is possible that these changing relations have made it easier for stakeholders to deal with challenges coming along with large-scale redevelopment projects.

(9)

5

This thesis is trying to understand to what extend institutional conditions can cope with challenges in the planning process of inner-city waterfront redevelopment projects. This is done in a constructive instead of a critical way. Since in recent years, the focus in academic literature has mainly been on the negative aspects of waterfront redevelopment (Breen & Rigby, 1985; Cowell & Thomas, 2002; Loftman & Nevin, 1996; McCarthy, 2004). Whereas this thesis focusses on success factors of the projects, using a rather constructive approach. This means that the insights, critical remarks and advice on inner-city waterfront redevelopment projects given in this thesis, are tended to help and improve other similar projects. This constructive approach focusses on the interdependence of social and individual processes in the co-construction of knowledge (Sullivan Palincsar, 1998). Therefore, the constructive approach is argued to be very useful to address the concept of policy transferring. By using this approach, the possibilities for policy transferring and lesson learning in case of inner-city waterfront redevelopment projects, can be defined.

1.2 Case of interest

In this thesis, the case of the newly developed area HafenCity in Hamburg will be researched. HafenCity is one of the most remarkable urban development schemes in a water situation worldwide. The redevelopment of Hamburg’s former harbour area will increase the surface of Hamburg’s city centre with 40 percent. Major urban regeneration projects like this call for strong intersection and coalescence between public and private actors (HafenCity, 2017). The public-private partnership, which leads the development of the project, goes along under the name HafenCity Hamburg GmbH. The development of HafenCity is done in cooperation with public and private actors, which makes it an interesting case when it comes to (successful) institutional conditions.

Hamburg HafenCity has been the topic of various studies so far. Menzl (2010) writes about the relation of public and private open spaces in the project. Together with Breckner, Menzl did a study on ‘neighborliness’ and the reality/potential of this in HafenCity. HafenCity seeks to realize both urbanity and neighborliness in a sort of co-existence. They conclude that the social life in HafenCity is characterized by a high degree of liveliness, willingness to get involved in the neighbourhood and very intensive forms of localization (Menzl & Breckner, 2011). Krüger (2009) discusses in his article ‘HafenCity Hamburg, Ein Modell für Moderne Stadtentwicklung?‘ the history of HafenCity and the potential of the project to become a model for other cities which are dealing with regeneration of former industrial areas. The article is mainly visionary since in 2009 the project was not as far advanced as it is nowadays. Of course, there is critique on the project as well. For example, Der Spiegel (2010) wrote that HafenCity feels like a big ‘ghost town’. Thereby, the weekly magazine fears that the new neighbourhood will become a place of gentrification and rich people due to the high property prices (Der Spiegel, 2010). During the economic crisis, a lot of stakeholders were afraid that they were not able to continue with the project. Shop owners in the city centre of Hamburg are also afraid that their customers will choose HafenCity over the inner-city for their shopping, which will leave the streets in the city centre empty (Abendblatt, 2009).

Constructive research in the form of a pilot study

The case of HafenCity Hamburg is not the only case studied in this research. Since this research follows a constructive approach, it is researched whether some successful policy

(10)

6

measures on dealing with challenges in the project of HafenCity, will be applicable to other similar cases. It is argued that some of these policy measurements and institutional elements are transferable to another context.

One of these comparable cases is the case of Haven-Stad in Amsterdam. The municipality of Amsterdam is planning to create a liveable, highly urbanized new neighbourhood called Haven-Stad in the north of the city centre (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017). This neighbourhood will be situated (partly) on the former harbour area of Amsterdam, creating a big opportunity for waterfront redevelopment. The fact that HafenCity Hamburg has quite some similarities (physical, geographical, political and considering the aims of both projects) with the planned Haven-Stad in Amsterdam makes it a good pilot study for this thesis. Since the project of Haven-Stad is still in its infancy, the project will be researched in an explorative way, using insights from HafenCity Hamburg’s case. In the concluding part of the thesis, the transferability of certain institutional conditions from the case of HafenCity to the case of Haven-Stad will be examined.

1.3 Relevance of this research

Scientifically, quite some research about waterfront development and waterfront regeneration has been done. Sairinen & Kumpulainen (2006) assess the social impacts of waterfront regeneration in their research. The article uses three types of waterfront regeneration in Helsinki and shows four social dimensions in which regenerated waterfront areas can be used in cities. Basset et al. (2012) address the issues of urban governance through a case study on waterfront development in Bristol. Galland & Hansen (2012) research different roles of planning in waterfront redevelopment due to the case of Aalborg, Denmark. Different planning rationalities, forms of governance and competing interests were used in the redevelopment of this project and the concept of ‘hybrid planning’ is first addressed here. Gunay & Dokmeci (2012) focus more on the contribution of culture-led regeneration approaches when it comes to Istanbul’s waterfront redevelopment.

In the opinion of the researcher, there is a lack of constructive approaches in these researches. Besides this, the research that has been done so far is rather looking at single cases instead of creating a link between the different projects. There is a gap in the literature in how (successful) policies of one case can be transferred to a case in a different urban context. This research will try to fill this gap.

Moreover, this research has a strong societal relevance since the liveability and attractiveness of an area easily decreases when former industrial areas are left for what they are. Dilapidated former industry areas, such as former harbour areas, often cause the loss of jobs in the shipping sector. Moreover, neighbourhoods or even whole cities around those areas can get into decline. Due to this, it makes sense to elaborate on the (successful) development of former harbour areas and investigate the planning processes of these kind of projects. In the opinion of the researcher, there is a chance that challenges which are faced in this kind of projects are similar in different contexts. By considering whether policy transfer between different cases is possible, the constructive approach is addressed in this research.

(11)

7

1.4 Focus of this research

In this research, the focus will lie on to what extent different institutional conditions can cope with challenges coming along with the planning process of inner-city waterfront redevelopment. The research will explore these concepts through the case study of HafenCity in Hamburg. Successful policy measures, institutional conditions and best practices will be gathered during this process. Concluding, it will be discussed to what extend these conditions can be transferred to the pilot study of Haven-Stad in Amsterdam. The aim of the research is to be critical, but constructive. This has led to the following research question:

“Under which institutional conditions can challenges in the planning process of inner-city waterfront redevelopment be addressed, and to what extend can these conditions be transferred into another context?” In this thesis, the main case of HafenCity in Hamburg will be studied in-depth. Then, the pilot study of Haven-Stad in Amsterdam will be studied explorative. When it turns out that stakeholders in Amsterdam foresee challenges or difficulties, which stakeholders in Hamburg might have overcome, these outcomes can provide some help or be input for policy recommendations.

A set of sub questions will complement and support the process of answering the main research question. These questions will provide conclusions that will trickle down to a main outcome. First, the inner-city waterfront redevelopment project of Hamburg will be defined. Furthermore, the different (unforeseen) challenges and success factors that can be distilled from the planning process of this project will try to be detected. How these challenges have been dealt with and which stakeholders took part in the planning process of the project are interesting aspects that are analyzed as well. Concluding, the possibility of policy transfer from the case of HafenCity to the case of Haven-Stad will be examined.

1.5 Outline

In this research it will be argued how certain types of institutional conditions can deal with challenges coming along with inner-city waterfront redevelopment. Furthermore, it is researched whether policy transfer between different urban waterfront redevelopment projects is possible. To address this argument, various research steps have been made. The steps have been structured as followed. In chapter 2, the theoretical frameworks of this research will be discussed. Following up on this, the methodology used in this thesis, the criteria for the case selection, plus information about the respondents and the interviews that have been conducted, will be explained in chapter 3. In chapter 4, the results concerning the case of HafenCity will be analyzed. The main findings and results in relation to the sub questions are given in this chapter. In chapter 5, a broad explanation on the pilot case Haven-Stad is given. Chapter 6 discusses the possibility of policy transferring between HafenCity and Haven-Stad. Moreover, the opportunities and limitations on the frameworks used in this thesis are given in this chapter. Chapter 7 entails the conclusion of this research. It also discusses the limitations of this research and presents ideas for further research and policy implications.

(12)

8

2.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The number of waterfront redevelopment projects all around the world is increasing. Since the economic function of these former industrial areas is changing, plans for new urban development are being made. In this chapter, the various concepts that come along with inner-city waterfront redevelopment projects are being discussed. It is argued that the current literature addresses various aspects which are connected to this kind of projects, but it fails in addressing how different projects can learn from each other. A constructive approach in creating a link between different waterfront redevelopment projects is missing. This research tries to fill this gap. To put this in a theoretical context, a few concepts should be explained. First an introduction on waterfront (re) development is given. Following up on this the institutional conditions and planning processes which make this kind of projects possible are being discussed. In paragraph 2.4, the framework of different challenges coming along with large-scale redevelopment projects, are listed. After, the framework on the variables for success in urban development projects are given in paragraph 2.5. The chapter concludes with the possibilities and limitations for policy transfer between different urban contexts and provides a framework on how to measure this in paragraph 2.6.

2.1 Urban redevelopment of waterfront areas

The emergence of waterfront development

Former harbour areas or waterfront areas are one type of derelict areas in post-industrial cities. Since the decline of these former harbour areas, urban waterfront redevelopment has become a well-known phenomenon in many Western countries. Once these places were occupied by manufacturing and trade industries plus the entire infrastructure that belonged to it. After these forms of harbour-related production declined, the harbour areas became abandoned. The ongoing industrialization and containerization of port activities and the fact that a lot of cities have entered a ‘post-industrial phase’ lead to more of these un-used industrial areas. The cities accommodating these places were confronted by the need to reinvent themselves (Galland & Hansen, 2012). As said, the phenomenon of urban waterfront development and regeneration has spread all over the world. It started in the 1960s and 1970s in Northern American cities as Baltimore, San Francisco and Boston, which showed that waterfront areas close to the city centre could become liveable public places. Other cities around the world started to regenerate and develop their waterfronts as well. First by using the approach of the Northern American cities, later by using their own insights (Smith & Soledad Marcia Ferrari, 2012).

As early as the 1960s, waterfront redevelopment as a planning tool compromised different schemes, plans and processes. Shaw (2001) divided the transformation of waterfront areas into four different generations, which will be explained shortly. The first generation of waterfront revitalization happened in North American cities around the 60s and 70s. During the 1980s, the second generation of redevelopment projects was mainly carried out by organizations that were formed to plan, manage and implement these projects. Some of the projects from this generation (e.g. London and Barcelona) consisted out of huge urban renewal projects lead by market-driven and plan-led planning processes and capacities

(13)

9

(Galland & Hansen, 2012; Shaw, 2001). During these years the so-called ‘evolution’ of public-private partnerships started as well. The new planning paradigm of that time allowed for plans to be developed over time. These plans did not have to be as comprehensive as the master plans of the past (Gordon, 1996). Urban waterfront redevelopment projects were among the most striking examples of physical planning and urban renewal around that time (Gordon, 1997).

The third generation of waterfront redevelopment projects took the measures developed by the first two generations for granted and were set up in a similar way, during the 80s. Waterfronts of for example Vancouver, Sydney and Liverpool can be seen as examples for this generation. The fourth and last generation of waterfront redevelopment projects started after the 1990s (Shaw, 2001). The characteristics of this generation are not yet as clear as those of the former generations. However, it seems to be a recurring phenomenon that policies, strategies and practices are combined with new and old, innovative planning styles (Galland & Hansen, 2012). These waterfront regeneration projects are often seen as prestige projects on a large-scale, part of a broader growth strategy to reimage a city. In addition, these projects have frequently been mentioned as the successful transformation towards a new form of governance (Basset et al., 2002).

Recent urban waterfront redevelopment

In the context of today’s society, we consider the waterfront as an urban amenity. These waterfronts were created in the past, when the economy of a city was based on industrial production. The social and economic structures of those times do not longer exist, which leaves these large spaces (in older cities often adjacent to the city centre) abandoned (Marshall, 2011). As cities move towards an economy based on services, a major aspect of their success will be in the quality of their city spaces. Waterfront sites provide big opportunities for this. Redevelopment can take place on large, visible places which makes it the perfect place for designers and planners to express their contemporary visions of the city (Marshall, 2011). In general, when redeveloping a waterfront area, the aim is to ‘re-connect’ the waterfront to the city both physically and functionally. Most of the time this requires that the waterfront obtains a new unitary function. Moreover, existing buildings can be restructured or be rest- orated and contemporary urban space needs to be created (Smith & Soledad Marcia Ferrari, 2012).

Gordon (1996; 1997) states that recent waterfront planning projects mostly take place on a project basis in cooperation with different sorts of quasi-governmental or public-private agencies. Among the various waterfront regeneration projects in the world, a common theme is the project-led quality that many of them tend to adopt. This means that there is a focus on the redevelopment of particular sections of any specific waterfront after a land-use function has been established (Galland & Hansen, 2012). This project-led waterfront redevelopment mainly takes place in countries that have a planning system which is rather receptive to market forces. As Galland and Hansen (2012) state, local institutional arrangements, planning rationalities, project leadership, existing market conditions and types of urban areas heavily influence waterfront redevelopment. All together these components characterize specific planning styles in waterfront redevelopment practice.

(14)

10

Overall, waterfront regeneration- and development projects are often examples of public-private partnerships and of compromises between different stakeholders (Smith & Soledad Garcia Ferrari, 2012). The large-scale projects provide the perfect opportunity for designers and planners to reimage the image of their city. At the same time, these projects have proven to be a good way of transformation towards a new form of governance. The next paragraph will discuss this rather new ways of inter-organizational governance in planning projects.

2.2 Institutional conditions

For this thesis, it is relevant to understand the institutional context of urban waterfront redevelopment projects. To address this context, the concept of institutional conditions is used. Institutional conditions can be split up into formal institutions and informal institutions. The concept of formal institutions is defined by Buitelaar et al. (2014:249) as:

“Government rules that are enforced by the legal system, such as laws, constitutions, ordinances and local land-use plans” Informal institutions are for example: less explicit rules of conventions, codes of behavior and traditions and values of a certain context. These forms of institutions influence each other, they are actively changed and created through action (Heurkens, 2016). Moreover, there is also interchange between institutions and actors; they influence each other mutually. Therefore, the process of urban waterfront redevelopment is also the process of the interactions between actors and institutions (Buitelaar et al., 2014). In this thesis, institutional conditions compass formal and informal institutions – more specifically, the way in which different actors work together in a planning process and thereby try to overcome certain challenges in this process.

Over the past decades institutional conditions in urban planning have changed. These new forms of institutional conditions are related to new forms of governance structures in urban planning. The next subparagraph will elaborate on this.

2.2.1 From government to governance

Since the decreasing role of the welfare state in the 1980s, new governance structures became more and more popular. The public sector transferred responsibilities and functions to the private sector, and by doing so, opened up for private initiatives. This lead to a new form of governance that substituted conflicting and managerial modes of policymaking and implementation. This form of governance is known as collaborative governance (Ansell & Gash, 2007). A lot of research has been done to compose a workable definition of the concept governance. Stoker (1998) argues that among the various interpretations of the term, there is an agreement that governance refers to the development of governing styles were the boundaries between and within public and private sectors have become blurred. Le Galles (1998) gives another useful description of the concept governance:

“Governance is a process of coordination political decision-making implicating different

actors, social groups and institutions in a particular institutional context to attain appropriate goals that have been discussed and collectively defined in fragmented, uncertain environments” (Le Galles (1998) in Tasan-Kok, 2010:21).

(15)

11

This collaborative approach emerged after the continuing decentralization of planning and management in practice over the past decades (Lane & McDonald, 2005). One could also argue that collaboration between various stakeholders is getting more common since the growth of knowledge and institutional capacity in the private sector has increased (Ansell & Gash, 2007). It has led to an understanding of governance as a process were multiple stakeholders (the term ‘stakeholder’ is used in this research to refer to the participation of every actor who has a stake in the development of a certain project) try to engage in consensus-oriented decision-making. Although there are cases in which specific actors have the authority to make the ultimate decision, the drive to reach consensus is a mark of a collaborative process already (Ansell & Gash, 2007). The increasing shift from top-down governmental planning to more bottom-up collaborative processes in urban planning can be defined as collaborative planning

Public-private partnerships as a form of collaborative planning

Collaborative governance or planning and the concept of public-private partnerships (PPPs) can sometimes specify the same phenomenon. In the case of a PPP, an agreement between public and private actors is made to deliver specific services or perform certain tasks. Bovaird defines a PPP project as follows:

“PPPs are working arrangements based on a mutual commitment (over and above that implied in any contract) between a public sector organization with any other organization outside the public sector”

(Bovaird, 2004:200) As said before, large-scale projects are mostly examples of PPPs. First, some rationales for governments to form a partnership with a private party should be given. From an instrumental perspective, creating a partnership with a private actor can give the public stakeholder access to technical expertise and established networks of private actors. It is also a way in which ‘businesslike’ practice and thinking is imported into the public sector (Brinkerhoff & Brinkerhoff, 2011). Besides that, sharing the financial risks of a project with a private partner is also attractive to the public sector.

PPPs require collaboration to function. A lot of literature has underlined the increasing significance of collaboration between governmental and non-governmental actors in the making of urban public policies. As Newman states this:

“The idea of a shift from markets and hierarchies towards networks and partnerships as modes of coordination is a dominant narrative” (Newman, 2005:85) These governance networks or PPPs have the potential to extend the public sphere, empower communities and lead to inclusive policy making. PPPs have long been seen as the organizational solution to pressing societal problems (Rhodes, 1997). However, the critics of this perspective see network governance as a crucial part of the neoliberal predominance in today’s society (Blanco, 2015). In their opinion, network governance is not developing new ways of urban power, but only increasing the consolidation of urban power in the hands of a few political and business elites. The question is if these network governances are as

(16)

12

democratic as they seem. Governance theorists seem to agree on the fact that governance networks represent a threat to the traditional institutions of liberal democracy, but they do not see them as a threat to democracy itself. Governance networks suggest to suffer from the lack of open competition, legitimacy problems, and the absence of transparency, publicity and accountability (Sørensen & Torfing, 2005). On the other hand, governance network theorists also mention the possibility of governance networks creating new ways of democracy (Sørensen & Torfing, 2005). Some critiques have focused on this changing role of the state and see the changing role of state actors as hollowing out or decline of the of the state. As Stoker states in 1998:

“Governance is the acceptable phase of spending cuts” (Stoker, 1998:18) Rhodes (2016) studies this changing role of the state and tries to answer the question whether the state is rolling back to create a minimalist state or whether it is rolling out to broaden its influence by incorporating and outsourcing others into public governance. Rhodes mentions that institutional differentiation and pluralization is common, which creates multiple challenges for the capacity of core actors to steer. It can lead to control deficits that undermine the central’s authority in politics (Rhodes, 2000).

Collaborative planning in large-scale urban development projects

Today, cities across the world face enormous demands while public resources are often under pressure. As said, many cities deal with underutilized areas as for example former harbour districts, that need to be repurposed for a radically changed economy (Noring & Katz, 2018). Governments challenge to finance this kind of efforts. This is often done by creating new, innovative public-private cooperations through which the commercial yield of publicly owned land and buildings is increased. A concept that is entangled with this topic is consensus building. Consensus building can include a lot of activities, but in this research, it will be referred to as done by Innes & Booher (1999). They describe it as an array of practices in which stakeholders come together for a long-term, face-to-face dialogue to address a policy issue or a common concern (Innes & Booher, 1999). This consensus building approach tries to assure that all stakeholders are heard and respected and that discussions are based on the interests of stakeholders and not simply on arguments about fixed positions (Fisher & Ury, 1981).

Tasan-Kok (2010) addresses that in various researches, large-scale projects done in the form of a PPP are often connected to the formation of new modes of governance. Furthermore, it is said that the projects might create new instruments and processes of planning. This means that new institutional conditions are formed. In paragraph 2.3, more will be explained on how the cooperation between various stakeholders can be transferred into this (rather new) ways of planning processes concerning waterfront (re)development.

2.3 Planning processes of urban waterfront (re)development

Different processes on different levels

In the first two paragraphs of this theoretical framework, urban waterfront (re)development and the concept of institutional conditions, collaborative planning and PPPs have been discussed. These concepts will now come together in this paragraph.

(17)

13

An urban waterfront development project is the result of a process; one which involves all levels of government, significant amounts of capital and various organizations and individuals (stakeholders), all with their own agendas (Shaw, 2001). To quote Shaw (2001):

“In the consideration of waterfront projects, one must understand the peculiarities of the context and their relationship to international frameworks. Only in this way can understandings from one situation be applicable as lessons to another”

(Shaw, 2001:7) When one considers the various experiences of waterfront redevelopment projects and plans of different cities, a rich diversity in planning processes can be seen. There is a range of factors (e.g. market conditions, institutional arrangements) that determine the emergence of specific planning styles. To get a first understanding of the transformation of waterfront redevelopment, Brindley et al (1996) bring forward an analytical framework to divide planning styles and their contextual determinants (Galland & Hansen, 2012; Brindley et al., 1996).

Planning styles of large-scale projects

Table 1 shows the different planning styles and a number of analytical variables that come along with them. The framework is based on the UK planning style, which means that it can be seen as a loose understanding of the analysis of waterfront redevelopment projects in de subsequent chapters of this research.

Table 1: Planning styles and their contextual determinants.

(18)

14

Brindley et al (1996) state that public-investment, planning and regulative planning line up with a plan-led logic in the context of urban change. In both planning styles, private actors have a minor influence. Both styles of planning normally seek to benefit the public interest (Galland & Hansen, 2012). In case of public-investment planning the public sector gives funds and chooses redevelopment plans that are benefitting local lower income groups. The private sector plays a relatively small role in this style of planning (Galland & Hansen, 2012). The politics of regulative planning have a technical-political nature which is characterized by expertise of for example planning professionals. Rational forms of decision-making and public participation are used to reach consensus (Brindley et al., 1996).

Trend planning and leverage planning illustrate a more market-driven logic in waterfront redevelopment planning. Trend planning reacts on the sensed weaknesses of regulative planning. It therefore adds market criteria into development control services (Brindley et al., 1996). Powerful state actors are characteristic for this type of planning as well (Galland & Hansen, 2012). Leverage planning is put into practice when public sector funding is used to stimulate the market in order to attract private-sector investments. The public sector has a strong leadership in this planning style and makes urban development possible. The public sector promotes the rise of public-private partnerships. The biggest difference between trend planning and leverage planning is that in the latter urban development is already given, while in the former it must be stimulated (Galland & Hansen, 2012).

The way in which different stakeholders cooperate in the planning process of a waterfront redevelopment project can result in a certain planning style. In this research, the aim is to figure out how particular institutional conditions can cope with challenges that come along with waterfront redevelopment. Planning styles can be seen as a part of these institutional conditions. Since these planning processes can be very context specific, the framework that is given here can be seen as a loose understanding. The next paragraph will go into the challenges that come along urban waterfront redevelopment projects.

2.4 Challenges in urban waterfront planning processes

Challenges in waterfront planning

In the previous paragraphs, institutional conditions plus the cooperation between various stakeholders have been discussed. It should be clear by now that large-scale urban regeneration projects, a category to which we can classify urban waterfront development projects, are highly complex as they involve multiple actors with different expectations (Tasan-Kok, 2010). In the following paragraph, the challenges that are faced by stakeholders within the framework of large-scale waterfront (re)development projects will be addressed. Marshall (2011) states in his book ‘Waterfronts in Post-Industrial Cities’ that by nature, many former industrial waterfronts in post-industrial cities are problematic. Most of the time these sites are separated from the physical, economic and social activity of the city centre. In the past, these sites of industry served their function extremely well, but today they leave us with underutilized parcels (Marshall, 2011). Not surprisingly, when developing such a large-scale project there are numerous challenges to cope with. These challenges can be classified into various groups and will be explained in this paragraph.

(19)

15

 Conflicting, competing and shifting aims of stakeholders

As mentioned earlier, large-scale projects like urban waterfront redevelopment can be seen as a process of coordinating decision-making. Le Gales (2001) describes these networks of various state and non-state stakeholders trying to collaborate and reach their common goals, as policy networks. A common characteristic of these policy networks is the conflicting and competing aims of a variety of stakeholders. Compromising and harmonizing collective interests takes time and energy and therefore costs money. Moreover, the public and private actors might have different agendas since the public sector strives for the public good instead of wealth accumulation (Tasan-Kok, 2010).

“Balancing public and private interests in governance systems appears to pose a major challenge, and the outcome seems problematic” (Tasan-Kok, 2010:130) Due to this major challenge of comparing public and private interests, large-scale projects are heavily criticized in the literature. These projects often lead to the sponsoring of high profit sectors and only a few benefits for the local society (Tasan-Kok, 2010). Moreover, once these common goals can be set, they can still shift over time. Actors respond to changing market conditions and externalities, which may change the actors’ targets and priorities. This makes the whole process even more complicated (Tasan-Kok, 2010).

 Weaknesses in political or business leadership

Basset et al (2002) mention in their article about the waterfront regeneration in Bristol a list of challenges that had to be dealt with in that particular planning process. One such challenge was the lack of leadership on either the political or the business side of the project. Even though a partnership looks strong on paper, it can turn out that the structure of governance is weaker and less coordinated when put under pressure (Basset et al., 2012). Besides this, power imbalances between stakeholders are a commonly noted problem in collaborative governance and public-private partnerships (Anshell & Gash, 2007). When there are stakeholders that do not have the capacity, resources, organization or status to engage in the decision-making process, it may occur that these actors are prone to be manipulated by stronger actors (Anshell & Gash, 2007). Finally, this imbalance produces distrust or weak commitment (Gray, 1989).

 The strength of opposition groups

The NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) concept is mainly used to explain public opposition to new developments that are emerging near to homes and communities. It is characterizing the social response to unwanted facilities, in planning sometimes called; locally unwanted land

uses (LULUs) (Schively, 2007). Planners are often faced with the challenges of responding to

public opposition. The manner in which is dealt with these opposition groups or responses, influences the viability of the project and development decision-making (Schively, 2007).

 Sensitivity to fluctuations on the financial market

Since the shift from a managerial mode of governance to a more entrepreneurial mode of governance in a lot of Western cities, the influence of the global financial sector on our societies has become crucial (Tasan-Kok, 2010). More global financial activities have been

(20)

16

brought into cities, together with a growing amount of portfolio investments and an ongoing increase in property led urban development. An increasing amount of international capital and a rising number of actors are participating in the property market, which makes consensus making more complex. On a spatial level, this leads to large-scale projects that are funded, developed and managed by international companies or partnerships (Tasan-Kok, 2010). This makes that urban development is more responsive to fluctuations of financial markets (Fainstein, 1994).

 Public sector lack of knowledge about private sector dynamics

Often in PPP’s the public sector stays a passive partner, only participating through landownership. One of the reasons for this can be the lack of knowledge of market expectations. The public sector has a limited knowledge about private sector operations (Tasan-Kok, 2010). As Adams & Tiesdell (2010) argue: in most Western countries much of the built environment is created by the private sector. This leads to the fact that spatial planners should be able to understand and influence private property markets and development processes. When the public sector would be more aware of the private sector dynamics, this would give the public sector possibilities to maneuver more easily and adequately.

 Port-city and city-port relationships

Marshall (2001) describes that the relationship between the port, the city, the state and the public is always complex. Most of the time these waterfront areas have to deal with a lack of infrastructure, competition and an increasing mistrust and criticism of the public. On the other hand, European port cities have forged a strong bond between the port and the city, over time (Marshall, 2011). Since ports have been interwoven physically, politically and economically with city centres for centuries, this relationship has had a big influence on the spatial organization of European port cities (much more so than in American cities). Due to the changing nature of the connection between the port and the city and changes in the role of port authorities, the relationship between city and port can be challenging after waterfront redevelopment.

 Planning system challenges

Tasan-Kok (2010) divides challenges concerning urban planning into four specific groups. In this research, these will be gathered under one heading. Challenges in the planning system can have various causes. A lack of innovative instruments is one of these; tailor-made planning instruments are needed for the implementation of large-scale projects. These instruments should accommodate explicit conditions and complexities and moreover help to make the project management a success (Tasan-Kok, 2010). Another aspect that should be kept in mind is the fact that large-scale projects have a big impact on the physical development of a wider area. Effects of a development project can be felt throughout the city. This is especially challenging for the public sector since they are also involved with the social innovation and society’s appreciation of the outcomes (Tasan-Kok, 2010).

In conclusion, there are many different challenges that can come along with large-scale development projects. Even though quite some factors have been summarized here, there are numerous of other elements which can have an influence on a process or a project. Therefore, this broad framework can be seen as an useful list of challenges which is open to

(21)

17

findings from respondents. In the next paragraph, success factors concerning urban development will be shortly explained.

2.5 Which factors can lead to success?

In the former paragraph, certain challenges coming along with large-scale urban development projects have been addressed. However, since this research will take a critical but constructive approach, this paragraph will also elaborate on success factors in urban development. In this thesis, it is argued that the institutional conditions of HafenCity in Hamburg have been successful in dealing with certain (unforeseen) challenges in waterfront redevelopment, according to different stakeholders of the project.

Many studies have tried to identify success factors for urban development. This is hard, since it should be kept in mind that various actors can judge the success of a development in very different ways (Franzen et al., 2011). Nevertheless, it is possible to come up with a loose framework to determine success factors. The components of this framework are directed towards the successful development in terms of the process of an urban area. The three levels of the framework for success factors will be shortly explained. The classification into levels is significant, since some success factors can be driven by powerful stakeholders, while others cannot. The difference between the levels lies in the ability of major players to influence the factors in question (Franzen et al., 2011).

The first level of context factors is unable to be influenced by actors. This includes for example the economic and political climate, the demographics and the cultural background of an urban area. The second level of success factors depends on the necessary conditions. These conditions can be driven or modified by stakeholders. These factors are necessary, but not enough for success. The third and last level is that of the critical success factors. These factors have a major influence on the outcome of a project but are relatively difficult for actors to influence. Most of these critical success factors address the process of a project, such as; trust and openness between parties, leadership during the process, the image of the redeveloped site, the reduction of complexity and proactive policy makers (Franzen et al., 2011). In attachment 1, a list of these necessary conditions and critical success factors can be found. It is important to mention that this list is by no means exhaustive.

Figure 1: Three levels of success factors

(22)

18

Of course, the three levels of success factors that are distinguished here, can interact with each other. Besides this, the boundary between the levels necessary conditions and critical success factors is not always clear. Moreover, the presence of a given success factor does not guarantee the successful development of a project. It can only increase the possibility of a successful development (Franzen et al., 2011).

This framework of success factors will be used to categorize what kind of processes, measurements or policy making can be successful in different contexts and therefore might be interesting to, in this case, shift from the project of HafenCity Hamburg to the project of Haven-Stad in Amsterdam. In the last paragraph of this theoretical framework, the possibilities for policy transfer will be discussed.

2.6 Transferability of policies

The use(fulness) of policy transfer

In the previous paragraphs various parts of the planning process in urban waterfront redevelopment have been mentioned. The challenges and successes that come along with this process have been reviewed too. In this second-to-last paragraph, the concept of policy transfer (or the equivalent concept of lesson learning) will be explained. This framework is used in this research to measure, to what extend lessons that have been learnt in the case study of this research, can be transferred to another urban context. Policy transfer and lesson learning are common topics within political studies and public policy analysis, nowadays. Policy transfer is widely understood by the concept of Dolowitz (2000):

“A process by which knowledge of policies, administrative arrangements, institutions and ideas in one political system (past or present) is used in the development of similar features in another” (Dolowitz, 2000:3).

Policy transfer has been broadly used as a concept to classify and explain various processes, occurring both within and between different political contexts. In the context of spatial planning the focus lies on the implication of best practices in different urban contexts (Stead, 2012). The underlying belief of this is that by identifying, promoting and spreading good practice, this will lead to improvements and helps to create transnational learning of policies and practice. In 2006, the European Union came up with the Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment (CEC, 2006), a document that probably has the most to say about best practices concerning spatial planning and development (Stead, 2012). This strategy states that many solutions already exist in certain cities and can be transferred and sometimes improved to be used in other contexts. The document argues that access of local authorities to existing solutions should be improved, and by that, allow them to develop solutions for their own situation (CEC, 2006). On the global level there is attention for best practice too. For example, the OECD and World Bank published reports and papers about best practices (OECD, 2011; World Bank, 2000). This range of European and global policies shows that the development and dissemination of best practice is considered to be important. It can make policy transfer and learning possible (Stead, 2012).

The opinions about the usefulness of policy transferring among researchers are oppositional. According to Bulkeley (2006), the use of best practices meaning to provide knowledge by which similar projects and processes can be undertaken, can lead to policy change. Policy

(23)

19

transfer was subsequently shown to take place within horizontal and vertical actor networks. Moreover, it is extending across governance scales below the state, both within countries but also transnational (Betsill & Bulkley, 2004). Research has shown that sub-national institutions, such as regional and local governments, can be identified as important transfer agents, benefiting from linked processes as for example globalization and devolution (Betsill & Bulkley, 2004). Moreover, the influence of transnational corporations as the OECD and global financial institutions, was shown to be powerful in times of greater globalization (Benson & Jordan, 2011). Besides this, the two actors of political consultants and non-governmental institutions seem to be engaged in promoting policy transfer across national borders too (Dolowitz & Marsh, 2000).

Factors that determine transferability

On the other hand, there are also limitations to the transferability of policy into another context. Literature shows that different policy concepts take root in different European countries and demonstrate the unlikeliness of best practices leading to the same outcomes in different European member states (Stead, 2012). Best practices often have to be made explicit by taking out the knowledge about a process or instrument to make it applicable for another case. This is not as easy as it seems, since expressing this tactic knowledge into formal language is often clumsy and imprecisely articulated (Stead, 2012). This leads to the fact that best practices are often shortened and sanitized, and since they lack in detail, it is hard to implement the practices somewhere else. As Stead (2012) states:

“Clearly, the less detailed an example of best practice is (and the more sanitized the account of its design and implementation), the less likely it will be that the example can be replicated somewhere else” (Stead, 2012:108). In terms of transferability of best practice, the OECD differentiates between various factors of best practice and to what extend each of these can be transferred (see table 2) (OECD, 2011). In the beginning, studies focused on the ‘hard’ transfer of policy instruments such as institutions and programs between governments. Nowadays, it turns out that the importance of ‘softer’ transfer of policy instruments as, for example ideologies and concepts, gain more importance as well (Benson & Jordan, 2011). Stone (2010) states that the ‘soft’ and the ‘hard’ forms of transfer exist side-by-side and can be a supplement to one another.

The OECD highlights the need to examine who is involved in the transfer process. A differentiation is made between top down transfer processes done by promoters (for example national agencies) and bottom-up processes initiated by recipients. It is said that this last example works the best (Stead, 2012).

(24)

20

Table 2: Factors of local development practices and their transferability

Source: OECD (2011).

Benson and Jordan (2011) state that combination of policy transfer and multi-level governance has revealed new modes of inter-organizational (vertical and horizontal) transfer activities. Even beyond traditional peer-to-peer networks of national governments. To conclude, policy transfer is still a useful concept that transfers easily across sub-disciplines and analytical contexts. In this thesis, the framework of policy transferring will be used to look into whether policy transferring is possible between HafenCity in Hamburg and Haven-Stad in Amsterdam.

2.7 Summary of the theoretical framework

In this theoretical framework, many different concepts have been discussed. It should be clear by now that waterfront redevelopment has a long history in which new policies, strategies and practices have been combined with previous planning styles, which has led to new innovative planning processes and instruments. During these projects, different public and private stakeholders often work together and various challenges can be faced. To measure whether policy implications or institutional conditions are successful in addressing these challenges, some success factors can be distinguished. This is difficult, since success can be described in different ways by different stakeholders.

In this theoretical framework, three elements have been introduced which will be used as frameworks for the further research. In chronological order, these are the challenges of large-scale redevelopment projects listed in paragraph 2.4. Furthermore, figure 1 (Three levels of success factors) by Franzen et al. (2011) will be used to distinguish the context factors, necessary conditions and critical success factors from the case of HafenCity in Hamburg. These success factors will then be used in combination with table 2 (Factors of local development practices and their transferability) from the OECD (2011), to measure whether policy transferring between the case of HafenCity and the case of Haven-Stad is possible. As written in paragraph 2.6, it can be useful to transfer knowledge from one case to another and learn from each other. In the next chapter, the methodology on how this research is set up will be explained.

(25)

21

3.

METHODOLOGY

This chapter elaborates on the research methods used in this thesis. It further discusses the research strategy of this thesis and clarifies the reasons for the selection of a case study approach. Second, it specifies the data collection- and data analysis methods of this research. The contexts of the cases that have been studied are explained in chapter 4 and 5.

3.1 Research design

The strategy of this study is a broad qualitative approach. The main aim of the research is to gain insight in how institutional conditions can cope with challenges coming along with the process of inner-city waterfront redevelopment. The aim of the research is translated into the following research question:

“Under which institutional conditions can challenges in the planning process of inner-city waterfront redevelopment be addressed, and to what extend can these conditions be transferred into another context?” The research question will be answered by focusing on the project HafenCity in Hamburg. Yin (2009) distinguished five types of different case studies. In the opinion of the researcher, the case study of Hamburg HafenCity would fit the exemplifying case. It exemplifies a broader category of which it is a member, and to that extent can provide data that can be used to answer the research question. A case study entails the detailed and intensive analysis of a single case. Observation and (unstructured) interviews are very helpful when it comes to generating information on a detailed case (Bryman, 2012). Therefore, qualitative research methods like semi-structured interviews, observations and literature/policy reviews will be used to collect data for this research. Since the data collection methods will be qualitative, the research will take an inductive approach: the focus will lie on the connection between theory and research (Bryman, 2012).

Addressing a constructive approach by using a pilot study

Besides the focus on the case of HafenCity in Hamburg, the project of Haven-Stad in Amsterdam is chosen as a pilot study. A pilot study or pilot experiment can be described as a small scale preliminary study. Often, a pilot study is used as a small study that will help identify design issues before the main research is done (Arain & Campbell, 2010). Of course, this is not exactly the case in this research, but the set-up of a pilot study fits to the small size of the explorative research which is done on the case of Haven-Stad Amsterdam.

As said, this research tries to use a constructive approach through which similar cases in different urban contexts might learn something from each other. Since the project of Haven-Stad is just in its infancy, the explorative method of using a pilot study is chosen to see whether policy implications or institutional conditions from HafenCity, are transferable. The connection between the two cases is made in the concluding part of this research. In the next paragraph a brief explanation on why these two cases have been chosen for this research will be given.

(26)

22

3.1.1 Why these two case studies?

Globalization is a concept that dominates our current times. It shapes economic paths and determines living quality. Port-cities are at the frontline of globalization; around 90% of the international trade volume is transported by ship, loaded and unloaded in one of the world’s port cities. These cities are interlinked with their ports, and the presence of a port brings special challenges to these cities. These challenges can relate to different topics such as the environment, land use or urban traffic. Even though the relevance of these topics seems high, research has paid little attention to this linkage between ports and urban development (OECD, 2014). The city of Hamburg, where one of the biggest ports of Europe is connected with a metropolis, seems a good case to study this relevant topic. In the opinion of the researcher, the chance that Europe’s biggest inner-city waterfront redevelopment project copes with challenges which might occur in other inner-city waterfront redevelopment projects is present. Moreover, the concept of HafenCity has been regarded as a model for major international urban development projects, and functions as a blueprint for the European city of the 21st century by the organization of HafenCity itself (HafenCity.de, 2017). It is interesting to put this concept into a critical but constructive context.

As stated in the first chapter of this thesis, the linkage between different waterfront redevelopment researches is often missing. Therefore, in this research it is chosen to do a pilot study, to explore whether policy transfer between two projects might be possible. Amsterdam Haven-Stad is the elected case for this linkage since this project is still in its infancy. The characteristics of this project are very similar to the characteristics of the project HafenCity, which makes them comparable. This will be made more explicit in chapter 4 and 5 of this research.

3.1.2 Sub questions and stages of research

A set of sub questions will complement and support the process of answering the main research question. These questions will provide conclusions that will trickle down to a main outcome.

 How can the inner-city waterfront redevelopment project of Hamburg be defined?

 What kind of (unforeseen) challenges and success factors can be distinguished from the planning process of HafenCity Hamburg?

 Which actors are involved and what kind of planning process do these actors follow in the project HafenCity Hamburg?

 Is there a possibility for transferring policy measures from the case of HafenCity to the case of Haven-Stad?

The empirical part of this research and the elaboration upon this can be divided into different stages (see table 3). These four stages follow up the literature review of the theoretical framework, in which sub question 1 has been answered. In stage 2, the context of the case HafenCity will be outlined by reading policy documents, considering which stakeholders are involved in the project and by using information retrieved from semi-structured interviews. These semi-structured interviews together with observations on the site and desk research are used to answer sub question 2 and 3. In stage 3, more desk research is done and

(27)

23

information out of the semi-structured interviews is used to draw conclusions upon the possibility of policy transferring. With this information sub question 4 will be answered. Finally, the data is analyzed in stage 4 to complete the research by answering the research question.

Table 3: Stages of research

Stage Goal Methodology (Sub) question 0 Literature review Desk research 1

1 Distinguish stakeholders and planning process

Policy review, semi-structured

interviews, field of influence analysis

2

2 Find out (unforeseen) challenges and success factors Semi-structured interviews, observations, desk-research 3

3 Look into possibilities for policy transferring

Semi-structured interviews, desk-research

4

4 Draw conclusions Analyze data Research question

3.2 Operationalization

To be able to find answers to the sub- and main research question of this research, the concepts that are used in this research have been operationalized.

The operationalization will be done by using five main concepts. First the concept inner-city waterfront redevelopment has been operationalized. Literature research and policy reviews have been done to come up with a good perception of this concept, which will be used throughout the research. Another important concept of this research is the definition of the institutional conditions. The specific types of institutional conditions will be measured by using the stakeholders’ analysis, policy reviews and by data gathered via the interviews. The researcher will describe the way in which these institutional conditions have been formed, without using a strict theoretical framework for this. The concept of planning process is connected to this, since it sets the context under which institutional conditions are formed, and the other way around. Various types of planning processes have been listed in the theoretical framework, this will be used as an understanding for the researcher to embed her findings.

The operationalization of the analytical framework is done by using three frameworks. First, the challenges of inner-city waterfront redevelopment will be distracted from the policy review and interviews. The challenges mentioned in the theoretical framework (see table 4) will be used as a guideline, also to structure the interviews. It is important to mention that the interviewer was open towards hearing unexpected challenges. Due to the semi-structured method of the interviews, there were opportunities for the respondents to come up with their own findings.

Coping with challenges in inner-city waterfront redevelopment projects : opportunities and limitations for transferring policy practices from the case of HafenCity in Hamburg to the case of Haven-Stad in Amsterdam