The changing identity of the urban planner in adaptive, organic and transformational urban development

(1)

1

The changing identity of the urban

planner in adaptive, organic and

transformational urban development

Thomas van den Eeckhout 11059222

Master thesis Urban and regional planning Supervisor Tuna Taşan-Kok

Thomascamiel@hotmail.com June 2019

(2)

2

Abstract

This research will focus on the identity of the urban planner, coupled with the changes in urban development and planning practice. For this research adaptive, organic and transformational (written in the thesis as adaptive) urban development will be examined in the case of Buiksloterham, a neighbourhood in the north of Amsterdam. The focus will lay on the changing identity of the urban planner within the area of transformational, organic and adaptive urban development. The research will try to answer the following research question: “To what extent

is the adaptive and organic-transformational urban development changing the identity of the contemporary urban planner?”

In order to gain more knowledge about the identity of the urban planner and to answer the research question, semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven planners and other experts involved in the urban development of Buiksloterham. Besides the self-conducted interviews, eleven interviews from previous research were acquired. The gathered data was subsequently analysed through thematic analysis.

(4)

4

1. Introduction

Planning practice has an extensive and rich history, with many currents, visions, visionaries, discourses, paradigms and identities. The urban planner is one of these actors involved in planning practice. Throughout history, multiple types of urban planners have existed. In the last decades, the role of the planners in planning practices have changed faster than before. Planners are not seen any more as independent technocratic experts with a robust one-sided identity, but as one of many experts in development processes, with multiple and liquid identities (Taşan-Kok & Oranje, 2018; Sehested, 2009). Consequences are that the professional identity of the urban planner became vague and hard to identify (Taşan-Kok & Oranje, 2018). In recent years, the importance of sharing knowledge is emphasised concerning the identity of planners within the framework of cooperation between various experts, bureaucrats and citizens (Edelenbos et al. 2011). Shared knowledge is one of the aspects in co-construction of knowledge. Co-construction of knowledge is the process where several experts work together to get the most out of processes such as decision-making and urban development. In the identity of the urban planner, this co-construction of knowledge has become a big part of their identity, as planners are not anymore the technocratic and autonomous expert (Sehested, 2009).

In the scholarly literature, the identity of the urban planner often is not clear (Taşan-Kok & Oranje, 2018; Beauregard, 1998). Although planners function in neoliberal, property-led and private sector-driven urban development, they still are bounded by the vague task to guard the public interest (Healey, 1999). Planners are not seen, compared to the past, as independent and unique experts, but one as of many. Planners need to work together with other stakeholders in order to develop and redevelop city-sites and create new forms of co-constructed knowledge (Sehested, 2009; Alexander, 2015). Knowledge is in this context seen as a social construct, a dialogue (Tekeli, 2018; Kincheloe, 2005). One could argue that the basis of this dialogue has changed and still is changing due to the noticeable changes in urban development and planning practice where planners need to adapt. The identity of the urban planner is no longer static but changed to liquid, interwoven, and sometimes overlapping (Taşan-Kok & Oranje, 2018). These identities may conflict and contradict with each other.

One of the reasons for this change is that planning practice has become more adaptive, organic and transformational in the recent years which is well visible in the developments taking place in the north of Amsterdam (Korthals Altes & Tambach, 2009; Dembski, 2013). The question is what the changes in adaptive organic-transformational urban development and planning practice did to the identity of the urban planner.

This research focusses on the adaptive urban development following the urban development process of Buiksloterham in the North of Amsterdam since 2003 (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016). This type of development is chosen because it gives room to research the identity of urban planner in a context which is different compared to traditional top-down planning. Buiksloterham is a unique case in the Amsterdam context. The area is in a transformation from an industrial site to a mixed neighbourhood. Furthermore, the area is also known for its commitment to a sustainable and circular neighbourhood, and according to some, the neighbourhood of the future (Savini & Dembski, 2016). At the start of the project, the area of Buiksloterham was one of the first developments dealing with this new way of urban development in the city of Amsterdam and the Netherlands (Dembski, 2013). Since the introduction of Structuurplan Amsterdam in 2003, a more adaptive, organic, fragmented, and transformational urban development has been happening within the city (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2003). Instead of active transformation, strict zoning, and top-down land policies with, for example, a strong ground lease tradition and an urge for development, the municipality decided to develop through interactive governance. Amsterdam is since then more focussed on inner-city urban development in multiple areas within the city where transformation is

(5)

5 happening. Moreover, other cities also changed more towards these kinds of urban developments, although Buiksloterham remained a unique case (Korthals Altes & Tambach, 2009.) The change in planning practice has brought, together with other changes, a more transformational and fragmented development to the planning field, which meant a step-by-step redevelopment of parts of the city. No longer were rigorous decisions being taking by the leading parties through strict zoning plans and blueprints. Instead, located companies, small developers and self-builders have the opportunity to build within a given framework (Dembski, 2013). These adaptive urban developments are, for example, present within the case of Buiksloterham in Amsterdam Noord, intending to become a mixed-use urban neighbourhood (ibid).

For this thesis the following research question is used, to see whether the identity of the urban planner has changed:

“To what extent is the adaptive and organic-transformational urban development

changing the identity of the contemporary urban planner?”

The goal of this thesis is to find out to what extent the identity of the urban planner has changed with the adaptive urban development, and what this identity or multiple identities mean. In order to understand more about the identity of the urban planner and to answer the research question, two sub-questions were made to split up the research into relevant and manageable parts:

- How is the co-construction of knowledge formed by adaptive and organic-transformational urban development?

- How do planners perceive their identity in the adaptive and organic-transformational urban development of Buiksloterham?

The first sub-question focusses on the usage of knowledge by planners and how this knowledge forms the co-construction of knowledge. The second sub-question emphasises the role of planners in the process and how they are looking at their own identity, with the co-construction of knowledge in mind and its influence on the self-perceived identity.

The thesis will follow the following setup. First, the identity of the urban planner is discussed in the theoretical framework, as well as the use of knowledge, the co-construction of knowledge and the adaptive urban development. Next, the context of Buiksloterham will be further examined. Following up, the methods of this thesis are described in depth with the data collection, processing and way of analysis. In the analysis part of the thesis, the analytical framework will be introduced as well as the results and analysis. The last part of this thesis consists of a discussion and conclusion section.

(6)

6

2. Theoretical framework

2.1 Change of planning practice

Before delving into the adaptive development, there will be a brief explanation of the changes in planning practice and why the identity of the urban planner also had and has to change. This section provides a brief overview of how academic literature covers the change in planning practices and planners’ identities.

In the 1990s public policy reforms happened which challenged the independence and autonomy of professionals. In the field of urban planning, mainly the rational planner and modernist planner were challenged. This static modernist identity of objectivity, scientific knowledge and rationality were no longer accepted. The critique was on modernity and planners not reflecting reality because of their autonomous position in planning practice. Planning was static, technocratic and top-down. The reforms occurred mainly in the public policy areas and undermined the autonomy of the professionals (Sehested, 2009). Planners were one of these professionals, and with the establishment of control instruments, business-oriented forms and more significant influence to other urban actors and citizens, their roles changed to a hybrid and more liquid role, reflecting the rapidly changing and dynamic policy environment which could not deny the wishes and needs of a diverse society. The technocratic roles of planners neglected the wishes and needs of a diverse society and did not work anymore. The voices of people in this new dynamic policy environment began to be heard.

In this new role, in-depth professional knowledge had to be incorporated with new forms of knowledge and values. Planners started to learn more from different stakeholders, and other professionals in their work-field. Practice changed to a more interactive approach, which required multiple identities of the urban planner. The multiple identities, against a static and technocratic identity, can be defined as ‘liquid identity’, or in the words of Sehested (2009), a hybrid role for the urban planner. This ‘hybrid planner’ however, is according to Tasan-Kok & Oranje (2018) too vague in its description of possessed skills and responsibilities by the urban planner. The reforms to another planning practice and multiple identities of the urban planner created the ‘co-construction of knowledge’. Co-construction of knowledge is somewhat different from a top-down technocratic knowledge, which assumedly belonged to the expert planner who shared it with the citizens. In this form of expert knowledge, citizens’ opinion was asked as a reflection to the expert’s decisions. Co-construction of knowledge, as opposed to this form of knowledge sharing, is an interactive activity where knowledge is jointly recognised and produced. In other words, the practice of planners changed, and therefore, the identity of the urban planner also started to change.

That the identity of the urban planner has changed can be seen through the following quote:

“Planners and urbanists (mainly) work for the public interest. They must have patience and persistence, specific knowledge and creative skills, the capacity to develop feasible visions and solutions. They need to deal with the short and the long term at the same time, with uncertainty and complexity, with the influence of many known and unknown factors, stakeholders, and agencies. They should be able to communicate and cooperate. But they also require charisma and emphatic professionalism and as such, they certainly are not facilitators. And finally, they have to know and accept that the impact of their personal activities will be small yet relevant and that they will make a contribution to ‘change and innovation’.” (Taşan-Kok & Oranje,

2018. P.34.). This quote refers to the fact that just one static identity of the urban planner cannot cover this form of diversity and dynamism.

(7)

7

2.2 Adaptive, organic and transformational urban development

In order to understand more about the identity of the urban planner and whether it changed through transformational and organic development, more knowledge about transformational development is necessary.

Development in cities is mostly uncertain (Rauws & de Roo, 2016) and because of these uncertainties, planners started to search for more adaptive ways of development, which are more in line with the continuously changing city. The approach strives for multiple future outcomes, instead of precise conditions and a fully developed trajectory to these outcomes. The outcomes are based upon the conditions during the development.

In the Netherlands, compact-city developments can be viewed through this adaptive and organic approach. According to Korthals Altes & Tambach (2009), adaptive and organic city-development brings some challenges with it. Part of these challenges stems from the fact that redevelopment starts while old functions within the area are still in operation. This approach thus brings multiple challenges with it. Although multiple projects are focussing on the adaptive form and mixed-use functions, planners have less experience in this field compared to other development approaches (ibid). It can be argued that planners are learning from and adapting to their work experience and incorporate new identities as a result of the adaptive urban developments (Filion et al. 2015).

2.3 Different planner’s identities and self-perception

In order to understand what planners and different planners’ identities are, it is essential to know what planning is about and what the planner’s contribution is to planning. Alexander (2015) looks at planning through Vickers (1968), who states the following: “Planning is what planners

do” […] “Planners” are the people who a particular community acknowledges are involved in a process it recognizes as “planning.”” (Alexander, 2015. P.91.). This statement is, however,

too vague, and according to Alexander, so is the term ‘planning’. The author introduces the term spatial planning and spatial planner, terms more connected to area development, spatial-territorial planning and land-use planning, or an approach that can be defined as ‘land-use planning’ which aims to control physical development of an area. The spatial planner is important in this form of planning, as a spatial planner contributes to the co-construction of knowledge.

In the article of Alexander, the identity of the planner can be coupled to the way a planner uses their expertise to help to build the co-construction of knowledge in the planning process. It is therefore vital to see what different kinds of identities within the planning process are known. The identity of the urban planner and their role in the planning process has taken many forms in the past. It can be therefore difficult to focus on one type of identity or distinguish the multiple identities. According to Taşan-Kok en Oranje (2018) there should not be a focus on one type of the identity of the urban planner, because urban planners today hold multiple identities: “[…]

planners usually embody multiple identities, so their opinions are seldom black and white. Constraints and opportunities go hand in hand, and each professional profile presented here has both a dark and a bright side.” (Taşan-Kok & Oranje, 2018. P.6.). As planning identities

are connected to the planning process, they change together with the process. Planners will continuously learn to adapt to new and changing planning processes. Because of the change of practice, the co-construction of knowledge and therefore, the identities of the urban planner changed. Various authors including Özdemir (2018), Taşan-Kok et al. (2016), Taşan-Kok & Van den Hurk (2019) and Sehested (2009) argue that planners are nowadays so much more than professional elites or technocrats, urban planners have now more dynamic roles. The dynamic roles of urban planners bring a dilemma however to the identity of the urban planner, as the dynamic roles keep on changing and planners need to be able to embody all these kinds of different roles while also being responsible for the public interest.

(8)

8 The following section will focus on different planner’s identities through different roles in the planning process. These identities will help to construct the identity of planners in the adaptive urban development of Buiksloterham and to what extent they may have changed. The list of identities is diverse, and as said earlier planners could embody various identities. This section will contain three different identities: the activist planner, the planner as market actor, and the planner as network manager and metagovernor. With the literature of Sager, Adams and Tiesdell, and Sehested, the following categorisation has been made. The authors have covered some of the identities planners can adopt. These identities can have multiple roles within the planning process and are often overlapping or contradicting.

The first identity is one of the activist planner. According to Sager, an activist planner can be described as follows: “An ‘activist planner’ is here defined as someone deploying an activist

style in the preparation and promotion of a specific plan” (Sager, 2016. P.1264). Activist

planners take a more prominent role in the planner process, by initiating, facilitating or helping with the preparation of a particular plan. Contrary to what the term suggests, an activist planner is not always against the plan or the authorities. This role, however, tries to influence specific plans or planning problems. Activist planning is much broader than one may think.

The second focus has been on the planner as market actors, as stated by Adams and Tiesdell (2010), among others. Adams and Tiesdell indicate that planners can be seen as market actors because they are engaged in shaping, stimulating and regulating markets. Remarkable about this identity is that the planners themselves do not recognise it. The result is that planners are not very effective in using their knowledge in this particular identity. If planners would recognise their identity as market actor, planners would be more involved and should be better at acting in real estate and property markets.

The last highlight on the different identities of the urban planner consists of planners as network managers and metagovernors, discussed by Sehested (2009). In this case, the planner is seen as the earlier discussed hybrid actor, with multiple roles within the planning process. The planner in a more hybrid role came from changes in the 1990s when there was a need to forge different kinds of professional knowledge with each other. The hybrid urban planner is in this context seen as a professional strategist, manager, market planner and process planner, all with a different set of values, combinations of knowledge and governance network-forms.

That the identity of the urban planner is subject for debate is shown by the following quote, contradicting the role of the hybrid planner: “Howe and Kaufman distilled three roles for

practitioners from the political and economic climate of the 1970s: They can take either a political or a technocratic role or combine these into a hybrid role, the prevailing approach in the 1960s. According to Lauria and Long (2017), planners today more often have technical roles than political or hybrid roles. Moreover, they can take different positions while making choices and maintain a mix of principles too.” (Taşan-Kok & Oranje, 2018. P. 298)

None of the above-discussed roles or identities is entirely new but shows that these identities can change and evolve over the years. As earlier discussed, these identities are interwoven, overlapping or conflicting with each other. This on top of the fact that some still argue that technical knowledge is still necessary, and even in some cases, is lacking (Taşan-Kok & Oranje, 2018). However, the learning aspect through an interactive approach and acquiring knowledge seems to be important in all named identities. These identities all have a different stake in producing for the co-construction of knowledge. By researching the use of knowledge by planners, several identities can be distinguished. The co-construction of knowledge, therefore, can be linked to the multiple and liquid identities of the urban planner. Interesting to see in this section is the self-perception of planners. Adams and Tiesdell (2010) describe that sometimes, planners do not recognise their own identity. This is unique to planners, as their boundaries of what they are and how they identify themselves changes over time. Even though the market

(9)

9 actor identity is becoming more relevant, planners still do not see themselves as market actors and therefore lack on this part in the co-construction of knowledge. Not recognising one's identity influences what is shared and produced in the co-construction of knowledge. It is therefore vital to take the self-perception of planners into account, as this can have an influence on the identity of the urban planners and the co-construction of knowledge.

2.4 Knowledge and the co-construction of knowledge

In the co-construction of knowledge, different forms of knowledge are collected to be applied to real-world cases, such as planning practices. One of these forms of knowledge, which adds up to the co-construction of knowledge is practical knowledge, briefly discussed by Filion et al. (2015). This kind of knowledge refers to the shapes of knowledge that apply to the work of urban planners. Practical knowledge can arise from different origins, including for example, the experience in the field.

Different contexts and scales ask for different kinds of co-construction of knowledge. As spatial planning becomes more involved in higher governance scales, non-expertise knowledge loses value, but specialised knowledge wins ground. Alexander (2015) calls the more specialised knowledge the substantial systematic knowledge. This type of knowledge is necessary from municipal scale onwards to the higher forms of governance. Spatial planners in this context can use their expertise to contribute to the co-construction of knowledge and especially planning knowledge. This is, according to Alexander, important in a planning process with multiple actors and finding dialogue and consensus. The emphasis should thus be more on intervening land-property markets and the use of the expertise of the planner, their technical knowledge and skills in the everyday spatial planning field. Alexander pleads for a more pragmatic identity instead of the “planner as a social change agent” who is trying to strive for a change within society and the impossible task to guard the public interest.

That knowledge for an urban planner is vital in his or her working space is also stressed by Van den Broeck (in Taşan-Kok & Oranje, 2018), stating that four specific types of knowledge and skill are necessary to play a role in the planning field: reasoning or argumentation, communication and charisma, design, and the integration of various types of knowledge. The last one, in particular, is interesting because according to Van den Broeck, not one person is capable of having all these various kinds of knowledge and therefore, multiple experts should cooperate, which connects to the change of planning practice explained in the previous section. The other one which needs more explanation is the communication- and charisma skill. The urban planner is seen as an own actor within the process, with its own ideas, visions and knowledge. Contrary to planners from the 1960s and onwards, these visions and ideas should not be set as standard, but as a planning tool. Together with proper communication, the knowledge of the urban planner can be used constructively and ethically. By acknowledging the fact that the urban planner is no longer the only expert, they can seek dialogue and cooperation and make use of their creative skills and various types of knowledge (Knieling & Klindworth, 2018; Van den Broeck, 2018. In Taşan-Kok & Oranje, 2018). The fact that a planner is involved in many facets of the decision-making process causes some confusion within both the literature and young planners about their identity and role. Planners are seen as actors who have a bit of knowledge about everything that is involved in the planning process. This is either seen as positive or negative. Positive in a way that the planner is involved in multiple aspects, but negative as it confuses planners what kind of knowledge they have and how they should use their knowledge in the planning process. Summarising, planners try to find a balance between knowledge based on professionalism with the perspective of the public interest and their formal power with more collaborative and participatory planning methods.

(10)

10

2.5 Producing co-construction of knowledge

To connect the identity of the urban planner to the co-production of knowledge and see to what extent the identity of the urban planners has changed, information about knowledge, co-construction and co-production of knowledge are necessary. From the article of Alexander (2015), planning practice is closely tied to the context in which a planning process happens and he argues that the political-economic environment even shapes planning practice and planning education. Alexander is not alone in his opinion, other authors, such as Flyvbjerg and Foucault, also support the post-structuralist approach to knowledge, in which knowledge is more seen as context-dependent instead of scientific truth (Taşan-Kok & Oranje, 2018).

Planners do possess certain types of knowledge, including technical and legal knowledge. With these sets of knowledge, planners can facilitate or regulate certain activities in the planning field such as spatial, economic and social activities. However, planners lack the political power to implement resolutions or decisions. In addition to the lack of this knowledge, they also, according to Taşan-Kok and Oranje (2018) do not have strong connections to the needed power to implement and are thus dependent on the actors which have those connections or the power within a decision-making process.

The change within the recognition of knowledge made changes to planning and in particular, which goals planning should entail. In addition to this, planners do acknowledge that planning has become political, even though they do not possess political power. Therefore, it is argued that innovation and creativity within planning can only be achieved through collaboration and collective action: “Through coalition building with other (innovative) actors and the use of

individual resources and skills, they [planners; author] develop and spread alternative visions, ideas, and approaches. By anchoring their alternative ideas and achieving commitment from larger societal groups, they promote the overall societal transition (WBGU, 2011).”

(Taşan-Kok & Oranje, 2018. P. 201.)

The collective and collaborative actions are precisely what the construction and co-production of knowledge are all about. Following the article by Edelenbos et al. (2011), the production of knowledge is a process which includes social interaction between multiple actors, mainly consisting of bureaucrats, stakeholders and experts. The shift from more elitist and expert-based knowledge to a co-construction of knowledge can be assigned to a citizen who became more vocal, highly educated and confident about their scientific knowledge they possess. It is even argued that the knowledge used in decision making, among other things, has become public property. According to the authors of the article, the co-construction of knowledge ensures that the worlds of experts, bureaucrats and other stakeholders are linked to each other and are interrelated. The three main actors involved in the production of co-constructed knowledge, discussed by Edelenbos et al. (2011) will be briefly described. The emphasis of this article is on the different forms of knowledge and how the involved actors use this. Although the categorisation of different forms of knowledge helps to identify different identities in the planning process, Edelenbos et al. (2011) do not recognise the fact that experts can carry multiple identities at the same time, as has been suggested in the first section Change

of planning practice.

First, Edelenbos et al. distinguish scientific or expert based knowledge. This type of knowledge refers to independent experts which are based upon theory and scientific methods and models. The expert-based knowledge is held together by strict checks and balances, with, for example, peer reviews. The authors make a distinction between nature-based and social based sciences in terms of their methods and models, but also norms and values.

The second type of knowledge refers to bureaucratic knowledge. This type of knowledge is also seen as administrative knowledge and is primarily interwoven with governmental practices such as decision making and is, therefore, also connected to political and strategic knowledge.

(11)

11 Although bureaucratic knowledge is scientifically based, it does not have as strict checks and balances as scientific knowledge.

The third and last knowledge is stakeholder knowledge. Stakeholders acquire their knowledge through experiences or knowledge that is related to context or location. This type of location is strongly connected to the day-to-day activities of people, such as residents or entrepreneurs. Where expert knowledge is mostly trying to obtain universal concepts, stakeholder knowledge is context dependent.

Within the process of producing co-constructed knowledge, the worlds of the experts, bureaucrats and other stakeholders are combined. In a process where policy-makers, citizens and experts are intertwined in the construction of knowledge, the approach to contribute to knowledge is more open. In this kind of decision-making process, decision-makers recognise that other actors involved can successfully contribute to the construction of knowledge, the ongoing problems and possible solutions. An interesting and essential question to ask is how to find evenness between the multiple kinds of knowledge in the process of co-constructing knowledge. In the process of co-produced knowledge, it is crucial to seek validity in terms of scientific relevance, social and usefulness for policymaking. If one of the components, as mentioned earlier, are not present, the co-constructed knowledge will end up unused or will even be unusable.

(12)

12

3. Context and case description: Buiksloterham

3.1 Adaptive and organic-transformational urban developments

To fully understand the changing identity of the urban planner in the context of adaptive urban development, the case of Buiksloterham will be described in-depth. The area of Buiksloterham is studied in this research because it is one of the striking adaptive and organic-transformational development areas in the Netherlands. The area has been developing for over a decade, and several authors have written about its uniqueness in terms of adaptive urban development, the experimental nature of the area and sustainability aspects such as circularity.

The questions that arise about the adaptive development of Buiksloterham focus on the history of the area, the planning and implementation phases during the last two decades, and the actors involved in the planning process. Why had Buiksloterham to redevelop in the first place, second, who are the actors and what is their stake in the planning process, and at last, what is the difference between other sites and Buiksloterham?

Buiksloterham is an area located in the northern part of Amsterdam, called Amsterdam Noord. The neighbourhood is situated next to the IJ and between two other areas currently being redeveloped, NDSM and Overhoeks. The neighbourhood of Buiksloterham can be seen at the undermentioned map.

Figure 1: Map of Buiksloterham. Source:

http://ftp.ruimtelijkeplannen.amsterdam.nl/DRO/plannen/NL.IMRO.03630000N002BPGST-/NL.IMRO.03630000N002BPGST-/t_NL.IMRO.03630000N002BPGST-.pdf

(13)

13 Before the start of the redevelopment, Buiksloterham was in the 20th century an important industrial area for Amsterdam, connected to the IJ and home to some governmental industries such as waste processing and a power plant. From the 1980s onwards, the industry started to decline, causing the wharves to close and to leave Amsterdam-Noord. Even though Buiksloterham had fewer industrial enterprises than other parts of Northern Amsterdam, the area was still affected by the general industrial decline and most of the industrial activities did move elsewhere. Striking, however, was the attraction of new activities consisting of the creative industry, including small business and workshops, but also public facilities. Buiksloterham since then slowly transformed to the site that is known today, an area in which a transition from an industrial area to working and living space is happening adaptively. The developments in Buiksloterham used to be part of a more substantial redevelopment in the North of Amsterdam, led by a project office called Noordwaarts. This project was a link between the district of Amsterdam-Noord and a department of the municipality of Amsterdam, responsible for real estate and urban development. The office was able to connect the development of different parts in the North to one more streamlined redevelopment, with an eye for the differences between the areas (Metabolic, Studioninedots & DELVA Landscape Architects, 2015).

What makes Buiksloterham more special than other redevelopment sites in the area, is the adaptive and organic-transformational approach of the redevelopment, whereby small steps are taken at a time with the collaboration of the current users (Dembski, 2013). The small-scale developments with current users make it possible to experiment in Buiksloterham, which is rarely done elsewhere in the city. The step by step development is not the only uniqueness of the area; Buiksloterham is also known for its circularity. Savini and Dembski (2016) write that the redevelopments of Buiksloterham can be seen as a living laboratory of the new city. The authors even state that Buiksloterham “[…] is described as ‘the green utopia’ and is used to

evocate the meaning that this area has for an alternative future for the city of Amsterdam as a whole and beyond.” (Savini & Dembski, 2016. P. 146.). As can be seen, the developments of

Buiksloterham are discussed in the literature and the field of planning, sustainability and adaptive developments.

The development of Buiksloterham was at the start of the project in 2005, already vastly different from the usual traditional, top-down and large-scale type of development that has been happening in most parts of Amsterdam. Because of many small businesses, companies and other urban fabrics, it was not possible to traditionally redevelop Buiksloterham in the first place. Before the economic crisis, beginning around 2008/2009, it was clear that the redevelopment of Buiksloterham was bounded by taking small steps at a time. Because of the small step- and small-scale redevelopment, Buiksloterham became an experimental site. Despite the uniqueness in the developments of Buiksloterham, there are some similarities between Buiksloterham and the redevelopment of other industrial sites in Amsterdam-Noord or elsewhere in the city. One of the significant issues is the contaminated soil and the removal of this soil. Usually, the municipality of Amsterdam buys out the owners of the land to clean the soil. In the case of Buiksloterham other measures were chosen to depollute the area. The difference in depollution can be given to two phenomena. The first being to reduce the costs and the second one being the fact that some of the lots are in private ownership or ground lease and the municipality is not able to intervene in these lots. Buiksloterham has shown that with limited resources, depollution can be achieved on a small-scale, with The Ceuvel as an example. After the approval of the land-use plan in 2009, the planning phase was completed, and the implementation of the plan could be started. Soon after the land-use plan was approved, the financial crisis started, and the real estate sector was struck. The crisis gave a new dimension

(14)

14 to the adaptive redevelopment in the Buiksloterham because smaller groups and individual citizens were allowed to be part of bottom-up processes, and self-building became one of the new development methods. In the next following years, the redevelopment of Buiksloterham continued at a slower rate with small initiatives and self-builders within the area.

In the year 2014, Noordwaarts was abolished, and the main developments and decisions were passed on to district Amsterdam Noord and the municipality of Amsterdam. The recent events in the development of Buiksloterham consist of constructing a new framework by the municipality of Amsterdam, making some adjustments for the plans of Buiksloterham. The land-use plan will remain, however.

3.2 Timetable events Buiksloterham

Year Event

2005 “Start” redevelopments Buiksloterham under the guidance of Noordwaarts 2006 Approval investment decision

2009 Approval land-use plan 2014 Cancellation of Noordwaarts

2018/2019 Re-examining current framework to improve future redevelopments

Table 1: timetable of events Buiksloterham. Made by author (2019)

3.3 Actors

According to Metabolic, Studioninedots & DELVA Landscape Architects (2015), the actors involved in the redevelopment of Buiksloterham can be divided into two different kinds, namely stakeholders and the generally interested actors. The first group is formed by actors who have a direct interest or importance in the redevelopment of Buiksloterham, because of their role in the decision-making process or because decisions have a direct consequence on their stake. Although the second group of actors is less involved in the area in terms of financial, administrative or personal stake, they are still involved or interested in the redevelopment of the area.

The main actors in the area of Buiksloterham have changed over recent years. As explained earlier, the coalition of Noordwaarts was abolished in 2014. This meant that their role as one of the essential stakeholders in the area was passed on to other municipal departments. A fragmented role for the municipality caused delay for some projects, as there was no proper guidance for developments (Metabolic, Studioninedots & DELVA Landscape Architects, 2015).

For other, more local bounded stakeholders in the area, the new developments are both positive and negative, depending on the personal stakes. Some of the local stakeholders are distrustful about the redevelopments and do not take them seriously because of the slow pace of the redevelopments. Another important stakeholder in the area are the self-builders. In 2006 the municipality of Amsterdam accepted a proposal in which ten per cent of the housing in Buiksloterham should be built as self-building. At first, this percentage was not achieved, but with the economic crisis and disinterest from developers, self-building became more attractive and has since 2009 been one of the eye-catchers of the area. All these different stakeholders and actors produce in the co-construction of knowledge.

(15)

15

4. Problem statement, research questions, and conceptual framework

So far, there has been a focus on the identity of the urban planner. However, the general problem is that the identity of the urban planner is often not entirely clear. Multiple identities are formed, and these identities are seldom black or white (Taşan-Kok & Oranje, 2018). The unclearness of the identity of the urban planner comes forward when researching a planning process. The process is often examined from various angles, such as from various stakeholders. Still, the focus on the urban planner seems less, while the approach to follow a planning process through the eyes of an urban planner can be extremely useful for both current and future urban planners and other parties involved in urban development. As shown in the article by Adams & Tiesdell (2010) planners themselves sometimes do not even acknowledge some of their identities. By researching the identity of the urban planner in the planning process, it is possible to learn from different types of urban development and planning processes with a new perspective.

Besides, there is another problem, namely the shift from student to planner. For many students, it is difficult to apply the gained knowledge in practice. The book From student to urban

planner by Taşan-Kok and Oranje (2018), looks at what kind challenges urban planners have

to deal with:

“For many young planners, the noble intentions associated with going to planning school seem

starkly out of place in the neoliberal worlds they have come to inhabit. For some, the huge gap between the power they thought they would have and what they actually do is not only worrying, but also deeply discouraging. But for some others, practice means finding practical and creative solutions to overcome challenges and complexities.” (Taşan-Kok & Oranje, 2018.

P.i.). There is, in other words, more understanding needed for students how to become a thriving urban planner. Together with the vague and unclear definition of the identity of the urban planner, there is more need for understanding the role of this identity of the urban planner. The problem statement, together with the theoretical framework brings the following main research question:

“To what extent is the adaptive and organic-transformational urban development

changing the identity of the contemporary urban planner?”

The argumentation and motivation behind this question are because of new ways of urban development and planning approaches, a new or changing identity for the urban planner has come up. Important to note is the interactive process between urban development and the identity of the urban planner. The relationship between the two variables is not a simply one-sided connection, but an interactive process where adaptive urban development and the identity of the urban planner influence and shape one another.

According to Korthals Altes & Tambach (2009), planners had less experience with this new adaptive approach and thus had to learn and adapt while developments went on. This is in line with the co-construction of knowledge and practical knowledge, where planners learn from work experience, other professionals and various other sources. One could argue that planners have learned from the changes in urban development and planning practice and are no longer working top-down or bottom-up but side-by-side during development. The learning and interactive part is crucial, as it shows the relationship between identity and adaptive urban development. Identity is shaped by adaptive development, and adaptive development shapes the identity of the urban planner. Practice and identity can learn from each other through the interactive process. This side-by-side identity is also emerging at other sciences and in technology development, whereby developments hit the ethical border often. In planning, this is, of course different, but the idea of working together during the process side-by-side and learning from each other is still in place. This side-by-side type of development can be seen as

(16)

16 part of a new form of co-construction of knowledge, based on the article from Alexander (2015). It is interesting to investigate how the co-construction of knowledge is formed, based on different currents within the planning practice, and also brings different roles of the urban planner in the planning process. Based on this argumentation and the theoretical framework, the following sub-questions and conceptual model are constructed with the focus on the identity of the urban planner, adaptive development, and the co-construction of knowledge.

Sub-questions:

- How is the co-construction of knowledge formed by adaptive and organic-transformational urban development?

- How do planners perceive their identity in the adaptive and organic-transformational urban development of Buiksloterham?

The first question has a closer look at the co-construction of knowledge and how planners do possess, learn and adapt. The the second question takes a closer look at identity and the self-perception by planners. Both sub-questions will be measured through qualitative interviews, which will be discussed in the next section. The whole argumentation of this thesis can be seen through the following conceptual model:

Figure 2: Conceptual framework. Source: Made by author (2019)

Despite that the conceptual model is showing the arrow both ways to emphasise the interactive dimensions between the two variables, the adaptive urban development is in this research seen as the independent variable, while the identity of the urban planner is seen as the dependent variable. Both the dependent and the independent variable are, however, dependent on the interactive part between the variables. The interactive process is, therefore, the confounding variable. The interaction is on its turn, closely tied to the co-construction of knowledge, which is connected to all the variables. The relationship between organic transformational urban development and the identity of the urban planner can be identified as a spurious relationship (Bryman, 2012. P.345).

(17)

17

5. Methodology

In the following chapter, the methodology of this research will be discussed. This includes the choice for a case study, sampling, collection of data, processing of the data, how the data was analysed and a reflection on the ethical part of data collection.

5.1 Research design

The research of the planner’s identity was conducted through a case study, focussed on the adaptive and organic-transformational developments in Buiksloterham, Amsterdam. The research has an inductive nature (which will be discussed later). Yin (2008) gives the following definition of case studies: “As a research endeavor, the case study contributes uniquely to our

knowledge of individual, organizational, social, and political phenomena. […] In all of these situations, the distinctive need for case studies arises out of the desire to understand complex social phenomena. In brief, the case study allows an investigation to retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events such as individual life cycles, organizational and managerial processes, neighborhood change, international relations, and the maturation of industries.” (Yin, 2008. P. 2-3.).

A case study fitted the research question and helped to try to understand the complex phenomena of the identity of the urban planner. Looking at reality should give an understanding how a form of identity is shaped or changed. The area of Buiksloterham suited the research the most, as it is one of the few adaptive urban development sites in Amsterdam where developments have been taking place for a longer amount of time. A case study is moreover connected to how- and why-questions as those questions are seeking more operational links that need to be found. Furthermore, the events leading to the research already took place, and the researcher had no control over these events. All these criteria are met within the research to the changing identity of the urban planner.

The case study was coupled to realism, where the conceptualisation of the researcher is seen as a way of understanding and knowing a specific reality: “Critical realism operates with a

different understanding of causation, which is to seek out generative mechanisms that are responsible for observed regularities in the social world and how they operate in particular contexts. Case studies are perceived by writers of a critical realist persuasion to have an important role for research within this tradition, because the intensive nature of most case studies enhances the researcher’s sensitivity to the factors that lie behind the operation of observed patterns within a specific context (Ackroyd 2009).” (Bryman, 2012. P.74). With

realism in mind, the case study helped to understand the causation between adaptive urban development and the identity of the urban planner, which is seen as interactive.

Yin (2008) states five different components that are important for a case study as a research design. Based on these five components, the research will be further examined. The first component is the research questions, which is already discussed in past chapter. The second component includes the study propositions. Yin states that the propositions steer the research and gives attention on what should be investigated. This is important to find out what a research actually should study. In the case of this thesis, the proposition can be seen as the following: the argumentation is that both adaptive urban development, planning practice and the identity of the urban planner are formed and influenced by each other through the interactive process between these variables. The basis of this change can be assigned to knowledge. The researcher argues that because of the change of how knowledge is acquired, gathered, used and shared, the identity of the urban planner could have changed. Because of the new way of urban development and therefore, the change of planning practice, the identity of the urban planners could have been changed, or even a new identity has emerged. Because the variables are connected, this identity will, on its turn, influence the planning practice and the transformational

(18)

18 urban development. The influence between the organic development and identity of the urban planner is, therefore, interactive.

For the research, a proposition was necessary to steer the research in the right direction. There is already literature based on adaptive development, the co-construction of knowledge and the identity of the urban planner. The goal, however, is to see whether the identity changed or a new identity did occur. The research will involve induction because there is no literature based on the identity of the urban planner coupled to the organic and transformative urban development. The observations and findings from the research will thus lead to new theory in the case of Buiksloterham. Furthermore, in qualitative research, confirmation or rejection is not as black or white as in quantitative research, and the proposition is to steer the research. There will, however, be a part of deduction is this research. Bryman states that both induction and deduction will need an element of the other in the research process: “However, just as deduction

entails an element of induction, the inductive process is likely to entail a modicum of deduction. Once the phase of theoretical reflection on a set of data has been carried out, the researcher may want to collect further data in order to establish the conditions in which a theory will and will not hold. Such a general strategy if often called iterative: it involves a weaving back and forth between data and theory.” (Bryman, 2012. P.26.). This means that, in order to see whether

the gathered data is a collect reflection of reality, the researcher is meant to reflect on the gathered data and the findings with the used theory in mind.

The third component consists of the unit of analysis, containing the actual case that this research will be studying. The unit of analysis is also important for the sampling, coupled to the data collection. According to Yin, the unit of analysis is related to what the actual ‘case’ is in the research. This can be achieved by specifying the main research question. The identity of the urban planners appeared when specifying the research question as it was the main focus of the research. The urban planners involved in the planning process of the adaptive urban development were therefore used as a unit of analysis as well as sampling for the interviews. Interviews with planners were used to gather data.

After specifying the research question and defining the unit of analysis, Yin states that other boundaries of the case should be made. These criteria are essential for the data-collection part of the research, whom to interview and what questions to ask. This research focussed on the adaptive urban development in Amsterdam and specifically Buiksloterham from 2003 onwards, the year the structure plan (Structuurplan) was introduced by the municipality of Amsterdam. Planners and other experts with similar activities who are involved in the urban development of Buiksloterham have been interviewed. Furthermore, earlier gathered interviews have also been analysed. A more extensive data collection and analysis will be discussed in the following section.

5.2 Data collection, processing and analysis

The fourth and fifth elements of a case study research design are about the logic of linking the data to the propositions and the criteria for interpreting the findings. In this thesis, the researcher conducted seven semi-structured interviews. The interviews which were conducted are interviews with planners involved in the adaptive and organic-transformational urban development in Buiksloterham. With the semi-structured interview, the researcher has an item list with questions and topics. These topics do not need to be asked in order, and the researcher has the space to ask follow-up questions if the researcher finds this necessary or needs more explanation on a specific topic. This is also the case when something interesting pops up during the interview. Nonetheless, specific issues were asked, as the research already had a clear focus on the topics that had to be discussed. The interviews were audio-recorded and the researcher took notes and kept a fieldwork dairy during and after the interviews. The dairy was of

(19)

19 importance to describe the emphasis during the interviews, which helped later on with finding the right quotes for the analysis. After the interviews, the audio was directly listened back to, in order to enhance the fieldwork diary. Furthermore, a timetable was made to make it easier to find relevant quotes for the analysis. At last, the data was processed by transcriptions and going repetitively through the data.

For the second set of data, interviews which were conducted at an earlier stage were collected. These interviews were conducted for other research purposes. The researcher selected the interviews which were relevant to the topic of the identity of the urban planner and the co-construction of knowledge. Not all the respondents from the earlier interviews were planners. Some were self-builders, other spatial advisors or innovation experts. All respondents were working in the planning field, however. The variety of respondents helped to get a more comprehensive view of the identity of urban planners and the co-construction of knowledge. In total, eleven of the interviews from different researchers were analysed.

After the data collection, the gathered data was analysed through thematic analysis. Conducted interviews were listened to, together with the fieldwork dairy and notes during the interview. Quotes were noted down for later use. It was of importance to note, at first hand, relevant quotes and further explanation down as soon as possible after the interview. This was because the conducted interview was still the most fresh in the head of the researcher and helped with later coding, finding relevant themes and overall quality of the findings. As for the interviews collected from earlier research, the same process was used to analyse the data. The same codes and themes were used to find relevant quotes which would add up to answers for the research question and sub-questions. The interviews which were self-conducted were transcribed with relevance in mind. Instead of writing down every expression of the interviewee and the interviewer, only the answers to the questions were noted down. It is important to note that the original transcripts of the interviews were all in Dutch. For the thesis, the used quotes in the analysis chapter and appendix C were translated. This may have caused some little tweaks within the quotes, as Dutch expressions or use of language can be vastly different from English. Some of the quotes were also tweaked for better readability. However, the researcher tried to keep the quotes as close as the original as possible. To help with the translation for the quotes and the thesis as a whole, the program Grammarly was used as an editor.

Once all the interviews were conducted, collected, transcribed and scanned through, the researcher categorised the quotes according to the codes and made themes according to the answers given during the interviews. As said earlier, the interviews were transcribed with relevance in mind. With this type of processing data, more interviews could be analysed as the data-processing took less time than transcribing the full interview. Nonetheless, the quotes will be used in the same manner to analyse the data. According to Bryman, the data in this method will “[…] extract core themes that could be distinguished both between and within transcripts.” (Bryman 2012, P.13.). Through repetition of reviewing the gathered data, topics that appear multiple times can be determined, and patterns could be found. However, the repetition of topics and themes is not the only criteria. Above all, findings must be relevant to the research question. The fieldwork dairy and timetables made up during and right after the interviews helped with the relevance of the findings. As identity was often not very clearly stated, the researcher needed to reflect on the gathered data continuously. Despite the possible problems, a thematic analysis was the best way to analyse the gathered data because of its flexibility and the systematic way qualitative data can be analysed. The gathered data helped to answer the sub-questions and define the past and current identity of the urban planner connected to the adaptive urban development and co-construction of knowledge.

(20)

20 During the data collection, the following questions and topics were discussed during the semi-structured interviews, based on the theoretical framework, argumentation, the conceptual model and sub-questions. The topics and questions contributed to answering the sub-questions and the main research question. The questions and topics also contributed to the basis of the analytical framework. The analytical framework was the basis for analysing the data backed up with relevant literature about the basis of knowledge. The analytical framework includes cognitive knowledge and further breakdown of knowledge. The analytical framework arises from the theoretical framework and elaborates more on knowledge and how planners use knowledge in order to understand more about the identity of the urban planner.

Topics and questions:

- Co-construction of knowledge

- The basis of knowledge, including learning, usage of knowledge, missing knowledge, reflection of knowledge, sharing knowledge and behaviour.

- Sets of skills by urban planners

- Interactive and learning between transformational and organic urban development and the identity of the urban planner.

- Change in urban development with the introduction of an adaptive approach. - Differences in urban development and identity. What has changed?

- On what parts were/are planners involved in the planning process.

- What would the planners do differently in the same context as before with the current knowledge available? (What have they primarily learned from the adaptive development process.)

5.3 Ethics and reflection

As a researcher, it is crucial to handle the collected data carefully and confidentially. For this thesis, informed consent was used to ensure that the collected data from the interviews were used confidentially. In the informed consent, the interviewees were informed about the topic of the research and usage of data. All the data, both self-conducted interviews and collected interviews from earlier research, were used anonymously. Furthermore, the data was stored on an offline location with the researcher as the only one who got access. At last, the informed consent states that the data will be destroyed after the completion of the thesis. The full informed consent can be found in appendix A of this thesis.

Overall the collection of data was time-consuming and rough at times. Buiksloterham is a famous development site, especially in terms of sustainability and circularity. This meant that much research was done in the past about sustainable development, self-building, circularity, and the overall development process. Potential respondents were not very keen on yet another research, as they felt that the kind of research was done many times before and Buiksloterham was over-researched. On top of this, some of the potential respondents are voluntarily working in Buiksloterham and had therefore not enough time for an interview. Despite these difficulties, a researcher should always search for one’s own conscience. In this case, the researcher could have indicated more specifically what the research was about when approaching potential respondents. It turned out that the more general approach did not work out well because of the history of research in Buiksloterham. Potential respondents thought that the subject of the research was already researched and that it was “kind of basic”. When approaching potential respondents with a more in-depth summary of the subject and the researcher’s argumentation behind this research, more respondents were willing to help.

(21)

21

6. Analysis and results

The following sections contain the analytical framework and the results of the data collection. The analytical framework is based on the theoretical framework and delves more profound than the theoretical framework into the various aspects of the identity of urban planners and the co-construction of knowledge. The codes found in this analytical framework lead to groups of terms and themes used for the results. The results will help to answer the sub-questions and ultimately, the research question in the discussion and conclusion chapter.

6.1 Analytical framework

In the methods section, the analytical framework was already briefly explained. This framework is used in order to find codes relevant to the interviews, which could later be turned into themes and connections within the data. For the first sub-question, “How is the co-construction of

knowledge formed by adaptive and organic-transformational urban development?” the

researcher looked at the contribution of planners for the co-construction of knowledge and the basics of knowledge were used as codes to the relevant data. To understand more about the basis of knowledge, the codes are based on Tekeli (2018) and Kincheloe (2005) who looked into cognitive knowledge, scientific knowledge, decision making in planning and critical constructivism. Tekeli (2018) asked himself questions about the role of emotions in decision making, what kind of planning process planners should follow, and the kind of plans they could use to assist and benefit the public interest. The most interesting question, however, is what kind of knowledge planners should rely upon. These questions fit well in the search for the identity of the urban planner coupled to the co-construction of knowledge and the fundamentals of knowledge itself. The author gives attention to various aspects of knowledge, including understanding and learning, emotions, intuitions, reflections, insights, decisions, rationality, reasoning and behaviour. Moreover, Tekeli pays attention to sharing knowledge between different stakeholders and the relationship and communication among them to help to achieve consensus. The contribution of a planner can, according to Tekeli, only be done in a participatory process. Besides the possessed knowledge and sharing, the missing knowledge of planners was also analysed. How planners cope with this missing knowledge and how they look for solutions if they do not possess certain knowledge that is necessary for the planning field was analysed as well. Kincheloe (2005) uses critical constructivism to examine knowledge. According to this author, the world is socially constructed. In his words, what is known about the world always requires someone who knows and the topic that is to be known. This is not fitting for the world, but also for people. The possessed knowledge of people are socially constructed too. Knowledge is built upon this social construct, and people need to be in a constant dialogue to learn and acquire knowledge.

For the second sub-question, “How do planners perceive their identity in the adaptive and

organic-transformational urban development of Buiksloterham?” attention was paid to roles,

work activities and actions in the planning process of Buiksloterham, but also to the way planners saw themselves in the planning process. The planning process and the developments of Buiksloterham were an important part to see how planners saw themselves in this process and can be coupled to certain identities, as has been seen in the theoretical framework. The role and identity consisted of both personal and professional identities of urban planners. Furthermore, the researcher paid attention to the differences between the work activities in Buiksloterham and earlier or other projects. This is complementary to what planners may have learned in the project of Buiksloterham, discussed in the first sub-question. The questions about unique features of Buiksloterham and how they came back into the work activities of the urban planners were used for the answer of the second sub-question as well. At last, there will be an

(22)

22 analysis if the identities and the roles of the planners can be assigned to one or multiple identities described in the theoretical framework.

Because knowledge and identity are inextricably connected, one could argue for example that the identity is partially due to behaviour and behaviour is part of the cognitive knowledge described by Tekeli (2018), quotes from the planners can be placed in multiple sections.

6.2 Research results

The results will contain two main topics. The first being co-construction of knowledge and the other one role and identity, linked to the respective sub-questions. The co-construction of knowledge section has the following elements: possessed and used knowledge; learning and adaptation; shared knowledge; missing knowledge. These first four paragraphs are linked to the way planners produce in the co-construction of knowledge and argue the importance of sharing and learning through co-construction of knowledge to enhance the adaptive urban developments. The missing knowledge paragraphs show that planners cannot produce knowledge on their own anymore.

The second part of the analysis focusses on the identity and the corresponding components: role of location; personal identity; professional identity; dynamic role. The paragraphs in this part of the analysis will focus on the second sub-question and the self-perception of urban planners on their identity. Because the scholarly literature indicates that the identity of the urban planner is vague and liquid, it is important to see whether planners do agree on this matter, even more so because self-perceived identity can have an influence on the co-construction of knowledge as has been discussed in the theoretical framework. The self-perception helps to understand why the planner's identity is described as liquid and reviews whether this is according to planners problematic, as the literature suggests.

6.3 Co-construction of knowledge

For the first part of the results, the sub-question related to the co-construction of knowledge will be further examined. The various aspects in the co-construction of knowledge help to understand the identity of the urban planner as well as the self-perception, which will be discussed in the role and identity section.

6.3.1 Possessed and used knowledge

The first part of the results consists of the possessed and used knowledge by urban planners. The respondents came with a large variety of possessed knowledge which is not unusual, as a lot of them have different functions and work activities. The vast amount of possessed and used knowledge is in line with the liquid identity of the urban planner, where multiple functions, roles and identities come with different forms of possessed and used knowledge. There are, however, some similarities and strong ideas about what kind of knowledge a planner does or should possess and how this can be used in adaptive urban development. In other words, how do the planners produce in the construction of knowledge and what is their stake for this co-construction of knowledge.

“I am a Jack-of-all-trades in that sense. I actually have a commercial-technical background, but given my technical background, I can also spar with a technician. And I can also deal with a tenant if necessary. Not everyone can do that either. That is also your pitfall because you know something about everything. You have to prevent that you fully submerge into the technology. But, practically, you can think along with things like that. But a very nice job. I always say it is the best job at the housing corporation.” (Respondent 17, Planner housing

The changing identity of the urban planner in adaptive, organic and transformational urban development