Planning for actors or acting on plans : relationships and their influence on contemporary planning flexibility

(1)

PLANNING FOR ACTORS

OR ACTING ON PLANS

RELATIONSHIPS AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON CONTEMPORARY

PLANNING FLEXIBILITY

ADHISH MANANDHAR GURUNG

12139157

Master’s Urban and Regional Planning - University of Amsterdam Supervisor: Sara Özogul

Second reader: Jochem de Vries

(2)

Abstract

Dutch planning has been in a period of transition from traditional, comprehensive, top-down planning to contemporary, spontaneous, and flexible planning – a heavily debated transition. As the verdict on flexible planning hangs perilously in the balance, city planners experiment with different forms tweaking technical facets each time, largely ignoring the desired ideal relationships with other actors involved, whose role is now increasing. This research investigates how relationships between municipal planners and private

developers influence the elements of flexibility in planning projects through a qualitative approach based on targeted interviewing of municipal planners and private developers of the Haven-Stad redevelopment area in the Amsterdam region. The research uncovers how the relationships influence behavioral flexibility of the actors involved ultimately affecting the negotiations that lead to land-use decisions. Realizing the ‘transformative’ nature of behavioral flexibility, the thesis recommends focusing on ‘negotiations’ as a starting point in flexible planning rather than the widely utilized ‘indicative plans’ generally prepared without collective actor involvement.

(3)

Colophon

This Master thesis has been completed as part of the graduation requirements for the Master of Science Urban and Regional Planning program at the University of Amsterdam, Class of 2019.

This document has been prepared under the supervision of Sara Özogul. 18188 words

Universiteit van Amsterdam Graduate School of Social Sciences

Faculteit der Maatschappij-en Gedragswetenschappen

Department of Human Geography, Planning and International Development Studies Nieuwe Achtergracht 166 1018 WV Amsterdam

Adhish Manandhar Gurung

adhish.gurung@student.uva.nl / gurung.adhish@gmail.com +31 6 18384986

(4)

Acknowledgements

This thesis concludes a year of rigorous yet enjoyable study at the University of

Amsterdam and is only possible because of the support, encouragement, and guidance of Sara Özogul.

On a personal level, my own education has been possible because of the women that brought me up. To my mother, my sister, and my grandmother, I am forever indebted.

(5)

1 Introduction

Is the Netherlands still a planner’s paradise or is it merely a planned paradise? Faludi and van der Valk’s (1994) renowned statement on the Netherlands being a haven for city planners rang true for decades when comprehensive and integrated methods dominated the planning atmosphere. However, effects of the recent global economic crisis of the 2000s are threatening to weaken planners and dislodge them of some of their

professional might. The crisis highlighted, not caused, planning issues within the Netherlands; oversupply of office space, stalled property development projects, and dysfunctional real estate markets (Janssen-jansen & Salet, 2009). The crisis exacerbated problems within Dutch planning which started to manifest even before the crisis itself. Dutch planning was already in transition from integrated and comprehensive planning to ‘flexible’ planning that stimulates small-scale initiatives with end users involved earlier in the development process (Buitelaar, 2014). Traditional top-down comprehensive planning practices started to dwindle due to various reasons: societal changes, ideological

reorientation that brought changes to planning legislation, and growing diversity of planning issues (Gerrits, Rauws, & de Roo, 2012). Relatively new flexible planning forms are being implemented in the Netherlands and modifications to each form focuses heavily on altering technical aspects of the approach (Buitelaar, 2014). It seems planners

experiment with different types of flexible planning projects by changing technical elements such as scale, approach, type of plan, among others. However, these projects involve multiple actor groups across sectors, both public and private, that attempt to collaborate to find a satisfactory spatial outcome. Their collective assurances, interactions, and visions are crucial now that these planning processes are less top-down and

comprehensive but more lateral and gradual (Lloyd, Peel, Janssen-Jansen, Boonstra, & Boelens, 2011). Research on these complex relationships between public and private sector actors collaborating in flexible planning projects is still scarce and could be crucial in determining whether flexible planning projects can ‘fix’ Dutch planning that has

(7)

Neo-liberalization processes created environments where other non-public actors gained prominence in the development process. City planners transitioned from being managers to facilitators of the development process collaborating with private sector actors to achieve certain spatial order. Collaborative planning focusing on “fostering collaborative, consensus-building practices” (Healey, 1997, p. 5) gained prominence then but is still influential today in flexible planning where actors are interdependent. Similarly, Adams (1994) shows that planners and developers have different priorities but are locked together in a state of mutual dependence. In this context it is important to recognize these actor groups not only as competing interests. The nuances of relationship dynamics in collaborative projects are extensively studied with regards to projects, project teams, and project outcomes, but is seemingly lacking in planning literature. This thesis argues that understanding the relationships between these actors is crucial in order to assess how the planning projects are impacted rather than only focusing on the technical aspects. It offers answers to two problems: a theoretical one that current focus on

technical facets only in planning projects is an insufficient mechanism to structure formats of flexible planning, and an empirical one that the current wave of flexible planning approaches being implemented in Amsterdam and the Netherlands are formulated without a necessary consideration of the ideal relationships between the actors that are integral to those approaches. These problems direct the scope of this thesis where the question to what extent relationships between city planners and private developers influence elements of flexibility in planning projects can be asked and sufficiently answered.

The nature of this question, predicated on understanding actors’ relationships with each other where personal descriptions are so prominent, guides the thesis toward qualitative methods that emphasize understanding relationship dynamics and understanding their impact on flexibility. The necessary empirical boundary is set by choosing the Haven-Stad redevelopment area within Amsterdam where a form of these contemporary flexible planning approaches is being practiced. Since 2016, city planners have begun attempts at

(8)

redeveloping this predominantly industrial area, within the city of Amsterdam, with the imperative participation of the private sector (Briefing Book ULI Advisory Panel Haven-Stad, 2019). Unlike traditional top-down planning methods, here planners are compelled to communicate, interact, and collaborate with developers in order to achieve their spatial vision for Haven-Stad as a mixed use area by the year 2040 (Plan Amsterdam, 2011). This thesis intends to gauge the effects of certain relationship dynamics such as trust, physical and cultural proximity, and goal congruency between these public and private actors on the resulting flexibility of the projects measured through impact on negotiations and resulting land-use plans. These relationship dynamics have been identified, particularly by Dietrich, Eskerod, Dalcher, and Sandhawalia (2010), as crucial in understanding

collaborative relationships in project teams and thus serve as the conceptual lens to focus this thesis. After conducting a dozen interviews with verbose planners and elusive

developers operating in this area, the research finds that relationships extensively affect behavioral flexibility; how actors trust each other, how they communicate with one another, and how their goals are aligned influence how the same actors eventually behave in the resulting projects by either being supportive or unhelpful. This resulting behavioral flexibility becomes pronounced in how these actors negotiate and affect the land-use plans; tenuous relationships can cripple negotiations whereas collaborative relationships can lead to smoother negotiations and, if necessary, land-use modifications. Furthermore, this thesis also finds that prominent external factors, policy and the market, either strengthen or weaken those relationships. Haven-Stad is not a homogenous

redevelopment area; alongside transformation (a process of redeveloping plots owned by non-municipal actors) tender processes (where the Municipality dictates the

redevelopment goal on municipal land) exist as well. Importantly, the results differ between these procedures; relationship dynamics in transformation projects are more pronounced and impactful since negotiations are at the heart of the procedures. These findings can inform further policy discussions by arguing that focusing on relationships as a starting point in planning projects rather than ‘indicative plans’ can yield smoother

(9)

2 The social dynamics of flexible planning

From technical-rational to communicative-rational: the birth of

flexibility

Flexibility in planning is a phenomenon that emerged during the end of the Fordist era (Tasan-Kok, 2008). It largely did not exist in the managerial era of planning where top-down, rational planning governed. Local authorities in general, had no need to be flexible; they controlled financial resources, dictated where manufacturing areas were located, and had strong and influential governing bodies (Harvey, 1989). Once urban areas began to change, due to an assortment of reasons broadly understood as

globalization, cities had to adapt to the vast relocation of labor and resources. This period marks the beginning of flexibility entering the planning sphere. This chapter focuses on the wider understanding of flexibility, its heritage in neo-liberalization, and its existence in various contemporary planning approaches. It then points to literature beyond planning indicating why understanding relationships between actors is crucial in understanding project outcomes, and what understanding actor relationships can mean for flexible planning.

Flexibility and its emergence are tied closely to the metamorphosis of planning practices as a whole. Planning practices in general transitioned from technical-rational in the early twentieth century to communicative-rational in the late twentieth century (Roo & Rauws, 2012). This major shift marks the well documented transition from closed to open, from certain to uncertain, from goal-oriented to process-oriented forms of planning. During the Fordist era of mass production, planning practices that were regulatory, standardized, and predictable dominated. Planning ‘manufactured’ spaces with specific forms and functions and adhered to a ‘rational’ model where the planner took center stage as the ‘expert’ (Tasan-Kok, 2008). When process-oriented forms of planning emerged, planners were no

(10)

academics covered this transition including Patsy Healey (1996), David Harvey (1989) and De Roo & Rauws (2012) to name a few. Flexibility, during its early emergence, meant easing restrictions on the private sector. In an era when partnerships became prominent, supporting the private sector was the modus operandi. Friedman (1997), an early

advocate for flexibility, states succinctly that it is required in planning in order for the built environment to constantly adapt to the changing social and economic dynamics. Rigid plans affect cities adversely by not accommodating changing living patterns or

professional industries. He argues flexibility is, for example, required to respond to “unpredictable fluctuations in the housing market” (p. 277). He further states that “the changes taking place in the lives of users and in the conditions stimulating market activity justify new planning approaches which are both dynamic and flexible” (p. 278). He

provides a detailed technical account of how an area can be developed plot-by-plot with certain ruling guidelines for the developers, freeing the municipal authorities from

cumbersome and lengthy approval processes. He advocates for designing communities “a section at a time” through a “hierarchical guide to urban growth” that allows

developers to be successful and follow the trends of the economy, demands of the users, and be malleable to different circumstances primarily so they do not lose money in “mortgage payments and land taxes” (Friedman, 1997, pp. 281–291). He showcases here that early flexibility meant re-writing procedures to protect private-sector developers from risky investments. Over time flexibility changed to mean a wide range of allowances, not just a binary concept of either helping the private sector or not. The flexibility he

describes is a technical adaptation in planning procedures and guidelines but its interpretation changes over time to encompass actor dynamics as well.

Neo-liberalization and its effects on flexibility of planning

Then began the ‘neoliberal’ project of deregulation and free market practices where the private sector commanded the development process, and planning departments

(11)

Thornley, 1996). Planners embarked on more entrepreneurial roles and collaborated with the private sector to accomplish development goals. In the emergence of these process-oriented forms of planning, partnerships between the public sector and private sector took center stage in the development process and here the relationships fostered between these public and private sector actors started to gather more significance (Campbell, Tait, & Watkins, 2016; Ruming, 2009). The start of the ‘neoliberal’ project thus marks the beginning of actor specific flexibility in planning and the subsequent

importance of these actor relationships.

The crises of Fordism namely “inflation and then deflation, massive unemployment, social disintegration, fiscal crises of local governments” (Tasan-Kok, 2008, p. 185) created the conditions for the neo-liberal project to emerge. As cities struggled, the ‘pro-growth’ regimes that included “economic interests, landed capital, developers and local banks” (Newman & Thornley, 1996, p. 81) particularly in the United States and the United Kingdom, the bastions of neo-liberalization, started to dominate urban development. During this period, “greater flexibility and the loosening of rigid rules became a common tendency in planning discussion” (Gielen & Tasan-Kok, 2010, p. 1103). Peck, Theodore, and Brenner (2009) argue that cities were urban experiment grounds for neoliberal policy experiments of “place-marketing, enterprise zones, local tax abatements, public-private partnerships and new forms of local boosterism” (p. 58). During this neoliberal project based on free market practices, reduced regulations and privatization, flexible production of space became more common. The shift from manufacturing to service meant that areas had to be redesigned to accommodate for changing work patterns. Planners had to become ‘flexible’ in order to promote economic competitiveness of their cities (Harvey, 1989; Tasan-Kok, 2008). Here they show flexibility by partnering with the private sector, a process planners were unaccustomed to until it became required of them. During the ‘Fordist’ era of mass production and rigid forms of spatial planning flexibility is seen in a negative light since most scholars considered ideal planning to be comprehensive and structured whereas flexibility introduced elements of looseness and lawlessness. However,

(12)

in the 1980s, it came to mean ‘adapting or adjusting’ to the changing dynamics of spatial planning brought on by neo-liberalization. In these communicative planning years, flexible planning came to replace the ‘long-range, end-state’ planning practices that had

persisted. In contemporary times, flexibility is akin to creativity, diversity and opportunism. It has come to mean inclusion of various actors and multiculturalism. The seminal struggle with flexibility is the balance of looseness with creativity (Tasan-Kok, 2008). It meant that not only did planning procedures change but that the behavior of municipal planners had to adapt to these changing conditions as well. They transitioned from managerial roles to facilitative and partnering roles, introducing a range of behavioral dynamics, such as mutual respect, trust, and collaboration, that become prominent.

A shift in this changing role is illustrated in the United Kingdom as ‘Thatcherism’ brought incremental changes to the planning practices, where a new order gradually transformed the welfare state model. Newman and Thornley (1996) extensively capture this transition of urban planning practices in Europe and illustrate how centralized power reduced the involvement of local governments in everyday decision-making and liberated market forces. They term this ‘authoritarian decentralization’ that reduced the power of local governments in the UK and allowed greater flexibility to emerge, freeing up the markets. There is a serial and constant abandonment of functions for the local authority granting larger responsibility to the private sector. At this point, there is some early recognition of relationships as an important factor in planning; Cole and John (1994) “argue that analysis of networks should be a starting point for understanding contemporary local governance and that bargaining and conflict between those involved is likely to characterize local decision-making” (Newman & Thornley, 1996, p. 83). Similarly, Susan Fainstein (1994) also argues that “conflict and bargaining between actors” is key in analyzing to see “which interests are enforced and how that is achieved” (Newman and Thornley, 1996, p. 83). Here we see the initial recognition of relationship dynamics in planning practices; the focus on ‘bargaining, conflict, networks’ is noteworthy. In previous practices, the relationship was completely one-sided where the public sector commanded the entire

(13)

development process. These relationship dynamics thus become prominent during the transition of the role of the state.

From authoritative government to collaborative governance: social

dynamics on the rise

During the transition from government to governance, local authorities participate in rather than control the development process (Adams, Croudace, & Tiesdell, 2012). As “cross-sectoral partnerships and networks as key institutional mechanisms” (Ruming, 2009, p. 29) become prominent, flexible planners emerge. Partnerships and joint ventures start to gain more prominence and the lines between private and public start to blur. This results in frequent interactions between public and private sector actors as they

collaborate to find solutions to urban planning problems. A “cooperative approach to urban spatial development” becomes necessary as planners no longer ‘control’ the planning environment (Tasan-Kok, 2008, p. 186). Similarly, Adams et al. (2012) in their analysis of the British development process show how planners inherently see themselves at the center of the development process but are actually ‘interventionist’ rather than ‘planning’ or ‘managing’ the developers and the development output. Planners take up participatory roles where they are ‘flexible’ in their approach to planning urban

development that now involves many other actors (Tasan-Kok, 2008). The ‘governance’ model in this system is where both public sector and private sector parties are ‘mutually dependent’ or ‘interdependent’ with collaboration between parties heavily emphasized. “Governance emphasizes the importance of managing urban developments by constantly incorporating actor interests within development processes”; since knowledge is seen to be divided among actors, planning departments search for “intensive collaborative relations” (Heurkens & Hobma, 2014, p. 354). Naturally, cooperation between public and private sector actors is integral in this governance approach. Inherently in partnerships, some flexibility among parties is essential since a partnership implies two parties coming

(14)

transition where relationships between actors started to gain importance. These relationship characteristics are explored further to illustrate how these approaches are defined by their technical facets and not the desirable ideal relationships between actors involved.

Relationship characteristics in contemporary flexible planning practices

Regarding flexible planning, much is understood about the technical aspects of the projects (Buitelaar, 2014) but a sizeable gap still remains regarding the importance of relationships between planners and developers that affect the resulting projects. In order to limit the scope of this planning style, the thesis focuses predominantly on

contemporary planning approaches prevalent in the Netherlands. This restriction allows the thesis to specifically target relationship elements, isolate their occurrences, and compare the effects. Analyzing the Dutch context, Buitelaar (2014) highlights the

spectrum of planning forms in which integrated urban development and organic planning fall on opposite sides of the spectrum (see figure 1). But he acknowledges that the

transition from organic to integrated is neither one directional or dichotomous and that several hybrid forms occupy the middle ground. This thesis presents two other prominent planning approaches that exists in that middle ground (facilitative planning and private sector-led planning) to showcase some of the relationship dynamics whose effects on the planning approach is still not determined.

(15)

Figure 1: Main differences in Integrated versus organic development. Source: Buitelaar (2014)

We can see through some prominent contemporary flexible planning practices

summarized in table 1 how ‘flexibility’ is now incorporated and realized. Here the roles of the actors, the predominant relationship characteristics and dynamics are highlighted.

(16)

Table 1: Contemporary flexible planning approaches and relationship dynamics

Appr oa ch Gr adu al De pe nd en t o n tra ns fo rm ati on ar ea De pe nd en t o n tra ns fo rm ati on ar ea At o nc e Type of devel oper Sm al l and in div id ua l Sm al l – la rg e Lar ge Lar ge Rel at ions hi p dynam ics Co m m un ic at io n / G ui da nc e / Sup por t Sup por t / G oal co ng ru en cy / Co lla bo ra tio n Sup por t / G oa l co ng ru en cy / Co m m un ic at io n / C ol la bo ra tio n / F ac ili ta tio n / Res pons ibi lit y Di re ct io n / Gu id an ce / Ma na ge me nt Rel at ions hi p char act er ist ics Ena bl em ent of th e pri va te se ct or to de ve lop Ne go tia tio n be tw ee n ac tor gr ou ps Co lla bo ra tio n be tw ee n ac tor gro up s Au th or ity o f th e pu bl ic s ec tor Ac tor rol es / Be ha vi or Pr ivat e sect or Lead ing Lead ing Co m m an di ng / Co op er at iv e Sub m iss iv e Publ ic sect or Fac ili tat iv e Gu id in g / St im ul at ing Gu id in g / St im ul at ing Ac tiv e an d ris k pr on e / Au th or ita tiv e Pl anni ng appr oa ch Or ga ni c pl an ni ng – ( Bu ite la ar , 2 01 4) Fac ili tat iv e pl an ni ng – (C oia ce tto , 2000; Fa ins tei n, 2001; Ta sa n-Ko k, 2 00 8) Pr iv at e sec tor -le d p la nn in g – (H eu rke ns & Ho bm a, 2014) In te gr at ed ur ban de ve lopm en t -Bu ite la ar , Lag en di jk & Jaco bs (2007)

(17)

Organic planning

Organic Development Strategies (ODS), incorporated in the Netherlands as an alternative to traditional, control oriented planning in recent years, is flexible in the sense that it opens up the development process to “non-professional project initiators” who have to meet a series of premeditated conditions such as “land-use type ratios, restrictions on nuisance or minimum energy standards” (Rauws & De Roo, 2016, p. 1053). These processes give rise to spontaneous iterations of land development that are generally more open and flexible compared to traditional practices. The future configurations are not pre-defined and built through guiding principles that are typically set by planning authorities. These practices simply invite unconventional ‘planners’ to the process. In the Netherlands, the land is largely government owned “allowing planning authorities to set guiding rules without entering into complicated negotiation processes with other

landowners” (Rauws & De Roo, 2016, p. 1069). ODS illustrate that “the function of plans and regulations and the role of planners are redefined to foster self-managed initiatives” facilitating the development. There is no pre-defined emphasis on the relationships between these different sets of actors or on the resulting planning projects, even though heightened interaction, negotiation, and increased communication are common facets of this type of development strategy. The local authority’s position of stimulating and encouraging development means that their relationship with the private sector is facilitative and enabling. Since the private sector is following guidelines on how to develop and is relatively new to the development process there is a high degree of communication and learning expected. ODS are in the experimental phase in the Netherlands and before a verdict is passed on their effectiveness, defining the optimal relationship dynamics between actors such as communication, guidance, and support is crucial. Buitelaar’s (2014) investigation of ODS finds that in the case of Havenkwartier, a project manager spent “a year of negotiations to find the right formula that addressed fears that the area would not produce enough ‘inner- city liveliness” (p. 260). He shows

(18)

that affect negotiations between actors – congruent goals, communication behavior, trust? These dimensions however are lacking in his analysis of the ODS in general and instead he summarizes that “at the heart of every planning system lies the trade-off between flexibility and legal certainty” (p. 260). His view that flexible planning is mostly a battle to bend legal procedures is not uncommon in planning literature.

Facilitative planning

Eddo Coiacetto (2000) summarizes facilitative planning, particularly incorporated in the neoliberal heartlands of the United Kingdom and the United States, as an approach which “facilitates the development process and…exists to facilitate capital accumulation”

(Coiacetto, 2000, p. 120). This approach emphasizes greater independence of the private sector in shaping the built environment with planners aiding and attempting to remove bureaucratic hurdles in the achievement of the private sector’s goals. This does not necessarily mean a loss of control over the development for planners, but that a planner’s role “includes the ability to initiate, shape and stimulate projects and negotiate

persistently about development objectives” (Heurkens & Hobma, 2014, p. 366). As Tasan-Kok (2008) explains, here ‘flexibility’ means enabling piecemeal development that brings “financial benefits to municipal governments” (p. 191) and for planners to take a passive role. She further describes how this planning style allows municipal departments to accept changes and revise existing land use plans in order to stimulate and encourage commercial property projects for image creation and subsequently build local municipal income in a competitive global market. She further describes how places that utilize this planning style typically allow development to proceed despite the disharmony with existing spatial patterns. There is a high degree of negotiations that do take place in this planning approach as well; planners as they stimulate and shape development can loosen restrictions or toughen them. Fainstein’s (2001) summary of facilitative processes in the United States, particularly New York City, shows how municipal planners are locked in a struggle to generate inner city development by providing concessions in the forms of tax

(19)

breaks to private developers while being mistrustful of the developers themselves regarding the quality, nature, and impact of their developments. Often the seminal

conflict within facilitative planning is also considered to what level legal restrictions can be loosened. An approach that is occurring more recently in the Netherlands, facilitative planning can require tremendous amounts of communication and trust to succeed as planners and developers take center stage in negotiations for parcels of land, building rights, and zoning restrictions.

Private sector-led urban development

This type of planning, popularized predominantly in the United Kingdom and the United States, has been applied in some parts of the Netherlands as well in recent times. It emerged through the “neoliberal political-economic principles of deregulation,

decentralization and privatization” (Heurkens & Hobma, 2014, p. 350) and involves large-scale developers taking a commanding role in dictating the path of development with local authorities facilitating the process based on some form of “public-private

organizational arrangement” (Heurkens & Hobma, 2014, p. 350). The private sector assumes most of the risks, rewards, and responsibilities based on some pre-defined guidelines and requirements. Local authorities play more of a waiting game and expect private initiatives to kickstart development processes but take an active role in managing procedures and fulfilling legal requirements. Importantly, this “planning system’s

discretionary decision-making characteristics allow planners and developers flexibility in delivering urban projects” (Heurkens & Hobma, 2014, p. 353). As Tasan-Kok (2010) explains, the public sector generally initiates these projects to revitalize large swaths of urban areas that will attract investment to improve social conditions that public sector services are unable to correct independently, due to financial limitations among other reasons. Emphasis on this system is placed on the arrangement of partnership between the public and private sector and on the distribution of tasks. There is no outright

(20)

the success or failure of the initiatives. However, Tasan-Kok (2010) does acknowledge that there are some relationship dimensions that deserve attention: conflicting interests of stakeholders and shifting goals of actors. Stakeholders need to make compromises and balance interests, which is time consuming. During these extended periods, actors react to changing economic conditions and thus their goals can change as well. Here

relationship aspects are worth studying; interests or goals are seen as prominent markers of how these projects proceed. However, Tasan-Kok (2010) does not describe whether divergent goals are central in defining these projects. Do differing goals between public and private sectors for an area influence the transformation? Heurkens and Hobma (2014) further point out that public actors attempt to “initiate, shape and stimulate” (p. 366) projects while actively facilitating or enabling development. These projects are more collaborative due to the scale of the projects themselves often times transforming entire city blocks or redeveloping formerly derelict areas. What types of outreach do public sector actors conduct and is their outreach behavior instrumental in shaping these projects? These types of questions remained unanswered in the current literature.

Integrated urban development

Integrated urban development, a comprehensive planning method, is the dominant form of planning prevalent in the Netherlands. It is synonymous with ‘order’ where

comprehensiveness and integration, key tenets of this style, are combined to achieve that order. Alongside active-land policy, a system where the government procures and owns most of the land in the country, integrated urban development as a planning scheme truly provides Dutch planners with what they call the “planner’s paradise” (Buitelaar, 2014, p. 264). Although not a ‘flexible’ planning approach, it is listed here to serve a comparative purpose. Dutch planning is in a state of transition as the traditional active land policy scheme suffered greatly during the economic crisis of the early twenty-first century. Municipalities actively buy property and earn their tax income from providing land leases to developers, deflecting their costs to future earnings (Tasan-Kok, van den Hurk, Özogul,

(21)

& Bittencourt, 2019). The crisis demonstrated that this strategy puts municipalities at risk when the economy stalls, preventing new development, leaving municipalities with expenses to recuperate (Janssen-Jansen, Peel, & Krabben, 2012). In short, even within integrated planning, municipalities are searching for ‘flexible’ methods to operate. The characteristics of this planning style are typically top-down, blueprint and project management with municipalities in the lead. Financial projections, timelines, and guidelines are all dictated by the public sector with the private sector delivering those projects based on strict guidelines. It leaves limited room for negotiation; some delays and adaptations may occur but the emphasis is to limit, not incorporate them (Buitelaar et al., 2007) with the municipalities deciding when and what to adapt if necessary. There is some flexibility in the sense that municipalities utilize this method to reshuffle finances; profits from one project may be utilized to support another. This flexibility though is limited to the public sector who takes a commanding role in this process (Buitelaar et al., 2007). In terms of relationship aspects, it is naturally one sided with the municipalities firmly in charge. As the dominant party, the municipality needs to garner the respect and trust of all the other private parties involved. The belief that the municipality can and will deliver on promises (such as public transportation systems) needs to be fulfilled otherwise developers can lose confidence in the municipality (Tasan-Kok et al., 2019). How the public sector directs private sector into development is crucial – poor management, improper guidance and planning can lead to lengthy development projects with both parties suffering financially. The management styles of the municipalities also play a crucial role. Excessive control and regulation can frustrate developers. If developers do not trust the municipalities as partners, it can lead to projects where developers cut corners or even abandon projects altogether (Gerrits et al., 2012).

Crucially, not enough is known about the relationship dynamics between the public sector and developers that can impact how the process of integrated urban development is viewed. This gap in the literature pertains to other contemporary planning approaches as

(22)

well. Relationship dynamics can be highly influential in projects and teams. What the planning literature informs up to this point is that relationship dynamics such as ‘negotiation’, ‘partnership’, and ‘communication’ among others are prevalent in

contemporary flexible planning approaches. However, these relationship dynamics are not considered as instrumental starting points in these approaches but rather as relationship by-products. Fainstein’s (1994) argument that ‘conflict’ and ‘bargaining’ determine which interests are ‘enforced’ is seemingly ignored in these contemporary approaches where the focus lies heavily on identifying technical aspects such as amount of available land, approach of the public sector, scale and length of the development process, and so on. This thesis aims to find the extent to which these ‘conflicting’ and ‘bargaining’ of interests influence flexible planning projects and informs the theoretical framework presented in figure 2. Literature beyond planning can illuminate the

importance of relationships and relationship dynamics particularly in project teams that must collaborate.

Figure 2: Theoretical framework

Relationship dynamics assessed in collaborative projects

Regarding project dynamics and outcomes, there is emphasis on relationships between actors in literature beyond planning. Dietrich, Eskerod, Dalcher, and Sandhawalia (2010)

(23)

investigate the various factors that affect relationships in collaborative projects through a business perspective. Their research investigates relationships in various fields, from business to technology to healthcare, and provides key insights regarding ‘collaboration antecedents’ or relationship antecedents (factors that directly affect outcomes). Through a comprehensive literature review of various studies on collaboration, and by extension the relationships among partners, they identify eight antecedents (such as trust, cultural proximity, common goals, to name a few) that affect the relationships between participants in a project that ultimately affects the outcomes (project success, future collaboration, and potential for learning). Their work serves as the primary lens to view and conceptualize relationships for this thesis.

One of the studies they incorporate is by Johnson (1999) regarding interorganizational relationships and they uncover that “expectation on the relationship continuity is

positively correlated with the flexibility to negotiate on adjustments and with relationship quality (trust and fairness in the relationship)” (p. 67). This is a crucial element befitting relationships within urban planning as well since planning departments can act differently toward large developers that intend to collaborate on multiple projects nurturing a long-term relationship than developers engaging in one-off projects. Furthermore, through another study they state how “relationships in which organizations operate in truly collaborative mode…are generally characterized by trust and commitment” (p. 60). Through their research, the prevalence of trust as a valuable relationship dynamic is irrefutable in collaborative projects. Furthermore, they describe other relationship antecedents such as communication in shaping successful collaborative project teams:

project managers should devote increasing energies into rich communication both within the project and towards the project environment. This implies a stronger stakeholder orientation as a means for ensuring project success whether the stakeholder is internal or external to the organization(p. 64)

The emphasis on communication, both internally and externally, as a strong measure of project success is made clear in their work. Communication’s effects are not only limited

(24)

to project outcomes but also affect other relationship dynamics such as trust as well. Here they identify “understanding the practices of other collaborating actors” through

communication as the integral aspect of gauging physical and cultural proximity (Dietrich et al., 2010, p. 67). This communication/interaction behavior is a valuable relationship characteristic, where workplace cultures manifest. In planning, typically actors are not physically co-located nor does this thesis suggest that co-location is a measure of relationships. The communication resulting from co-location and interaction is the ideal relationship indicator that is noteworthy. Diallo and Thuillier (2005) state that “the level of trust is positively correlated with quality of communication” (p. 66) in project teams as well. Communication’s impact in relationships is therefore clear and evident, but in planning literature it is generally lacking. Similarly, Tjosvold (1988) states the effects of goals among project teams. Cooperative goals, he describes, are related to trust,

commitment, exchange of information and future collaboration whereas competing goals are related to suspicion, low morale, lack of information sharing and future collaboration. Again, Dietrich et al. (2010) describe the interconnectedness of these relationship

antecedents where having common goals affects both trust and communication. These links signify how important relationship dynamics are in affecting project outcomes and processes together. In another study, they analyze how “existence of congruent and collaborative goals weakens dysfunctional conflicts, thereby increasing the quality of collaboration” (p. 68). From this it is clear and evident how these relationship dynamics play a critical role in project outcomes, not just in business environments but also in other areas such as healthcare, information technology, and related to this thesis, urban

planning. However, literature on flexible planning does not fully describe how these relationships matter. The focus primarily is on the role of the actors involved

(authoritative, leading, partnering) but not on relationships (collaborative, tenuous, disjointed). Crucial relationship characteristics such as trust, cultural proximity, congruent goals are generally not discussed. Buitelaar’s (2014) comparison of multiple planning strategies includes seven prominent dimensions listed as follows (see figure 1): approach,

(25)

authority, and development and management. Crucially, none of these dimensions describes the optimally desired relationships between the actors. These gaps in

relationship analysis lead to questions such as: what are the ideal relationships between urban planners and developers in organic development strategies? What are the effects of lack of trust between actors in an integrated development project? What adverse effect does lack of transparency pose when private developers lead projects? These types of questions remain unanswered in planning literature today and serve as the guide for this research.

(26)

3 Flexible planning in the Dutch context

The Netherlands is currently in a state of flux regarding its planning identity. Dutch municipalities are incorporating ‘flexible’ planning strategies empowering private actors, and reducing the role of local authorities to strictly necessary regulations; an approach similar to English or Belgian ‘land-use management’ (Buitelaar & Bregman, 2016). This is a far cry from a comprehensive and integrated planning practice where public authorities controlled every aspect of land-use planning that dominated the landscape for decades. How did the country, whom many have coined the “planners’ paradise” (Buitelaar & Bregman, 2016, p. 2), reach this point where planners are seemingly losing their total control of planning?

Dutch planning was established on what Buitelaar and Bregman (2016) term ‘the three pillars’ – “integration (of land uses, actors and financial sources), comprehensiveness and the support of these by an active municipal land policy” (p. 1). Total integration of public and private services such as infrastructure, businesses, housing, recreational amenities among many with land-use and policy was commonplace. Here, public-private

partnerships occurred with an active relationship between government and private actors. The Dutch planned large scale areas comprehensively in their “quest for spatial order” (Buitelaar & Bregman, 2016, p. 6) utilizing economies of scale, particularly important considering much of the land lay under sea level making low-lands prone to flooding. Active land policy allowed local authorities to continuously buy land for future purposes, prepare it for development and then subsequently sell it to developers, both public and private; this policy meant those local authorities bore the associated risks – a strategy that later backfired (Tasan-Kok et al., 2019). Often times municipalities bought land with no particular vision in place simply hoarding vast swaths of real estate. It is this policy that has led to the Municipality of Amsterdam accruing approximately eighty-five percent of the total available land – an astonishing achievement (Engelen & Musterd, 2010).

(27)

the financial crisis of 2008, causing a major reshuffle in the way public authorities approached planning.

When the global economic crisis occurred it demonstrated, not caused, the systemic issues in Dutch land-use policy. Local authorities that had projected profits and gains from land development plans were suddenly facing massive losses and had to revise “any ongoing contractual obligations on programming, urban design and phasing of existing development plans” (Buitelaar & Bregman, 2016, p. 7). It showed how large-scale and integrated developments were vulnerable to property market fluctuations. Essentially, local authorities who had positive financial projections for land they had accrued were facing the prospect of incurring substantial debt as demand for the land decreased rapidly. This essentially dealt a substantial blow to ‘blueprint planning’, the planning mantra widely institutionalized for decades. From its demise newer planning philosophies emerged, giving rise to:

urban land development, in which plans get a more strategic character, development sites are smaller, the development process lacks a clear endpoint, where government is more risk averse and relies only on its statutory planning powers and in which a greater role is reserved for individuals and small enterprises (Buitelaar & Bregman, 2016, p. 11)

Traditional comprehensive and integrated planning no longer had the same dominant authority and more flexible planning approaches that could cope with further economic uncertainty started to gain momentum. Incorporating private sector interests in order to recover costs became paramount for the public authorities who simplified governance, sped up planning procedures, and acted more as guides and facilitators. In flexible

planning, some scholars advocate for more “facilitative public land development policies” (Heurkens & Hobma, 2014, p. 352) and for the public sector actors to take more

facilitative roles in order to engage the private sector. This marks a transition in planners’ behavior in planning projects (Tasan-Kok et al., 2019).

(28)

Within these newer flexible approaches, social dynamics that were traditionally inconsequential started to gain prominence. As expressed earlier, the transition from government to governance meant more shared responsibility for both public and private sector parties. Where traditionally one actor dominated proceedings, now multiple actors are involved creating a new set of social relationships that are influential. Moving from a “restrictive, plan-led system toward fragmented, flexible and project-led approaches” means that currently private sector actors are much more involved in “initiating, designing, financing, constructing, and maintaining projects based on contractual relations, particularly in large-scale urban regeneration projects” (Tasan-Kok et al., 2019, p. 9). Their increased role and responsibility lead to reduced authority for public

authorities who no longer automatically dominate the discourse on what happens to land, (particularly privately owned land). Public actors who need to ensure that certain planning values are maintained now need to work extensively with private actors by negotiating, building consensus, communicating, garnering trust, and developing lasting relationships. But transitions rarely happen smoothly. This flexibility is also inhibited to some degree by institutional actors preferring to maintain the ‘old situation’ (Gerrits et al., 2012). Even if the new motto is ‘collaboration’, changing the behavior of local urban planners for whom control has been part of their narrative for so long is easier said than done. Flexible planning practices remain an uncertain gambit, and central within it are the complex relationships between public and private actors. The long-term viability of ‘flexible’ planning practices in the Netherlands is still up for debate. This debate is ever present in the Haven-Stad redevelopment area within Amsterdam; a bastion of hope, promise and more importantly, desperately needed residential units, and is apt for the focus of this research.

(29)

4 Research Design and Methodology

This research investigates the relationship between planners and developers and the link with the resulting flexible planning project. It attempts to find out how those

relationships, and the dynamics within those relationships, influence elements of flexibility in the resulting projects. This thesis argues that understanding relationships is crucial in determining project outcomes and points to this gap in the literature to answer the following research question:

To what extent do relationships between public sector planners and private sector developers influence elements of flexibility in planning projects?

The research question will attempt to answer a theoretical problem and an empirical problem:

- Theoretical: Currently, focus is on the form of planning projects (i.e. approach, scale, management) rather than the relationship between actors involved when determining the ideal conditions for flexible planning.

- Empirical: The verdict on flexible planning projects in Amsterdam is currently based on the results of the planning projects rather than the relationships between planners and developers that shape those projects; planners’ behavior toward developers and vice versa deserves more attention.

A series of sub-questions are developed to provide a detailed analysis of the main research question:

- How does trust between actors affect planning projects?

- What relationship aspects impact negotiations in planning projects?

(30)

The main research question of this thesis, being specifically a “to what extent” question generally demonstrates that the thesis is explanatory in nature but the thesis also provides an argument that relationships affect flexibility. In this regard, the thesis is conducted with this dual purpose in mind. It also presumes that there is already a causal relationship between the variables and attempts to gauge “to what extent” the dependent variable is influenced by the independent variable. Flexible planning is collaborative in theory, which means traditionally accepted aspects of collaboration must be present in flexible planning projects as well. Thus, the relationship dimensions that are influential in collaborative project teams are bound to be influential in flexible planning projects. Actor groups that communicate extensively, trust each other, and have shared common goals must

predictably operate in projects with more collaboration than actor groups that do not. The concepts researched are presented in figure 3.

Conceptual framework and operationalization

(31)

Merriam-Webster defines relationship as “a state of affairs existing between those having relations or dealings” (Merriam-Webster, 2019). This thesis derives key concepts

regarding relationships, as it relates to planning actors, based on the study by Dietrich et al. (2010) on interorganizational collaboration on projects and the factors affecting

relationships between actors. Their work states that “in collaboration processes, individuals or organizations create relationships. The nature of a relationship may vary depending on its strength” (p. 60). Out of the eight antecedents affecting relationships that they mention, three are utilized as concepts; trust between actors, physical and cultural proximity, and goal congruence and collaborative goals, as they are most relevant with regards to the nature of this thesis.

Trust is a complex social concept and this research will focus primarily on the elements of communication and information sharing as the basis for measurement. Merriam-Webster defines trust as “assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something” (Merriam-Webster, 2019). For this thesis, the focus is on the inter-personal relationship aspect of trust when actors describe their professional relationship with one another. Alternatively, trust as a vote of confidence is also utilized when concerned with institutions, organizations, and sets of actors.

Physical and cultural proximity refers to actors working together in project teams and the culture of work in a collaborative environment. In some businesses, project teams are established where people work closely in physical proximity within an office or production environment and attempt to work together to achieve collective goals. As expressed earlier in the section on relationship dynamics, this thesis identifies ‘communication’ and ‘communication behavior’ as ideal indicators of this physical and cultural proximity and is not focused on aspects of co-location. This concept also refers to interaction,

communication, and overall knowledgeability of actors and their intentions by one another. It is not limited to closeness by physicality but includes closeness by communication culture.

(32)

Goal congruence and collaborative goals are a feature of project teams where individuals work collectively towards a shared common goal. Here the goal of the project team supersedes individual goals. These goals can be overtly stated or implied or surmised based on actors’ actions.

As elucidated by Yin (2003), “to what extent” questions are generally inductive and depend on building theory through gathered knowledge. This research is inductive in ways when it searches for relationship concepts that affect flexibility. It is simultaneously also deductive because of the argumentation provided above that relationships affect flexibility to some extent. Thus, it intends to satisfy principles of both forms of research. Bryman (2012) notes that qualitative methods “predominantly emphasize an inductive approach to the relationship between theory and research, in which the emphasis is placed on the generation of theories” (p. 36). Moreover, inductive analysis is the “immersion in the details and specifics of the data to discover important patterns, themes, and inter-relationships…by exploring, then confirming findings, guided by analytical principles rather than rules” (USC, 2019). The research is open to new concepts that emerge from the data and is not constricted to predetermined concepts. As

Flyvbjerg (2006) states, this is one of the misunderstandings of case study research that it has a tendency to confirm researcher’s preconceived notions, which he demonstrates is false. However, the particular nature of the research question affords some simultaneous deductive liberty; conclusions about relationships impacting project outcomes are understood and will be proven to an extent.

Flexibility as it relates to the larger body of planning literature has been discussed at length above, but this thesis utilizes Gielen and Tasan-Kok’s (2010) definition of flexibility as “the room for change and alteration in zoning prescriptions during the planning process” (p. 1097) when concerned with technical aspects of flexibility. Regarding ‘elements of flexibility’, two major concepts are borrowed from their work: ‘negotiation’ and ‘land-use plan’. Negotiation refers to the period in the planning system when

(33)

developers and planners can negotiate any changes to the indicative plan due to changed circumstances. Land-use plan refers to the guidelines and regulations that govern what can and cannot be built in a demarcated space. Once finalized these guidelines generally remain rigid in integrated planning but can be loose in flexible planning practices. Both concepts are visualized in figure 4.

Figure 4: Place of legally binding land use plans in various Western countries. Source: Gielen & Tasan-Kok (2010).

City planners exist at various levels within the public sector, but for the purpose of this research the focus is mainly be on city-level planners, particularly project managers who implement plans on the city and neighborhood scale in the Haven-Stad redevelopment area. This provides a manageable boundary for the purposes of this study. Similarly, private developers are also limited to those operating or seeking to operate in the same area.

Some of the expected outcomes are as follows: relationships with more trust, common goals, and proximity have a direct positive influence on the elements of flexibility in planning projects; as in, plans become less binding with more opportunities for

negotiation. Inversely, it is expected that relationships with less trust, common goals, and proximity have a direct negative influence on the elements of flexibility in planning

(34)

The variables, dimensions, and indicators that are identified and researched are presented in table 2.

Table 2: Variables, dimensions, and indicators of thesis

Independent Variable: Dimensions Indicator/measurement

Relationships between public sector city planners and private sector

developers

Trust between actors • Communication behavior • Information sharing

Physical and cultural proximity

• Frequency of interactions • Communication

• Workplace behavior Goal congruence &

collaborative goals

• Mission statements • Information sharing

The number of indicators increased over time through a series of pilot interviews

culminating in table 2. Bryman (2012) and Yin (2003) both acknowledge that this growth in Dependent Variable: Dimensions Indicator/measurement

Elements of flexibility Negotiation • Negotiation behavior • Frequency of

negotiations

• Stage of negotiation Land-use plan • Plan alterations

• Nature of alterations • Stage of land-use plan

(35)

design. This thesis tackles the topic through a constructionist perspective; it

acknowledges that the relationships being investigated are social constructions and the meanings derived are based on the actors involved (Bryman, 2012). Each interaction can be interpreted differently by the actors. This thesis attempts to find similarities, trends, and explanations for those observed relationships rather than generalize them as representative of all relationships.

Case study: Haven-Stad redevelopment area

In order to answer the aforementioned research questions, qualitative methods are

utilized through a single case-study research design (Bryman, 2012, p. 76). The case study method coupled with qualitative interview research provides in-depth understanding of these relationships. The Haven-Stad (Port-city) redevelopment area is selected as a case study precisely because the redevelopment scheme is particularly novel, nuanced, and predominantly breaks from the integrated urban development model widely utilized in the Netherlands. Description of the case-study is provided through a conjunction of policy documents and information from the Municipality of Amsterdam’s website for the area and is listed below. Naturally, the description is the Municipality’s view and goal for the area which might contrast to opinions from other actors.

Case-study sources:

1. PLAN Amsterdam (2011) (English)

2. Briefing Book ULI Advisory Panel Haven-Stad (English)

3. Port-City: redevelopment area (https://www.amsterdam.nl/projecten/haven-stad/)

The Haven-Stad (Port-city) redevelopment area is a group of twelve sub-areas all located adjacent to each other in the north-west of Amsterdam, along both sides of the Ij river (see figure 5). Here residential, commercial, recreational, and mobility amenities will be

(36)

combined to create a thriving and bustling area comparable in size to Amsterdam’s city center. In some sub-areas transformation is underway but in a majority of the areas it is only projected to commence in the coming decades. The thesis focuses on the three sub-areas of Sloterdijk-1, Sloterdijk Centrum (sub-areas where transformation is underway) and Minervahaven (where planning is ongoing, see figure 6).

Figure 5: Haven-Stad (Port-City) redevelopment area in Amsterdam. Source: Municipality of Amsterdam

The Municipality of Amsterdam has chosen to undertake a massive redevelopment of this area for a multitude of reasons. The population of Amsterdam has been increasing since 1997 with approximately eleven thousand people expected each year. Public housing resources are exhausted with housing despairingly difficult to find for new residents. Physically, Amsterdam is limited but Haven-Stad area is located tantalizingly close to the city center within the A10 ring, and if transformed could solve much of the housing and commercial deficits not just for the city but also the country. However, much of Haven-Stad is already zoned and utilized for primarily industrial purposes with the wharf

dominating much of the real estate; many private owners have land lease contracts valid for several upcoming decades. A recent ruling prevents residential construction from commencing in some sub-areas until 2029. The Municipality projects this area to become a multi-purposed space and a “complete city district, including required urban facilities

(37)

green spaces” (Briefing Book ULI Advisory Panel Haven-Stad, 2019, p. 6). From the outset, there are a series of challenges that are unique in this redevelopment area.

Working and collaborating with private owners of property being the leading challenge; a task with which the Municipality is traditionally unaccustomed.

Figure 6: The twelve sub-areas of Haven-Stad. Thesis focuses on Sloterdijk 1, Sloterdjik Centrum and Minerhaven (enclosed in boxes). Source: Municipality of Amsterdam.

By 2040, Haven-Stad is projected to have up to seventy thousand new homes with an average size of eighty square meters gross floor space. Additionally, up to fifty eight thousand workplaces are also envisioned all within the confines of six hundred and fifty hectares (excluding water) (Briefing Book ULI Advisory Panel Haven-Stad, 2019). The demographic composition will be mixed with social housing, homes for the elderly and disabled all part of the program. The Municipality’s strategy is to make “strategic

acquisitions” to kick-start the redevelopment process and entice land owners to develop their properties by getting involved. Regarding mobility, one of the key issues is to acquire funds for and build a metro line to complete the ‘major metro loop’. This metro is

(38)

City desperately wants to do without. A series of high sustainability targets are also set; particularly reduction of CO2 emissions by seventy five percent compared to 2016. The redevelopment project is not a completely new plan; areas such as Sloterdijk-1 and Sloterdijk Centrum had already begun transformation projects and were later included. Here, two types of redevelopment procedures are incorporated: tender and

transformation. A tender process “may involve submitting a quote for finding and

purchasing a suitable site and carrying out its development in accordance with criteria set out by the client” (Coiacetto, 2001, p. 52). The client is the Municipality of Amsterdam who owns the land. A transformation process requires the Municipality to entice existing land owners and developers in the area to redevelop the properties into new

development that is desired by the Municipality (Briefing Book ULI Advisory Panel Haven-Stad, 2019). Since the Municipality is not the owner of the land in transformation areas, it cannot take a commanding role in the redevelopment process. These two sub-areas are the main focus of the research as private developers and municipal planners have already planned, collaborated, and completed tender and transformation projects. Relationship dynamics have already been established over several years in these selected sub-areas as various tenders have already been executed and some transformation has occurred.

Data collection and analysis methods

Project managers working for the Municipality of Amsterdam and private developers, both of whom are operating in the Haven-Stad area, are the main subjects of semi-structured interviews which serve as the primary source of data. Since the nature of the research question requires actors’ point of view of their relationship with their

counterparts, interviews are chosen as the ideal source of data. Initial contact with the Municipality of Amsterdam’s Haven-Stad project managers provided the first few interviews. Project managers were helpful and willing to discuss the project particularly those working in Sloterdijk 1 and Sloterdijk Centrum. However, the initial goodwill and

(39)

enthusiasm quickly declined as other project managers started to decline my request for interviews. Their primary and only reason was that they felt since I had already spoken to their colleagues and gathered information regarding the project, they had nothing new to contribute. Of course, some did not respond at all. This issue was bitter-sweet; on one hand it made it difficult to gather new respondents. On the other hand, it strengthened my assertions since it indicated the ‘unitedness’ and ‘cultural proximity’ within the urban planning departments in the Municipality. The aspects of communication and interaction that I was investigating became evident through this correspondence. Furthermore, it also indicates that the interviews conducted are more representative of the planning

departments as a whole and in that regard carry a lot of empirical weight. Early snowball efforts were successful but later decreased as the research progressed.

Private developers are a mixed assortment of individuals with diverse range of professional skills and responsibilities. This thesis focuses primarily on individuals in positions within companies who have direct contact with planners. However,

understanding the nature of difficulty in reaching these private-sector individuals, a bulk of the interviews are aimed at city planners. Due to the nature of transformation projects, the identity of developers involved is not publicly known. Some respondents from the Municipality did refer me to a few developers who could be contacted but they did not always result in interviews.

When snowballing stalled, I had to be inventive to find new respondents both from the Municipality and the private sector. An investigative search on the social media platform Linked.in with ‘Haven-Stad’ as the key word introduced me to a range of city planners, not all of whom were directly involved in dealing with the private sector, out of which some agreed to be interviewed – namely a senior consultant who worked closely on developing the Structural Vision: Amsterdam 2040, an extensive policy document

regarding the spatial planning vision for Amsterdam. On its website, the Municipality also broadcasts promotional content for the Haven-Stad; videos of interviews with residents,

(40)

educators, and developers associated with that area. From this promotional content I was able to locate developers as well, one of whom agreed to be interviewed. Tender

projects are of course more transparent; awardees for projects are listed on the

Municipality’s website. These awardees were contacted and interviewed as well. In sum this process resulted in twelve semi-structured interviews. The designation of each interviewee and length of each interview is presented in table 3 with the names of the interviewees anonymized.

Table 3: List of interview respondents

Respondent Designation (Sector) Length of Interview

Camille Assistant Project Manager/ Project Management Bureau (Public)

52:19 / 22:17 Mark Project Manager/ Project

Management Bureau (Public)

1:29:04 Martijn Program Manager and Program

Coordinator for Master Project and Process Management (Public)

48:51 (combined with Nicky)

Nicky Urban Development Consultant, Sustainability Program (Public)

48:51 (combined with Martijn) Hidde Assistant Project Manager / Project

48:40 (combined with Thomas) / 20:38

Thomas Assistant Project Manager / Project Management Bureau (Public)

48:40 (combined with Hidde) Roos Program Secretary at Project

59:59

Fieke Chief Urban Planner (Public) 1:12:18 Bart Managing Director / Real Estate

Company (Private)

(41)

Scott Owner/ Project Developer (Private) 46:49 Willemijn Architect / Architecture and Design

firm (Private)

46:01 Stephanie Independent Project Developer

(Private)

N/A (email interview)

The primary method of data analysis utilized is a thematic analysis of the interviews. This process searches for repetitions, indigenous typologies or categories, metaphors and analogies, transitions, similarities and differences, linguistic connectors, missing data, and theory-related material (Bryman, 2012, p. 580). A framework approach to thematic

analysis is utilized to identify the themes and subthemes that are essentially recurring (Bryman, 2012, p. 579).

To further assist in data analysis, coding is implemented on interview transcripts that are thoroughly reviewed in qualitative data analysis software Altas.ti. Over eighty different iterations of codes emerged and could later be grouped into relevant themes ultimately leading to the analysis. An assortment of relevant and descriptive diagrams is developed to further assist data analysis and present the findings in a useful and digestible manner.

Limitations

A number of limitations exist within this methodology. Since access to private sector developers was more difficult than public sector planners, the data is largely gathered from the public sector. This can provide the skewed illusion that the opinions of the developers are more representative of their sector. Another issue concerns the selection of the case-study for the research. Haven-Stad is an ongoing project and much of the negotiations that are analyzed are still ongoing. The obstacles and issues discussed during the interviews might be resolved by the time this thesis is published but should still be relevant in terms of gaining insight regarding the process of negotiation itself.

(42)

developers. Therefore, I was therefore able to generate questions based on planners’ views while interviewing developers, but the reverse was not possible. Hence, planners’ responses to developers’ views are subsequently absent and could be incorporated in further research. Finally, relationships dynamics can be measured in myriad ways and this thesis operationalizes few strategic concepts only. Other researches can utilize different concepts as they require.

Planning for actors or acting on plans : relationships and their influence on contemporary planning flexibility