The privatisation of public space in Amsterdam : divergent perceptions of public and private sector actors

(1)

THE PRIVATISATION OF PUBLIC SPACE IN

AMSTERDAM

DIVERGENT PERCEPTIONS OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR ACTORS

Student: Job Sijbrandij Student ID number: 11780002 Email: jobsijbrandij93@gmail.com Skype: Job Sijbrandij / +31629733725 Supervisor: Sara Özogul

Second assessor: Federico Savini

Master Thesis Urban and Regional Planning University of Amsterdam

(2)

ABSTRACT

The contemporary production of urban public space is changing. Traditionally, local authorities have had the sole responsibility for the management and the production of public space in many inner cities. Nowadays, due to the increasing involvement of the private sector in the production of public space, an ever-growing number of urban public spaces are both controlled and owned by for-profit organisations. This phenomenon is also defined as the privatisation of public space, many examples of which are discussed in literature, where business interests were favoured over the interests of the general public. However, little is known about whether and how the private sector participates in the production of public space in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. This research empirically focussed one publicly owned public space and in one privately owned public space to explore how the production of public space is perceived, how public and private sector actors interact in the production of public space and how the publicness of urban space is affected by this established interaction. The analysis is based on data from thirteen in-depth interviews, in-field observations, secondary data and the OMAI model which consists out of four dimensions of publicness: ownership, management, accessibility and inclusiveness. The findings show that the private sector is involved in the production of public space in Amsterdam, even though the City of Amsterdam has a strong leasehold system in place, and that even though the publicly owned public space and privately owned public space differ the most in terms of ownership, the publicness of space is not highly affected by it.

(4)

1 INTRODUCTION

“Why don’t we mix public and private? Why isn’t public space a vein system that goes through a private space? Public space can be a lot better with some private space to contradict it and vice versa. It keeps the system alive. If the system is just one thing, then it’s closed and it eventually dies.” (Vito Acconci 2011, cited by Santo & Newman 2011, p.53).

With this statement, the highly influential American artist and landscape architect Vito Acconci (2011) argued that public space can be much improved when it is mixed with some private space to contradict it. However, this mix between public and private space should always be based on a clear distinction between the two (Santo & Newman, 2011). When focussing on the contemporary production of space, the distinction between public and private is becoming less clear by the day. One of the main reasons the nature of contemporary public space is changing is related to the increasing involvement of the private sector in the production of public space, also defined as the privatisation of public space (Banerjee, 2001; Kohn, 2004; Németh & Schmidt, 2011; Voyce, 2006). Langstraat and van Melik (2013) emphasise that while these privately owned public spaces may look and even feel similar to publicly owned public space, they are not to be considered truly public, because “access to and use of the space is only a privilege, not a right” (Banerjee 2001, p.12). Due to the increasingly blurred lines between public and private, it has become difficult for citizens to determine which regulations are in place (the Guardian, 2017a). Today, an ever-growing number of urban public space are both controlled and owned by for-profit organisations (Langstraat & van Melik, 2013).

Traditionally, management of urban public spaces has been the sole responsibility of local authorities (Langstraat & van Melik, 2013). These authorities have always remained responsible for urban public spaces, such as streets, squares, parks and other publicly accessible space, that enable people to meet other people in public (Mehta, 2014). However, when local authorities became increasingly unwilling and unable to bear the full responsibility for the provision of most public goods and services, the private sector started to participate in the production of public good, like public space (Langstraat & van Melik, 2013). Now, New York City and many other cities worldwide have enacted an incentive zoning policy or similar mechanisms that facilitate the involvement of the private sector in the production of public space (Schmidt et al., 2011). In New York City, the quality of these privately owned public space is still questionable, since Kayden (2000) found of that fifty percent of the privately owned public spaces in the city did not fit the local legal requirements and forty-one percent of these privately owned public spaces are of marginal quality.

On the other hand, from a more optimistic point of view, privately owned public spaces are considered bonus public spaces that provide publicly accessible space in locations where space is scarce (Schmidt

(5)

et al., 2011). Even so, regulations that are applied to so-called pseudo public spaces are not always determined with the interests of the public in mind (Schmidt et al., 2011). One year ago, the British newspaper the Guardian (2017a) revealed a startling spread of privately owned public spaces across many of London’s most prominent parks and squares. Siân Berry, leader of the Green party in the London Assembly, commented about the pseudo-public spaces that:

“This culture of secrecy on the part of landowners is scary. Being able to know what rules you are being governed by, and how to challenge those rules, is a fundamental part of living in a democracy” (Siân Berry 2017, cited by the Guardian 2017a)

In November 2017, London mayor Sadiq Khan stated that he will draw up a charter that regulates the management of privately owned public spaces in London (the Guardian, 2017b). Although the size and the impact of the Guardian’s (2017a) discovery is unique, the development itself is not. In Berlin, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, lots of vacant public space at the famous Potsdamer Platz emerged from oblivion because of the private sector (Allen, 2006). In New York City, the local authorities have engaged the private sector in the production of public space for almost sixty years (Schmidt et al., 2011). However, in Amsterdam, little is known about how the involvement of the private sector in the production of public space works in practice. Articles like the one in the Guardian (2017a) have not yet been published in one of the Dutch newspapers.

The increasingly blurred distinction between publicly owned public spaces and privately owned public spaces affects the whole system of public space, the publicness of space. Vito Acconci stated that public space can do a lot better when it is contradicted with private space and vice versa, but what happens when public space is contradicted with privately owned public space? This distinction seems less clear. As mentioned, this development is unnoticed in the Netherlands. By focussing on two locations in Amsterdam, this study attempts to deal with two shortcomings defined in contemporary researches. The first is related to the Anglo-American dominance in academic literature on private sector interests in public space (Langstraat & van Melik, 2013). The conclusions drawn from these types of research are not always equally relevant for cities in Europe. Second, most literature focusses on flagship projects (Langstraat & van Melik, 2013). By comparing public spaces that are affected by private sector interests in a primary location and a secondary location, this study hopes to overcome these shortcomings. The next sections will show why private sector actors are involved in providing public goods and services, how they are involved in the provision of public space and finally how the publicness of space is affected by private sector interests. All this helps answer the main research question:

How do perceptions of public space influence the interaction between public and private sector actors and ultimately the publicness of urban space?

(6)

2 THE EMERGENCE OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN THE PROVISION OF

PUBLIC GOODS AND SERVICES

Traditionally, the involvement of private sector actors in the provision of public goods and services has remained limited. This started to change when due to the process of decentralisation, several responsibilities were transferred to lower levels of governance and power in the decision-making process shifted (de Magalhães, 2010). In a way, municipal governments needed to reinvent themselves to deal with the increasingly complex problems of inner cities. A lot of cities suffered from high levels of unemployment, declining numbers of inhabitants and other consequences of deindustrialisation. The shrinking fiscal capacity of the state made the provision of public goods and services challenging. As a result of budget cuts, local authorities’ financial ability became too limited to invest in public goods, such as public space, and to prioritise it in policies (de Magalhães, 2010). While other more pressing issues like sanitation were prioritised, the management and design of public spaces received little attention (Carr et al., 1992). This chapter explains how a more decentralised approach increased the importance of urban entrepreneurial governance, how cities turned to the direct promotion of property-led development and how the closer collaboration between public and private parties affected the distribution of urban public spaces.

2.1. THE IMPORTANCE OF URBAN GOVERNANCE

A neoliberal ideology based on belief in open, deregulated and competitive markets emerged around the 1980s and increased the importance of urban governance (Theodore et al., 2011). Governance, as defined by Taşan-Kok (2010), is the process where institutions, social groups and other actors coordinate the political decision-making process in a particular institutional context (DiGaetano & Strom, 2003). Together, they operate in an uncertain, fragmented environment (Le Gales, 2001) to “attain appropriate goals that have been discussed and collectively defined” (Taşan-Kok 2010, p.129). The importance of urban governance has been affected by the deregulation of state control, the downsizing of public services, the dismantling of national welfare programmes and similar measures focussed on promoting capital accumulation to improve the comparative advantages of the city on a global scale.

The increasing importance of urban governance required municipal governments to shift in their role. Instead of just implementing urban development policy, the municipal government now needs to operate in a more entrepreneurial way by taking on a leading role as an active negotiating party (Taşan-Kok, 2010). This entrepreneurial approach, where municipal governments or other public authorities increasingly cooperate with private sector parties, is considered an efficient measure to lower the costs of administration by putting the production of public goods and services partially in the hands of the

(7)

market (Needham, 2006; Theodore et al., 2011). It also created the possibility to incorporate new social actors into the urban arena of governance to better use local knowledge (Swyngedouw, 2005). Municipal governments needed the financial ability of private sector parties to fulfil their neoliberal policy agenda to attract higher-income residents, businesses, tourists and investments (de Magalhães, 2010). Madanipour (2003) states that the increasingly popular entrepreneurial way of urban governance resulted in well-designed, well-maintained and even spectacular public spaces. These spectacular public spaces are helpful for marketing purposes to brand the city globally and thereby contribute to the city’s neoliberal policy agenda. Investment partnership between public parties and private parties became even more popular when local authorities shifted from the indirect promotion of entrepreneurship towards the direct promotion of property-led development (Swyngedouw et al., 2002).

2.2. PROPERTY-LED DEVELOPEMENT

Property-led development is defined as “the assembly of finance, land, building materials, and labour to produce or improve buildings for occupation and investment purposes” (Turok 1992, p.362). Even though it is context dependent, how municipal government promote property-led development shows a strong focus on the stimulation of capital among some of the actors involved. In pursuit of social and economic restructuring, public parties sometimes initiate property-led development projects, for example, large-scale restructuring projects, to revitalise, upgrade, or strategically renew different parts of the city (Swyngedouw et al., 2002). By strategically offering various kinds of spatial restructuring projects, the municipal government hopes to increase the number of investments to improve the social and economic conditions citywide and not just the selected parts of the city. Part of the neoliberal municipal policy agenda is the success of property-led development affected by the harmony on a micro-level and on a macro level (Taşan-Kok, 2010). The ties between individual actors on a micro level and the more general institutional macro-level context both influence local urban policy.

2.3. THE DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLIC SPACE

A clear differentiation in the distribution of public spaces is useful to understand how the emergence of private sector actor in the provision of public goods and services influences public space in different types of locations. Langstraat and van Melik (2013) differentiate two forms of public spaces based on their location. The first is public space that is located in a primary location. In primary locations, the effects of neoliberal urban entrepreneurialism are most concentrated and property-led development is an accepted strategy (Harvey, 1989). Examples of primary locations are flagship projects, financial business districts and touristic parts of inner cities, where well-maintained and well-designed public spaces are relatively common (Langstraat & van Melik, 2013). Even though they only cover a small proportion of public spaces, they are important due to their focus on capital accumulation (Langstraat & van Melik, 2013).

(8)

The second is public space that is located in a secondary location. In secondary locations, public space is importance for the people living nearby (Burgers et al., 2012; Paddison & Sharp (2007). Compared to primary locations, secondary locations have a more important function for its surrounding neighbourhoods and are often not located in or near one of the primary locations just mentioned. However, they are still located within the city boundaries. Paddison and Sharp (2007) call secondary spaces banal spaces. This says something about the level of attention these secondary public spaces are sometimes treated with. This lack of attention could result in secondary public spaces that are not spectacular or well-maintained (Burgers et al., 2012). How municipal governments prioritise these public spaces directly affects the extent to which they are defined as banal. Both primary public spaces and secondary public spaces are relevant for this research to see whether private sector interests influence the public realm in various types of locations in the city, and if so, how this influence differs. As mentioned before, the process of decentralisation increased the importance of urban governance. Municipal governments started to operate in a more entrepreneurial way and even turned to the direct promotion of property-led development. A distinction between public space in primary locations and secondary locations helps show how a closer collaboration between public parties and private parties affects public spaces throughout various parts of the city.

(9)

3 THE COPRODUCTION OF PUBLIC SPACE

Throughout history, public space has always been of great importance. Particular public spaces were used for “basic survival communication and entertainment needs and to perform several political, religious, commercial, civic and social functions” (Mehta 2014, p.55). Consider the social function of a medieval market. The medieval market was not just a place to exchange goods but functioned as a local meeting place that people needed for basic communication. The production of space is still relevant today, even though the dependency on public space is different. In his book The Production of Space, the French philosopher Lefebvre (1991) argues that space should not be approached from an empty, geometric view. He believes that space is full meanings and power relations. He conceptualised his ideas by defining a spatial triad where he differentiated space into perceived, conceived and imagined space (Leary, 2013; Lefebvre, 1991). These three elements are used to understand how changing power relationships in the production of space matter and how various stakeholders perceive space. This chapter discusses what scholars define as public space, how it is influenced by private sector interests and why public space is still relevant in modern developed societies.

3.1. DEFINING PUBLIC SPACE

Mehta (2014) states that public space is defined in terms of ownership, control, access or use. Madanipour (1996) defines public space as “space that is not controlled by private individuals or organisations, and hence is open to the general public” (Madanipour 1996, p.144). This definition is clearly based on the terms of control and access. Although the definition of Madanipour would probably be suited for most public spaces in or around Amsterdam that are controlled by a public organisation, it does not it fit with the focus of this study, which investigates how private sector actors participate in the production of public space, be it in management or ownership. This definition excludes spaces that are controlled by private sector actors, even if these places are just as publicly accessible as public spaces controlled by public sector actors. This could also be linked to the first element of the spatial triad of Lefebvre (1991). The first element, perceived space, is space that a person directly observes through the senses (Lefebvre, 1991; Leary, 2013). Perceived space is also emphasised by Leary (2013) as the material or physical element of space. When a space is open to the public, even when it is provided by private sector actor, it is questionable whether citizens directly observe the private control. This is especially true of late, when security measures are also increasingly implemented into the design of spaces that are owned and controlled by a public sector alone (Coaffee, 2008). For citizens, it could be harder to determine whether they are watched by a public authority, a private security company or a combination of both.

(10)

The perception of public space has almost become the spatial representation of the increasingly blurred lines between public and private parties that resulted from the neoliberal restructuring of state powers. According to Leary (2013), the changing links between private sector actors and the state is a defining feature in Lefebvre’s (1991) work. This feature and the fact that Madanipour (1996) does not consider how privately owned space could also be perceived as public makes the definition unhelpful for this research.

This study instead uses the definition of Carr et al. (1992), who define public space as “publicly accessible places where people would go for group or individual activities” (p.50). They define public space in terms of access and uses rather than ownership and control. Unlike the definition of Madanipour (1996), this one includes places that are controlled by private sector actors but are open to the public. The definition clearly points out the extent to which private sector involvement in the production of public space still counts as public. Shopping centres and other private spaces that are not always publicly accessible, for example after opening hours, would not fit the definition of public space. Streets, squares, plazas, parks and similar examples that are always publicly accessible fit the definition of Carr et al. (1992), no matter who provides these spaces.

3.2. DEFINING PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACE

The involvement of private sector actors in the provision of space created a new type of public space, defined as privately owned public space. Privately owned public space is space that serves a public function but is characterised by private sector involvement in management or ownership. Although the public function of privately owned public space is explicitly mentioned in the definition of Banerjee (2001), it is not specified in terms of access and use as in the definition of Carr et al. (1992). Most other definitions of privately owned public space in literature are not useful, because they are often too embedded in a local context. A suitable definition in the Dutch context does not yet exist. This does not automatically make all other definitions irrelevant but does make them less suited to define why and how private sector actors are involved in the public realm in Amsterdam. Still, alternative definitions could provide an understanding on the evolution of privately owned public spaces from different perspectives.

Most of the well-known definitions of privately owned public space are linked to the use of density bonuses and similar mechanisms. In 1961, New York City was one of the first cities that instituted an incentive zoning system, where developers were encouraged to implement publicly accessible space on their lot in exchange for extra floor space (Smidt et al., 2011).

(11)

Fifty years after the zoning system was instituted in New York City, more than five hundred privately owned public spaces have emerged in the boroughs of Brooklyn, Manhattan and Queens (Smidt et al., 2011). In 2011, the involvement of the private sector in the production of publicly accessible spaces encompassed an area of thirty-five hectares in three relatively dense areas of New York City.

These so-called bonus public spaces are initially owned by the developer, who takes full responsibility for how they are managed (Yoon & Srinivasan, 2015). Developers are willing to participate because they profit in at least in two ways from the incentive zoning system. First, they are allowed to increase their building density, which generates more revenue (Smidt et al., 2011; Yoon & Srinivasan, 2015). Second, the value of a building will increase when it is located on or near a high-quality public space (Punter, 1990). Today, the number of privately owned public spaces has successfully increased, because more cities use similar incentive policies, but the overall quality of this new type of public space has been questioned by scholars like van Melik et al. (2009) and Smidt et al. (2011).

In respected newspaper and in the literature privately owned public space is increasingly viewed as so-called public space (Langstraat & van Melik, 2013; the Guardian, 2017a). Defining it as pseudo-public relates to the wider debate of Kohn (2004), who argues that private sector actors are too concerned about profit and care too little about how they can contribute to a public good or service. How some of society perceives space as pseudo-public through their direct senses is also strongly affected by the second element in the spatial triad of Lefebvre (1991), the conceived space. The conceived space is the official representation of how space is rationalised, conceptualised and intellectualised for analytical purposes (Lefebvre, 1991; Leary, 2013). It is also emphasised as the space of architects, designers and scientists. Regarding conceived space, measures in the design of privately owned public spaces can be distinguished that are targeted on certain groups of users. Smidt et al. (2011) identify various measures implemented in the urban design so that less-desired users do not use the place too long, or do not use the place at all. Examples of measures are benches that feel uncomfortable to sit on, spikes on ledges to deter loiterers and even strategically located water sprinkles to prevent homeless people from sleeping on the grass. Technically, developers could still stick to the predefined set of requirements that are set up by the municipal government, that could, for example, demand a minimal number of benches located on a plot, but strategically implementing benches that are not appealing to use for a long period does not benefit the overall quality of the public realm.

(12)

3.3. THE SOCIAL ROLE OF PUBLIC SPACE

In 1958, Arendt pointed out the important democratic function of public space. She stated that public space provided and still provides the ability for people to come together, talk about various topics and protest against issues they do not agree with (Arendt, 1958; Mehta, 2014). Both Arendt and Mehta state that democratic right is crucial to democracy. For example, in January 2011, a large number of Egyptians gathered and occupied the Tahrir Square in Caïro to protests against the administration of president Moebarak, just as they did in 2003 when they disagreed with war in Iraq. Today, Tahrir square has become the symbol of the Egyptian Revolution (Kandhil, 2012)

Although it is an extreme example, it shows how people need public space to display images and symbols of society (Thomas, 1991). This could be link to the third element, the imagined space, of Lefebvre (1991). The imagined space is not like the other two dimensions, which are more focussed on the official representation of space, but it is the space that is associated with the “cultural memory, images and symbols imbued with cultural meaning” (Leary 2013, p.8). The imagined space differs for each individual. Of course, the social role of public space is probably more present in day to day life. Thomas (1991) argued that public space should function as an arena for public life, where social groups meet each other to develop and enrich their lives (Mehta, 2014). He stated that it is important to meet up with colleagues, friends and family in public space and to come into contact with people outside of one’s normal social circles.

Some of the functions public space was used for have moved from the public domain to privatised and virtual realms (Banerjee, 2001). For example, the basic survival communication function of public space is less relevant in most developed societies due to technological developments. However, this does not automatically decrease the important social function of public space. In urban areas, especially in mix-use neighbourhoods and inner cities, citizens are highly dependent on public space (Mehta, 2014). They use it to go from one place to another and as a place to relax or meet other people, expected and unexpected. This dependency highlights that public space still plays an important role, especially in today’s modern societies. It opens up the debate regarding whether private actors should be allowed to contribute to the amount of public space and if so, under what conditions.

(13)

4 THE PUBLICNESS OF URBAN SPACE

In 2017, the Guardian published a comprehensive map of London, where the newspaper exposed, as the title states, the insidious creep of pseudo-public space in London (The Guardian, 2017a). The newspaper found out that the private sector was, almost unnoticed, involved in the production of publicly accessible space in the public realm of London. The most striking example is the privately owned public space around the City Hall of London. In theory, reporters are not allowed to interview politicians on the space outside City Hall. Although the concept of publicness involves a degree of relativeness, it is one of the most important concepts in relation to public space. Publicness cannot be considered as something you do not have or do have. The current form of urban public space where business interests are sometimes favoured over the interests of local communities is questioned by scholars and popular media. This development related to a wider discussion in the literature, where multiple scholars have argued that publicness of space is under threat (Banerjee, 2001; Sorkin, 1992; Madden, 2010).

4.1. DECLINING PUBLICNESS OF SPACE

Sorkin (1992) spoke about a possible “end of public space” when he discussed modern urban life. This well-known statement has already been questioned and challenged by multiple scholars, who all concluded more or less the same. Questioning and challenging a possible end of public space has not resulted, even in a different context, in enough evidence to support such a statement in any literal sense (Langstraat & van Melik, 2013; Paddison & Sharp, 2007). Sorkin spoke in 1992 in terms of the “end of public space” for the same reason the Guardian defines pseudo-public space as “insidious” in 2017— to stress the importance of this phenomenon. Restrictive security measure that intentionally exclude people are present and need to be addressed by scientists, journals and papers to draw attention to contemporary public space.

De Magalhães (2010) view, where he describes “the demise of truly public space” (de Magalhães 2010, p.560) is more nuanced and more constructive to work with. His view does not automatically introduce the demise of the publicness of public space. The publicness of a certain place is often characterised along a continuum, from complete public ownership at one end to completely privately owned at the other (Németh and Smidt, 2011). However, defining public space along ownership lines is not sufficient to encompass the diversity in management styles of privately owned public spaces (Langstraat & van Melik, 2013; Németh and Smidt, 2011). Differences between national planning systems throughout Europe are relevant for how countries deal with privately owned public space (Langstraat & van Melik, 2013). For example, the United Kingdom has a strict formal legal role division between the public sector and private sector that is based on a strong culture of informal partnerships (Heurkens, 2012).

(14)

Because most of the responsibilities and risks are transferred to the developer, the role of private actors is relatively more important than it is in the Netherlands, where local governments are “still reluctant to hand over total responsibility to private parties, but rather wish to join forces” (Langstraat & van Melik 2013, p.446). So, a dichotomy between public and private is not sufficient to deal with existing divisions in ownership and management.

4.2. ANALYSING PUBLICNESS

Two methods of analysing the publicness of public spaces are relevant for this paper. First, the tri-axal model of Németh and Schmidt (2011), which that consists of the three dimensions of ownership, management and uses/users. The tri-axel model of Németh and Schmidt has been visualised in Figure 1. Ownership and management, two hard factors to measure, are also present in the OMAI model created by Langstraat and van Melik (2013), complemented with two soft factors, accessibility and inclusiveness. The OMAI model of Langstraat & van Melik (2013) has been displayed in Figure 2. So far, the tri-axal model has not been tested, because the model is not suited for comparison different dimensions of publicness. The OMAI model is suited for comparison because it ranks publicness on a scale from one to four but lacks focus on the uses and the type of users. When one of the four dimension of publicness is allocated with a higher score in the OMAI model it is considered to be more public (Langstraat & van Melik, 2013).

Figure 1. The tri-axel model Figure 2. The OMAI model

(15)

5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

To understand public and private roles in the production of public space in practice, this research focusses on two public spaces in Amsterdam. Although the selected spaces differ in terms of ownership one is publicly owned and one is privately owned, they both defined as public space under the definition of Carr et al. (1992), who define public space in terms of access and uses. Focussing on how the production of public space is perceived is most important, because it informs the roles the actors take on, how they interact with each other and how the publicness of urban space is affected by this interaction. Finally, several methods were used to collect, analyse and interpret empirical findings to answer the research question:

How do perceptions of public space influence the interaction between public and private sector actors and ultimately the publicness of urban space?

5.1. PROBLEM STATEMENT

In terms of organisation, it is not necessarily a problem when the private sector wants to participate in the production of public space. There are some good examples in the literature where the public sector has actively engaged the private sector in providing publicly accessible spaces. For example, the incentive zoning policy of New York City successfully increased the quantity of publicly accessible space in locations where it is extremely expensive for the public sector alone to create public space (Schmidt et al., 2011). Another example is Potsdamer Platz in Berlin, where after the reunification of Germany in 1989, the public sector engaged the private sector to redevelop the entire area, including public space (Allen, 2006).

However, as discussed in the previous chapters, there are various examples of privately owned public spaces where the private sector has intentionally manipulated the design and enacted regulations that did not benefit the public. In these spaces, private sector actors sometimes intentionally “filter uses and users of public space through the manipulation of different design and management techniques” (Schmidt et al. 2011, p.271). Managers of privately owned public space are often less concerned with the public good and more about earning profit (Banerjee, 2001). When the managers decide to regulate control, the publicly accessible space no longer completely fulfil the social and democratic functions of public space (Mehta, 2014). Currently, not much is known about whether and how private sector actors participate in the production of public space in the Netherlands. To the author’s knowledge, only two studies have appeared that focussed on the private sector involvement in the production of public space in the Netherlands. Most of today’s literature is focussed on privately owned public space in the Anglo-American world (Langstraat & van Melik, 2013). This Anglo-Anglo-American dominance in the literature is

(16)

defined by the authors just mentioned as one of the problems scholars need to overcome when analysing privately owned public space. It seems less likely that the Dutch private sector participated in the production of public space in the same way they did as in New York City, because the Dutch national government has long maintained a strong, central, top-down role in urban development (Priemus, 2002). However, the increasing entrepreneurial method of urban governance and the ongoing decentralisation of the Dutch national government are two indicators that public space in Amsterdam could be influenced by private sector interests.

This research builds on the work of Langstraat and van Melik (2013), who developed the OMAI model and tested it for the first time in practice. They compared Dutch and British cases to reassess the implications of the private sector involvement in the production of public space. Focussing on how the publicness of urban space is perceived by different actors involved is extremely relevant, because “there is a significant scope for future research to fully investigate the feelings, perceptions and subjectivities behind the publicness of public space” (Langstraat & van Melik 2013, p.446). This is also emphasised by Schmidt et al. (2011), who state that any nuanced understanding of the production of space requires in-depth interviews. Therefore, the influential spatial triad of Lefebvre (1991) was used as a framework to integrate the feelings, perceptions and subjectivities throughout all three sections. A visual representation of the conceptual model is given in Figure 3. To answer the main research question, the following three sub-questions were formulated:

1) How do public and private sector actors perceive public space in Amsterdam?

2) How do public and private sector actors interact in the production of public space in Amsterdam? 3) How is the publicness of urban space in Amsterdam affected by the interaction between public

and private sector actors?

(17)

5.2. RESEARCH DESIGN

This study concentrates on two locations in Amsterdam. The differentiating comparative analysis as described by Pickvance (2001) was used to analyse the same phenomenon, private sector involvement in the provision of public space, but from constructed differences—a primary and a secondary location. All four comparative analysis techniques are shown in Table 1. One case study needed to be located in a primary location. According to Harvey (1989), the effects of neoliberal entrepreneurship are most concentrated in primary locations. The second case study needed to be located in a secondary location that has an important function for its neighbourhood (Burgers et al., 2012; Paddison & Sharp, 2007). Starting from different types of locations helped find the variation within the same phenomenon. To achieve this, the differentiating comparative analysis was the most suited option.

Table 1. Types of comparative analysis according to whether the starting point is similarities or differences

End point: explanation in terms of:

Principle of variation Principle of universality Starting point: Observed or constructed

differences

Differentiating comparative

analysis Universalising comparative analysis with plural causation Observed or constructed

similarities

Differentiating comparative

analysis with plural causation Universalising comparative analysis

Source: Pickvance (2001)

Next, public space in Amsterdam that are not completely controlled by the municipal government or spaces where the legal ownership rights did not solely rest with the municipal government needed to be identified. This means places that would not be labelled as fully public in terms of management or ownership in the OMAI model of Langstraat and van Melik (2013). This step is crucial, because a descriptive study of this phenomenon does not yet exist. Personal observations based on opinion pieces, articles in newspapers and messages on social media platforms, such as Twitter, helped identify two public spaces that were suited for the differentiating comparative analysis of Pickvance (2001). The two locations are displayed in Figure 4.

(18)

The first case is a public space located in a primary location. This privately owned public space is a little square between the 900 Mahlerlaan and 1000 Mahlerlaan building and is located in the financial business district of Amsterdam, the Amsterdam South Axis. The second case is located in a secondary location. It is a publicly owned public space located on the terrain of the Westergasfabriek in the Westerpark of Amsterdam. The terrain around the Westergasfabriek is not directly connected with the touristic inner city or the Amsterdam South Axis. On paper, the buildings on the terrain belong to the private company Westergasfabriek BV and the public space around it belongs to the District Council West Amsterdam. So officially, the public space around the Westergasfabriek should be labelled as fully public in terms of management and ownership in the OMAI model. However, the website of the Westergasfabriek BV states that a private-public partnership is in place and that “the combination of the park and the buildings is perceived as one entity” (Westergasfabriek BV 2018). Combining this information with the numerous events the Westergasfabriek BV and the City District West Amsterdam are allowed to organise in public space makes it a suitable option to analyse how private interests affect public space in a secondary location.

5.3. METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION

First, a stakeholder analysis was performed to identify the actors, their characteristics and their links with other stakeholders. This method of actor analysis is useful because it both identifies stakeholders that are already included in the decision-making process and stakeholders that are directly and indirectly affected by decisions during the decision-making process (Hermans & Tissen, 2009). This includes users and non-users.

The group of non-users and the spatial characteristics of the public spaces are identified by passive participant observation. This means the researcher has little contact with the population in the field but observes people and activities carefully. The researcher conducted fourteen sessions of participant observations. Timeslots on Monday and Friday were selected to find out how citizens use the type of public space during and after work hours. Also, timeslots on Saturday and Sunday in Westerpark were selected to find out how the publicness of urban space was affected by an event that was organised at the public space at the Westergasfabriek. However, it should be noted that the selected data from the participant observation is influenced by the researcher perception. The data collected does not cover the full description of what happened when the researcher was not onsite. Tables 2 and 3 give an overview of when the researcher was on site for participant observation.

(19)

Table 2. Participant observation Westerpark Table 3. Participant observation South Axis

Most of the intrinsic information was collected through semi-structured interviews with experts. These experts included architects, real-estate agents and civil servants of the municipality as well as the final users of these places. In contrast to an article of the Guardian (2017a), where only two of fifty private developers cooperated, the actors involved in the two selected public spaces were willing to cooperate. All the interviews have been transcribed in order to analyse the data. In Table 4 is an overview of the actors that have been interviewed displayed.

Table 4. Overview interviewed actors

Name of the interviewee Organisation Function Referred to as: Daniel de Wit City of Amsterdam Park Management

Westerpark public sector representative I Paul Nieuwenhuizen City of Amsterdam Account Manager

Westergasfabriek public sector representative II Tessa Pormes City of Amsterdam Area Manager Westerpark public sector representative

III Linda Schot City of Amsterdam Area Manager

South Axis public sector representative IV Maarten van Ettekoven City of Amsterdam Area Manager

South Axis public sector representative V An-Jes Oudshoorn City of Amsterdam Policy Advisor Public Space

& Pedestrians public sector representative VI Loek Buter Westergasfabriek BV Head of Productions private sector

representative I

Wietse Siebert CBRE Associate Director private sector

representative II Cayentano Segond von

Banchet CBRE Associate Director Investments private sector representative III Kasper Hesp G&S Vastgoed Develop Manager private sector

representative IV Kees Tolk Kees Tolk Ontwerp Landscape Architect private sector

representative V

John Bosch OEVERZAAIJER Partner private sector

representative VI Jessica Bekker Hello Zuidas Project manager public

space and safety private sector representative VII

Data Time Day of the week 05-03-2018 10.00 – 12.00 Monday 12-03-2018 17.00 – 19.00 Monday 20-04-2018 18.00 – 20.00 Friday 12-05-2018 22.00 – 23.00 Saturday 19-05-2018 20.00 – 21.00 Saturday 20-05-2018 12.00 – 13.00 Sunday 28-07-2018 10.30 – 11.30 Saturday

Data Time Day of the week 09-03-2018 17.00 – 19.00 Monday 12-03-2018 10.00 – 12.00 Monday 13-04-2018 18.00 – 20.00 Friday 12-05-2018 20.00 – 21.00 Saturday 19-05-2018 22.00 – 23.00 Saturday 20-05-2018 13.30 – 14.30 Sunday 28-07-2018 12.00 – 13.00 Saturday

(20)

5.4. DATA ANALYSIS

This study links the primary data obtained from the interviewees to the secondary date from the academic literature and other secondary sources. The OMAI model of Langstraat and van Melik (2013) helped asses both cases and provided an overview of how the involvement of private sector actors affected the publicness of public spaces. The information obtained from all the sources have been used to allocate values in the OMAI model of Langstraat & van Melik (2013) to the two selected cases. These values been displayed in Appendix 1. While most other researchers remain critical about contemporary involvement of private sector actors in the provision of public space, this study followed a more constructive approach by focussing on the perceptions of the actors involved. Finally, a presentation with different consultants of CBRE was given by the researcher on the August 1st_{at the CBRE} headquarters at the Amsterdam South Axis.

(21)

6 CONTEXT

This chapter will briefly discuss the exact location of both cases, the history of the Westergasfabriek and the South Axis and how the publicly owned and privately owned public space look like today.

6.1. THE PUBLICLY OWNED PUBLIC SPACE AT THE WESTERGASFABRIEK

The first selected case is the publicly owned public space of the Westergasfabriek. The Westergasfabriek is located in Amsterdam West and is enclosed by railway tracks to the north, the historical Westerpark to the east, a canal to the south and numerous allotments to the west. The Westergasfabriek is a secondary location because the area is of great importance for its surrounding neighbourhoods. However, the park also shows some primary location characteristics because many events are organised in the parks and many people visit the park every day. The exact location and some visual representation of the space are displayed in Figures 5 and 6.

Figure 5. The location of the Westergasfabriek Figure 6. Visual representations of the Westergasfabriek

6.2. HISTORY OF THE WESTERGASFABRIEK

The Westergasfabriek was constructed between 1883 and 1885. Originally, the site was used to produce coal gas (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2012), first by the British Imperial Continental Gas Association and later by the City of Amsterdam. In 1967, the municipality decided to stop the production of coal gas at the Westergasfabriek. All that remained was a heavily polluted area (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2012). Even though the terrain and the seventeen buildings received monument status in 1991, the municipality decided to engage the private sector in redeveloping the whole complex and sold all buildings to a project developer (Cobouw, 1996). Together, the buildings were worth ten million guilders which is less than five million euros today. One of the interviewed public sector representatives stated that the City of Amsterdam needed the financial ability of the private sector. She commented:

(22)

“We notice that we [the City of Amsterdam] would have never be able to redevelop the Westergasfabriek the way it is today without the involvement of the private sector” (public sector representative III).

This statement shows that the public sector sometimes needs to promote property-led development to revitalise, upgrade and renew areas within the city (Schwyngedouw et al., 2002). In pursuit of social and economic restructuring, she defines the redevelopment of the Westergasfabriek as one of the biggest success stories in town, but she questions whether public and private sector actors can maintain the success they have now (public sector representative III).

Today, the Westergasfabriek is the second most visited park in Amsterdam (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2012). All seventeen monumental buildings are owned by the non-subsidised enterprise Westergasfabriek BV, which leases out the buildings to various organisations and for events (Westergasfabriek BV, 2018). In January 2018, the legal ownership rights of all buildings were transferred to a group of investors, including the famous Dutch businessman Duncan Stutterheim (Het Parool, 2015). Collectively, they bought all buildings for seventy-five million euros. The City of Amsterdam has the legal ownership rights of the public space on the terrain of the Westergasfabriek and is therefore responsible for how the space is managed and for the programming of the outdoor events. However, as stressed out before, it should be noted that “the combination of the park and the buildings are perceived as one entity” (Westergasfabriek BV 2018).

6.3. THE PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACE AT THE SOUTH AXIS

The second case is a privately owned public space located between the 900 Mahlerlaan building and the 1000 Mahlerlaan building in the Amsterdam South Axis, the city’s financial business district. The site is enclosed by two buildings—the Gustav Mahlerlaan in the north and the George Gershwinlaan in the south. The exact location and some visual representations are displayed in Figures 7 and 8.

Figure 7. The location of the privately owned Figure 8. Visual representations of the privately owned public space at the South Axis public space at the South Axis

(23)

6.4. HISTORY OF THE SOUTH AXIS

The (re)development of the Amsterdam South Axis started during the eighties, when the construction of new offices rapidly expanded (Klijn & Teisman, 2003). Klijn and Teisman (2003) argued that the construction of the 105-meter-high headquarters of the ABN AMRO bank symbolised ongoing and future developments. Today, multiple high-rises have emerged in the Amsterdam South Axis that are just as imposing as the ABN AMRO building. The excellent geographical location of the financial business district is one of its key success ingredients. By train, it takes under six minutes to reach the international hub of Schiphol Airport and Amsterdam’s attractive city centre is less than five kilometres away. By contextualising the urban environment around the privately owned public space, this study hopes to get a better understanding how the direct surrounding affects the place.

The selected privately owned public space is a little square located between the buildings 900 Mahlerlaan and 1000 Mahlerlaan. This square was built on top of an underground car park and is located on the same lot as the 900 Mahlerlaan and the 1000 Mahlerlaan. The car park, both buildings and the privately owned public space are all developed by G&S Vastgoed (G&S Vastgoed, 2015; G&S Vastgoed, 2016).

The 900 Mahlerlaan building is a residential tower that houses 127 apartments for rent and for sale (G&S Vastgoed, 2016). The building consists of two towers. The southern tower has nine floors and the northern towers has twenty-two. Several commercial spaces are located on the ground floor. The current investor for the rental apartments is Syntrus Achmea Real Estate & Finance. This company operates as an investment manager in mortgages and real estate for institutional investors. The construction of the building was completed in the summer of 2016.

The construction of the seven-story 1000 Mahlerlaan building has already been completed one year earlier in the spring of 2015 (G&S Vastgoed, 2015). The ground floor consists of several commercial spaces and the other six floors are office spaces. The current investor, Chanel International, bought the 1000 Mahlerlaan before the construction was completed for forty-five million euros (Het Parool, 2014). All actors involved in the construction of the 900 Mahlerlaan, the 1000 Mahlerlaan or the privately owned public space are displayed in Table 5.

(24)

Table 5. Actors involved in the construction of the privately owned public space, 900 Mahlerlaan & 1000 Mahlerlaan

Organisation Description

G&S Vastgoed This company developed the underground parking garage, the privately owned public space, 900 Mahlerlaan and 1000 Mahlerlaan

Inbo This company is the architect of the 900 Mahlerlaan OEVERZAAIJER This company is the architect of the 1000 Mahlerlaan

Kees Tolk This self-employed landscape architect designed the privately owned public space

CBRE This company is responsible for future renters of the 1000 Mahlerlaan. They were also hired as technical and commercial advisor of Chanel International Van Gool Elberg This company advised G&S Vastgoed about the realisation the both buildings NautaDutilh This international law firm advised G&S Vastgoed

Chanel International This company currently owns the 1000 Mahlerlaan

Syntrus Achmea Real Estate & Finance This company currently owns the rental apartments in the 900 Mahlerlaan

900 Mahlerlaan and 1000 Mahlerlaan are remarkable in two ways compared with other buildings in the Amsterdam South Axis. First, where most other building are designed as high-rise office space, the residential tower of the 900 Mahlerlaan and the low-density Chanel building feel different in terms of heights compared to other buildings in the surrounding. Also, the legal ownership of the 1000 Mahlerlaan is different than other transfers of property rights in the Amsterdam South Axis. Almost all other existing properties in Amsterdam’s financial business districts got a new owner between 2012 and 2014 (Het Parool, 2014). Whereas a majority were German real estate investors, the 1000 Mahlerlaan was bought by the French company Chanel.

(25)

7 DIVERGENT PERCEPTIONS OF PUBLIC SPACE

The following chapter discusses how public and private sector actors perceive public space in Amsterdam. To reveal the production of space, we should focus both on the history of space and on the ideologies of the actors involved and how they relate to practice (Lefebvre, 1991). In the end, focussing on these ideologies helps to understand why the public-private interaction in the production of public space in Amsterdam is as it is today. The first part of this chapter focusses on how the public sector defines public space, how they perceive the production of public space in Amsterdam and how they perceive their role in it. Once the perceptions of public sector actors are established, the second part of this chapter answers the same questions from the perspective of the private sector.

7.1. THE PUBLIC LIVING ROOM

First, it is important to establish how the public sector, specifically the City of Amsterdam, defines public space in Amsterdam. In 2017, the municipality published a report in which they formulated five ambitions for how public space should be in 2025. These ambitions are displayed in Table 6.

Table 6. Public space 2025: guidelines for the development and management of public space in Amsterdam

In this report, the City of Amsterdam defines public space as “all urban spaces within the municipal boundaries that are not buildings” (Gemeente Amsterdam 2017, p.12). This definition shows that the municipality includes publicly accessible spaces that are managed and owned by for-profit organisations. However, the terminology used in the rest of the document reveals that the municipality only focusses on urban spaces that are provided by the public sector alone. For example, in the fifth ambition, the municipality states that they want inhabitants and local businesses to be more involved in the maintenance and the design of urban public space (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017). Simultaneously, they also state that they want private initiatives to be better regulated (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017). In both cases, the municipality only focusses on space that is provided by the public sector, not space provided by the private sector. The municipality does not explain under what conditions the private sector is allowed to participate in the production of public space in Amsterdam. The way the City of Amsterdam defines public space is similar to Madanipour’s (1996) definition of public space in terms of access and control. They both exclude spaces that are provided by for-profit organisations. However,

1. Public space should be designed for current and future uses 2. Public space should support the dynamics of the city 3. Public space should be designed and managed sustainably 4. Public space should be maintained on a high level 5. Public space should be managed and designed collectively

(26)

in contrast to Madanipour (1996), the municipality does not exclude the privately owned public spaces on purpose. Interviewing the public sector representatives showed that the privatisation of public space is simply not anybody’s focus within the municipality.

Most of the interviewed public sector representatives reacted with complete surprise when asked about the increasing involvement of the private sector in the production of public space in Amsterdam. Some of these reactions are given in Figure 9. These reactions show that most of the public representatives are not fully aware of this development in Amsterdam. One of the public sector representatives could not believe that this important responsibility of the public sector was influenced by private sector interests:

“It may have been because I am stuck in the old days but I find it very difficult to hand over the responsibility of the production of public space to other actors. For me, it is absolutely a responsibility of the municipality” (public sector representative IV).

Figure 9. Reactions of public sector representatives when asked about the involvement of private sector actors in the production of space

In the report of the report where the City of Amsterdam displayed the five ambitions, the municipality paints a positive picture where they state that public space in Amsterdam should continue to contribute to the social and economic success of the city (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017). One of the policy advisors of the municipality commented that public space in Amsterdam should be perceived as a living room:

“We truly want public space in Amsterdam to be for everyone, that people can stay in public space and that more space is made available. Public space should not only be used to go from place A to place B but it should also be used as a place where people can meet others and get together, even though not everyone always like it” (public sector representative VI).

This statement clearly emphasises the social function of public space. The important social role of public space is also defined by Metha (2014), who like Thomas (1991), argues that public space should function as an arena for public life to develop and enrich a people’s lives. This function is also acknowledged by the municipality who state that the city needs “public space of good quality to stimulate people to meet other people, to play sports, to play and to make money” (Gemeente Amsterdam 2017, p.12). “Within the municipality this is not anybody’s focus” “This is completely new to me. Really particular” “Policy needs to do something with this” “Are you sure? In Amster- Dam?”

(27)

However, it opinions differ regarding how this “public living room” should look like. The policy advisor states that public space should be perceived as “the basis of urban life”, where the design should be simple, and walking in Amsterdam West should feel the same as walking in the city centre (public sector representative VI). However, both public servants that operate on a more local level admit that public space should be of high quality at both the Westergasfabriek and at the South Axis. At the Westergasfabriek and the South Axis, people expect that public space should be of higher quality (public sector representative II & public sector representative V). The municipality’s description of the public realm as a public living room is logical, because it is a place for relaxing and socialising, but it is also a space where people do not go on their own if they are not invited.

7.2. THE PRIVATE PERSPECTIVE

Now that the perceptions of public sector actors are established, this section focusses on the perceptions of the private sector. Interviewing the private sector representatives shows that the private sector defines public space in terms of access and uses rather than ownership and control. This fits with Carr et al. (1992), who defined public space in terms of access and uses. For example, although the companies the private sector representatives work for say little about the role of public space, some of the private sector representatives state that they believe that private parties are able to integrate public and private space in a better manner compared to public parties:

“We would like to manage the outside programming [of the public space of the Westergasfabriek] so that we are able to connect the inside with the outside. We believe it is much more logical and effective.” (private sector representative I).

“I believe it is positive that when a developer is forced to think about the public space around his building, he is also needs to think about the public design around the building.” (private sector representative VI).

These statements show that private sector representatives think about private sector involvement in the production of public space. In their view, public space that is privately owned could connect spaces to each other. For example, the privately owned public space at the South Axis helps people quickly get from the train station Amsterdam South Axis to the VU University of the VU Medical Centre (private sector representative IV). In this case, the private sector representative views the privately owned public space as the bonus space mentioned by Schmidt et al. (2011).

The architect of the 1000 Mahlerlaan building also argues that privately owned public spaces can connect two buildings (private sector representative VI). Especially in high density areas like the South Axis, the space between buildings is less valued, while these spaces are actually crucial, even though they only cover a small proportion of the total number of public spaces. The commercial function of

(28)

public space is also emphasised by one of the private sector representatives. He argues that public space in Amsterdam should be perceived as an extended outdoor space of the commercial activities that happen where “people will buy a cup of coffee, have a sandwich or enjoy something else the store has to offer” (private sector representative VI). Finally, all private sector representatives argued that they believed that the private sector should and will play a more important role in the production of public space in Amsterdam if the municipality allows it.

So, when looking at how public and private sector actors define public space in Amsterdam, the municipality defines public space in terms of ownership and control, while the private sector defines public space in terms of access and uses. The social role of public space is emphasised by the public sector actors, while the private sector sees public space as an connector between private locations. Both public and private sector actors do not agree on whether public space should be luxurious or uniform and simplistic.

(29)

8 THE PUBLIC-PRIVATE INTERACTION

Now that the divergent perceptions of public and private sector actors in the production of public space in Amsterdam have been identified, this chapter discusses how public and private sector actors interact in the production of public space. To reveal the production of space and to understand the relationship between public actors and private sector actors, Lefebvre (1991) argues that we should focus on the interconnections between the actors involved. In contrast to the situation in New York City discussed by Schmidt et al. (2011), the public-private interaction in the production of public space in Amsterdam has not been regulated in an incentive zoning policy. Therefore, the first part of this chapter focusses on the Amsterdam tradition for the design of public space (the Puccini method) to understand the ties between public and private sector actors at a micro level. The second part of this chapter focusses on how the public-private interaction is perceived by the public and private sector actors involved in the two selected cases.

8.1. PUCCINI HANDBOOK

In 2003, the City of Amsterdam and its seven districts decided that the quality of public space in the city needed to be improved to “stop the cluttering that has been going on in certain districts as well as to recreate them in a consistent and uniform style that can be implemented and maintained more efficiently” (Dutch Daily Design 2018). This resulted in the award-winning Puccini handbook. This handbook standardises the production of public space in terms of used materials, detailing construction and interrelatedness and offering the possibility for specialisation in more than fifty extraordinary public spaces (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2013). According to de Magalhães (2010), however, the motive of the municipality to develop such a method was mostly financial, as the city is still facing the consequences of the budget cuts:

“For the municipality it is more beneficial to purchase one standardised tile instead of having twenty-six different type of tiles. In the end it is cheaper. All the municipality had to do was to invest once in such as method to arrange it all.” (public sector representative VI)

So, the Puccini handbook is also considered a tool for the municipality to produce public space more efficiently. However, the municipality still produces the well-designed spectacular spaces that according to Madanipour (2003) are important for marketing purposes. The Westergasfabriek and the South Axis are both labelled as extraordinary locations in the Puccini handbook (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2013). In these extraordinary locations, the municipality is allowed to use specified luxury materials and thereby deviate from the standardised tiles and the concrete bricks used in the vast majority of

(30)

public space in Amsterdam. The difference between the tiles used in normal public spaces and in the two selected cases is displayed in Figure 10.

Figure 10. The concrete bricks (L), the luxurious version at the privately owned public space (M) and the stelcon plates at the publicly owned public space (R)

Another difference is that at the South Axis, the private organisation Hello Zuidas operates as a sort of mediator between the public and private sector (private sector representative VII). This organisation represents dozens of companies located at the South Axis. These companies are connected to Hello South Axis and pay the organisation to coordinate with the municipality around dealing with topics like the maintenance of public space (private sector representative VII).

The municipality shares the content of the Puccini handbook with private sector actors when they plan to produce some publicly accessible space on their lot (public sector representative VI). Then, there are two options. The first option is that a private sector actor pays for the production of public space, but the municipality maintains it, because it is located in the public realm. The second option is that the private sector actor produces publicly accessible space on their lot. In this case, the private sector actor is not allowed to use the same materials as the public sector (public sector representative VI). The Puccini handbook also operates as a guideline for the private sector to show which materials the municipality is using so the private sector actor can use others (public sector representative VI). Although both public and private sector actors describe the Puccini handbook as a limitation, the policy advisor of the municipality states that this limitation is on purpose. Otherwise, the lines between public and private would not be clear enough. However, one of the private sector representatives state that due to this limitation, privately owned public spaces can never fully integrate with the rest of public space (private sector representative V).

8.2. PERCEPTIONS

As part of the neoliberal municipal policy agenda, Taşan-Kok (2010) argues that the ties between individual actors on a micro level and on an institutional macro-level are important factors that influence urban policy. In the Netherlands, local authorities have always been responsible for managing urban public space and the policy that is related to it (Langstraat & van Melik, 2013). However, the national

The privatisation of public space in Amsterdam : divergent perceptions of public and private sector actors