Lessons from Private Sector-led Urban Development Projects in the Netherlands & the UK

1. Lessons from Private Sector-led Urban Development Projects in the Netherlands & the UK | ERES Conference | Erwin Heurkens MSc.

2. Urban Development Projects Private Sector-led Urban Development Projects “An urban development project in which private actors take a leading role and public actors adopt a facilitating role to manage the development of an urban area, based on a formal public-private organizational role division.”

3. Societal Context Societal value & State-Market power shift Power & Value Shift?

4. Economic Context Economic crisis/transition • Public: • Local planning authorities • “Robert Moses time is no more”: • Decreasing financial means • Decreasing land for development • Decreasing labour capacity (& quality) • Private: • Real estate developers • “Donald Trump time is no more”: • Economic & financial crisis • Decreasing investment (equity/loans) • More dependent on ‘real’ demand

5. Theoretical Concepts • Planning & Market Concepts • Boelens et al. (2006): ‘Planning without government’ • Nadin et al. (2008): ‘Planning & development processes’ • Adams & Tiesdell (2010): ‘Planners as market actors’ • Van der Krabben (2011): ‘Facilitating government’ • De Zeeuw (2007): ‘Forward integration of market actors’ • Organisational & Managerial Concepts • Bult-Spiering & Dewulf (2006): ‘Public-private partnerships’ • Osborne (2000): ‘Lack of management insights in partnerships’ • Klijn (2008): ‘It’s the management stupid’ • Mintzberg (2010): ‘Management is a domain of practitioners’ • Laglas (2011): ‘Collective project leadership’ • De Leeuw (2002): ‘Open systems-thinking’

6. Conceptual Integrative Management Model • Urban • Development • Projects • Context • Organization • Management • Effects • Objective: • Unravelling complexity • Understanding mechanisms • Understanding management • Not pure causal relations

7. Management • Concept • ‘Management consist of any • type of direct influencing’ • Management Activities • Project management • Process management • Management Instruments • Management Resources • Management Tools

8. Methodological Framework Research Question What can we learn from empirical private sector-led urban development projects in the Netherlands & the UK in terms of the collaborative and managerial roles of public and private actors, and the effects of their (inter)actions?

9. Rotterdam, Nieuw Crooswijk Tiburg, Koolhoven Tilburg, Stappegoor Amsterdam, Park de Meer Den Haag, Ypenburg Dl.pl.20 Enschede, De Laares Maassluis, Het Balkon Middelburg, Mortiere Naaldwijk, Woerdblok Tilburg, Wagnerplein Utrecht, De Woerd Velsen, Oud-IJmuiden

10. Empirical Findings PSLUD Projects NL Management

11. Empirical Findings PSLUD Projects NL • Organization • Intensive public-private collaboration on designs • Public actors get financially involved (risks) • Private actors show dependent attitude • Management • Public actors not ‘letting go’, no private design flexibility • Public actors hardly use stimulating & capacity building tools • Private actors rely on ‘hard’ management resources • Effects • Efficiency problematic • Effectiveness & spatial quality achievable • Conclusions • Complex inner city areas are manageable with PSLUD • Conditions: scale, duration, flexibility & competencies

12. Bristol Harbourside

13. Liverpool One

14. Empirical Findings PSLUD Projects UK Management

15. Empirical Findings PSLUD Projects UK • Organization • Intense p-p collaboration: designs, (informal) partnerships • Risk-avoiding public actors • Long-term private commitment • Management • Public actors influence by variety of management measures • Emphasis on negotiations & stimulating private actors • Private actors manage community involvement & use active leadership • Effects • Efficiency problematic • Effectiveness & quality achievable • Conclusions • Complex inner city areas are manageable with PSLUD • Conditions: scale, duration, flexibility, competencies & favourable market

16. Conclusions • General • Comparison • NL-UK • Many similarities • Differences on: • political influence • planning policies • role division • risk division • requirements • public tools

17. Conclusions (1) • Empirical Problems NL & Empirical Recommendations UK • ‘We against them relationship’ instead of a cooperative sphere • > Cooperating in pre-development stage to create public support & commitment • Lack of public role consistency during realization stage • > Respecting agreements, identify conditions for cooperation (in realization stage) • Thin line between public judgment and controlof private plan proposals • > Defining clear process agreements about moments of control & discussion • Commitment and competencies of public project managers • > Appointing public pm’s that connect the planning & development process • Communication with and involvement of the local community • > Making a clear communication plan to involve communities & businesses • Lack of public management in development process • > Searching for public opportunities to influence development without land & capital

18. Conclusions (2) • Inspirational • Lessons UK>NL • Not ‘less’ but ‘other’ public management • Public & private boundaries blur • Public & private attitude need change • Private commitment has public benefits • Leadership happens on different levels • Facilitating complex projects possible

19. Recommendations (1) • Safeguarding • Public Interests • Determining ‘the’ public interest difficult (diversified society) • Combine hierarchical, market & network mechanisms • Use of negotiable & non-negotiable public safeguarding tools • Apply within different development/planning process stages

20. Recommendations (2) Alternative (Private) Financing Instruments

21. To conclude • Impact for theory and practice • It’s the management, stupid! • It’s the market, stupid! • Need to rethink State-Market relations • Need to bridge theory-practice gap • Need to understand real estate market decisions • Need to educate planners and developers in skills & attitude • Need to apply new perspectives

22. Contact details Erwin Heurkens MSc. Delft University of Technology Faculty of Architecture Department of Real Estate & Housing Chair of Urban Area Development E-mail: e.w.t.m.heurkens@tudelft.nl Twitter: eheurkens

23. Seattle South Lake Union

24. Empirical Findings PSLUD Projects USA Management

25. Empirical Findings PSLUD Projects USA • Organization • Less p-p Collaboration • Risk-avoiding & understaffed public actor • Long-term private commitment & de-risking • Management • Public actor manages by zoning regulations • Private leadership on different levels/phases: true PSLUD project • Effects • Efficiency, effectiveness & spatial quality achievable • Conclusions • Complex inner city areas are manageable with PSLUD • Conditions: scale, duration, flexibility, competencies, phasing & demand-driven