We are proud to announce the coming Placemaking Week 2017, which will take place this Fall in Amsterdam on October 11-14, 2017. Building upon the momentum of last year’s successful event in Vancouver, Project for Public Spaces, in partnership with STIPO, The City at Eye Level, Placemaking Plus and Pakhuis de Zwijger will host the placemaking event in Amsterdam!
We are proud to launch the second, extended edition of The City at Eye Level.
The first edition appeared in 2013, was written with a community of 40 contributors and was aimed at the topic of active ground floors (plinths) in Europe and North-America. This second book has 90 contributors, has best practices of ALL continents and offers a broader view on placemaking and the entire street level experience. We have new, previously missing topics, such as the urban soundscape and wayfinding. Just as in the first edition, we draw the integrated conclusions for the approach at the end of the book. This time, we go more deeply into how the insights can be used for concrete action in practice.
Partners and Contributors
We want to thank our new partners: UN Habitat, Future of Places, Project for Public Spaces (PPS.org), Gehl Architects, FAU PUCRS University of Porto Alegre in Brazil and Copenhagenize.
And of course, our 90+ contributors with whom we share our passion for great public spaces in great cities:
Elijah Agevi, Mishkat Ahmed-Raja, Cecilia Andersson, Hans Appelboom, Emiel Arends, Frank van Beek, Frank Belderbos, Rogier van den Berg, Emily Berwin, Willemijn de Boer, Nick Broad, Jose Chong, Alessandra Cianchetta, Mikael Colville-Andersen, Ciaran Cuffe, Richard Dobson, Vivian Doumpa, René Dutrieux, Paul Elleswijk, Gabor Everraert, Jos Gadet, Jan Gehl, Adriaan Geuze, Meredith Glaser, Arjan Gooijer, Peter Groenendaal, Sander van der Ham, Paolo Horn Regal, Samar Héchaimé, Jeniffer Heemann, Mattijs van ’t Hoff, David Jackson, Nel de Jager, Jeroen Jansen, Max Jeleniewski, Lotte Johansen Kaefer, Birgit Jürgenhake, Fred Kent, Hans Karssenberg, Berry Kessels, Joep Klabbers, Martin Knuijt, Lars Korn, Willem van Laar, Tine van Langelaar, Jeroen Laven, Willie Macrae, Kathy Madden, Camilla Meijer, Blaine Merker, Norman Mintz, Eri Mitsostergiou, Thaddeus Muller, Tanja Nagelsmeier, Peter Nieland, Renee Nycolaas, Kris Opbroek, Henk Ovink, Gerard Peet, Francisco Pailliè Pérez, Laura Petrella, Elisabeth Peyroux, Levente Polyák, Stefanie Raab, Tasmi Quazi, Solvejg Reigstad, Anna Robinson, Marlies Rohmer, Ben Ruse, Petra Rutten, Wies Sanders, Ton Schaap, Lai Shouhua, David Sim, Filip Smits, Stefan van der Spek, Alexander Stahle, Birgitte Svarre, Jan van Teeffelen, Marat Troina, Wouter Tooren, Eric van Ulden, Gert Jan te Velde, Mark van de Velde, Klaas Waarheid, Robin von Weiler, Kees Went, Jouke van der Werf, Tony Wijntuin, John Worthington, Xu Yunfei, Arin van Zee and Kim Zweerink.
Please share the book as much as you can; that is why we publish it open source. We hope to positively influence as many cities as we can. So post it on your platforms and in your communities.
Order your hardcopy
Would you like a hardcopy? You can order it at our Shopify page for € 35 (shipping not included).
Download The City at Eye Level (the book)
Download the A Cidade ao Nivel dos Olhos
Order your hardcopy of The City at Eye Level
Become a member of The City at Eye Level Facebook Page and stay up to date with the latest events.
- an introduction to the why, what and how of investing in a better Stockholm at Eye Level;
- the overwhelming results of our plinth game, visiting 12 locations in Stockholm, giving ideas for concrete improvement and conclusions for criteria for better plinths (bottenvåninger!) and
- ideas for your follow-up strategy, also based on the open space workshop we held on Friday with the whole group.
To stay informed, we’d like to invite you to become a member of our Facebook and our LinkedIn Group. It would be great if you could contribute to the discussions; starting soon, we will launch the plinth of the week (each week on Monday, a new plinth to be discussed, sharing international examples of good and bad examples), the chapter of the month (calling for reactions) and other discussions and inspiration.
Thank you Stockholm!
About 30 participants came to the placemaking session on Friday, including the Director of Concertgebouw, the Alderman, urban planners, entrepreneurs, and city- and neighborhood-level leaders. After an tntroduction by Fred from PPS and a short summary of Thursday’s placemaking game at the Pakhuis de Zwijger, we all headed out into the cold October air to walk Museumplein and the surrounding areas.
At one point Fred conducted a mini-placemaking game with the group and that really got the juices flowing! Everyone split into smaller groups and came up 10 programs for 10 spaces in different parts of the square. There was lots of enthusiasm!
What were the goals of the day? It was basically a reconnaissance mission: we were trying to connect the institutes, users, (residents, entrepreneurs, institutes, visitors), with the space of the Museumplein. We wanted to rediscover and reconnect the different parts of Museumplein to the places and destination they have the potential to be. We also had in mind the Power of 10, to take it down a level and think in terms of programming the space.
What were some immediate results, quick wins of the day? No doubt about it: a growing energy and a growing network between the participants. A sense that it doesnt have to be difficult: it can be simple, short-term, experimental solutions that make the difference. In the end, iterative place-based strategies means that nothing is permanent. So when can we begin?
The Museum Quarter is a unique location in Amsterdam: it comprises no fewer than five world-class cultural institutions: the Rijksmuseum, the Stedelijk Museum, the Van Gogh Museum, the Concertgebouw and the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra. For the people of Amsterdam, the best works of Rembrandt, Van Gogh and Rietveld, as well as concerts by Bach, Händel or Liszt in one of the world’s best concert halls, are just around the corner.
In the immediate vicinity we find the Vondel Park, P.C. Hooft Street (the most up-market shopping street in the Netherlands), Van Baerle Street, the Spiegel Quarter (specializing in antiquities, linked to the Rijksmuseum function) and the northern section of the Pijp district (the ‘Quartier Latin’ of Amsterdam, where Amsterdammers themselves go out nowadays).
However, these areas are not linked, and the user groups are very separated. This week we will take a closer look at Museumplein with Fred Kent and Kathy Madden, from Project for Public Spaces, Peter from Placemaking Plus, and Meredith and Hans from Stipo. With a select group of participants, including planners, directors from the institutions, local politicians, and entrepreneurs, we will discuss: How can we reconnect the institutions to the grassy “square”? How can we connect the surrounding areas to the Museumplein? Where can we make quick fixes? All this and more (and a video!) to come.
by Jan van Teeffelen
Key words: the dna of a former industrial, textile-producing city; transition of the city center driven by a non-growth scenario; the danger of spreading vs concentrating energy and investment; importance of quality and image of the public domain; the role of ’local heroes’; conditions for realization; the challenge for the next ten years.
The city of Helmond, the Netherlands, is one of many communities in the Netherlands that must transform from a blue-collar economy into a modern knowledge-based economy, like that of Rotterdam, Tilburg, and Eindhoven. In the case of Helmond, the people involved focused on the importance of the city center. Of course a (network) city is more than its center, but the center represents a major trump card in the game of city competition. The thesis was that the city and its ambitions would only be taken seriously if its image, performance of the public domain, and the experience at eye level were of high quality. The way this is achieved in Helmond is special and has never been realized on this scale in the Netherlands. This so-called ‘Helmond approach’ is difficult to copy because of its specific approach and strategy, but the principles are open for a process of learning and application elsewhere.
The ‘Helmond method’
City planning and urban development often starts with a top-down approach, a long-term vision, and an elaborative set of policy documents (which are subject to plans of realization in several sectors like traffic, housing economy, etc.). This approach is bureaucratically conducted in a sequential, time absorbing process.
The case of Helmond was different. The city government saw it as a very special chance to take a different approach, more bottom-up. The policy gap was filled by private initiative and it was a process of learning by doing; it was business-driven and integrated. But only under a few specific preconditions was this approach possible.
Preconditions and approach
People. People involved had vision, organizing power, a position in the city and the city center, and had convincing business skills. They were committed to starting a coalition of stakeholders to ‘get the job done’. Jan Verspaget and Thieu de Wit[i] were the key players from the beginning when they formalized a tight-knit city management organization with a clear mandate to act. The first step they made was to start the conversation with the responsible politicians. By doing so they created trust in their ambitions and plans to upgrade the city center in an integrated way, but also in a short amount of time, at low costs, and with more support of all the people who are going to be affected by the interventions. They also promised to realize a made-to-measure image for Helmond.
Trust. The city government quickly became partners and invested their trust in the management organization. This represented a huge step for the government, who were willing to ‘let things go’, quite against the Dutch planning tradition and eagerness of wanting to be in control. The next step was to ensure trust and cooperation from those concerned.
Process. Imagine the traditional way of reconstructing a shopping street from obsolete and desolate to a street that ‘works’ and is enjoyed by many. The process is often delayed by numerous construction and infrastructure projects, budgets are exceeded, street furniture and landscape assessed and installed, and finally the street manager who asks the shopkeepers to work on their exposure to the street and the public, the plinths and the facades. It is usually a time-consuming, expensive, and bureaucratic process.
The ‘Helmond method’ consisted of a ‘chain gang’: a parallel process that eliminated several limitations and responsibilities and resulted in a coordinated, time-efficient and cost-reducing approach. The first finished street showed that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and soon after the rest of the streets followed the example.
The question remained: what to manage? During interviews we discovered the answer.[ii] “First we managed the recently regained trust from the city government, the entrepreneurs, and the involved citizens. Managing these partners started in 2002, and from the beginning we knew it had to be done in a different, unconventional way. We also had to involve various responsible city departments, which are usually managed in a top-down method. In order to save time and reduce costs, we also closely managed the budget. With the many stakeholders involved, our management style was an intelligent way of building coalitions and trust in order to realize collective ambitions for public and private shareholders.”
How it looks
The first strategic decision was the selection of the core investment area. This area should not be too large. Visitors, especially pedestrians have a limited reach (in time and budget) when visiting a city center. The area outside the core is not less important but different, with unique conditions for development and investment.
The next strategic decision was to present a visualization of the character and materials to be used. The visualization, a proposal made by a professional office[iii], was very convincing; it underlined the ambition of the project and the effects on the public realm and adjacent real estate.
Starting in 2003 and over a period of 10 years, the entire city center was designed and realized street by street. Not in a sequential order (sector after sector) but as one unit. All the necessary interventions occurred in one move. Support by local entrepreneurs has since grown, and there has been very little interruption in their businesses. The visual results are very convincing.
- A regained local pride by the citizens. The city center is a place to be once again.
- Living in the city center became interesting again, while supported by high-quality streets and squares.
- Real estate values rose as a proof of these qualities, allowing for opportunities of future investment.
- A greater catchment area and support for enhanced shopping. Competition with other shopping centers in the region continues.
- While vacancies in real estate for shopping have not diminished, it has been easier to find alternative uses such as new formula services, workplaces, cultural and social activities.
Even though the stakeholders are celebrating the results of the past 10 years, they know they must consider the future. “How do we proceed for the next lap? A broad discussion is needed to explore the possibilities for a strategy based on a continued form of private-public coalition, which preserves the present results as well as explores new ambitions for the next ten years.” This is the next challenge for Helmond’s policymakers.
Conclusions and recommendations
A few of the most relevant and significant conclusions and recommendations are as follows:
- The Helmond method is unorthodox, not to be copied as such but easy to learn of.
- You need ‘local heroes’: people with vision, organizing power and persisting drive.
- People/entrepreneurs with a well-understood private interest, but at the same time an eye for the greater public interest.
- City government must be willing to give credit where credit is due, trust and room to move, but all under the condition that they stay responsible for the application of public means.
- The scope should be based on how people experience the center on eye level: because this determines their behavior and appreciation.
The North-South metro line is slated to change Amsterdam in many significant ways. It is the first metro in the city that will move people on the 9.2km axis and under the Ij river, to Amsterdam Central Station, and then on to Amsterdam Zuid Station. Zuid Station could potentially become the major transportation hub in the city, over Central Station. The line will run every 4 minutes in the day and every 10 minutes at night, with about 180.000 passengers per day. The €3.1 billion project has had several set-backs, budget adjustments, and delays. It is now slated for completion in 2017.
What does this project have to do with the city at eye level?
Our assignment was to analyse the plinths in the area around the future metro stop at Ceintuurban, located in the vibrant neighborhood called De Pijp. De Pijp has a long history of being Amsterdam’s “Latin Quarter” and a melting pot of cultures and people. More recently, the neighborhood has begun the gentrification (and hipster-cation) process and more young and established professionals are moving into the area, which is undoubtedly changing the fabric of the neighborhood.
Our preliminary analysis, as usual, consisted of personal, one-on-one key stakeholder interviews from all types of fields in the area: shop owners, residents, developers, street managers, municipal officials, and users of the area. These are the people involved with De Pijp at eye level. It is important to get a well-rounded understanding of the current situation in order proceed with any further physical or social analyses of the plinths.
The analysis built up to an intensive, one-day “game” with about 40 other stakeholders. For the game, we used our Spider Graph method to assess the current plinths. This method is useful for identifying the priority areas among a host of criteria regarding the buildings, street, and context of the area (laid out in the book). It is also useful for identifying the “quick-wins” (easy solutions) and the longer-term gains.
Right now, the plinths show the character of a diverse, multi-cultural neighborhood. Their design (or lack of) vary from cozy, organic feel to a stoic or tousled look. The variation can be charming and offers a ‘real’ neighborhood vibe. De Pijp also has a strong sense of local entrepreneurship, clearly visible in its plinths. Ferdinand Bolstraat, a main commercial street that crosses with Ceintuurbaan, has a good mix local shops and small and larger chains. The smaller streets that branch off from Ferdinand Bolstraat boast a number of high-quality local shops, cafe’s, and restaurants. On these streets, there are also a number of local artisans who are part of the network “Ambachten de Pijp” (Made in de Pijp).
So, what are the impacts of a new metro line on this neighborhood’s plinths? In terms of design, function and programming?
The Ceintuurbaan metro stop expects to bring in about an extra 40.000 people per day to the area (about the population of the neighborhood itself!). We believe that a coalition of stakeholders must be formed (soon) in order to maintain the character of de Pijp. Large developers and investors are licking their chops at this type of opportunity and are waiting for the perfect time to make their proposals.
Our main questions to the group were: what should be cherished on these streets, what could disappear, how will those things happen and who will take responsibility and initiative to see to it?
Stay tuned for the results.
After dividing into smaller groups, to tackle this city more efficiently, we met up with Cordelia Polinna from Think Berlin. We stopped at Suppengroen for a quick, delicious vegetarian lunch, and then headed to the Spreefeld project.
The Spree is a very interesting collaborative project, essentially a cooperative building for mixed uses. They have dedicated their ground level as public and semi-public space, and all the residents help fund the ground floor–both the building and programming. Maybe on our next trip to Berlin, we’ll see the finished product!
Our next stop was the Markthalle. This old market hall, built in the 1890s, was left abandoned and finally restored a couple years ago. An initiative among the locals kept the market just that way: local. Now it is filled with produce stands and local vendors, like bakers and chefs. They also hold weekend events and it’s a very lively atmosphere.
Continuing on our walking tour, our next stop was the Karl-Marx-Strasse in the heart of Neukolln. We were going to see the Klunkerkranich project, but we first had to find the shopping mall. Klunker was at the top of it.
How could we miss it? It was quite massive, and terribly out of place on this rather local commercial street. Cordelia explained to us that the street has always been problematic for commercial uses: lots of vacancy, no charm, lots of traffic. The super-sized mall was supposed to be a miracle solution and would bring new people into the area. It didn’t. Moreover, one of the greatest resources, especially for the surrounding lower-income community, was hidden away on the 3rd floor of the mall: the public library. You can barely see the vertically-oriented sign that reads “Bibliotheck” in small letters. Not surprisingly, the library is largely underused.
Despite the downsides, the real treat was the top floor of this massive mall. You exit the elevator, thinking you’re still in a parking garage, walk around the corner and up the ramp, and then you reach the small paradise of the Klunkerkranich and Farbfelder projects. A community project completed by a group of about 500 people and about €100.000, it is an urban farm, music venue, and cafe/bar. We spoke with the founder, a young guy wearing baggy pants, a hoodie, and long dreads. He was very casual about the project–“we just asked the mall, who asked the parking garage company, who asked the real estate company and then got together about 500 people and built it.” The main challenge has been the contract with the real estate company. A one-year contract makes it a difficult decision to invest in things like proper irrigation for the farm. But they are taking things one step at a time.
Along with AIR Foundation and the City of Rotterdam, we lead a group of 40 urban planners, architects, and real estate professionals to Berlin. We were on a mission to see the city’s best examples of temporary use, cooperatives, collaborations, and revitalization projects. Of course we were also interested in the plinths, and the city at eye level.
Our first full day started with a tour by Dutch local, Vincent Kompier. He lead us through Mitte and over to the Department of Urban Planning. We saw a great diversity of streetscape: construction zones, quiet semi-public courtyards, large historic open spaces, formal gathering areas, various commercials scales, and river front residential.
From our first observations and first walk through the city, it was very clear that Berliners prioritize community, art, and the city’s history in the way they produce their cityscape. Each is demonstrated in their own, Berlin way, and they overlap as well.
Mitte is the center of Berlin, but also a diverse and bohemian neighborhood. Lively, organic, bursting with energy. It can also be quiet and reserved. These dichotomous themes were visible throughout the whole study trip.
The Zomerhofkwartier, Rotterdam
This is the final part of the ZoHo plinth trilogy–but by no means is it the end of the story. So far we’ve discussed the historical context of the neighborhood, the challenges surrounding plinths, the assets in the area, and the plinth strategy. Now we are on to the solution and results.
Strategically re-activate the plinths using innovative and creative tools such as temporary use and incubator strategy is a main tactic. The partners focus on quality over quantity, experiment, and taking calculated risks. We default towards an organic development and placemaking process, underlining the neighborhood’s industrial and “maker’s” origins.
The two main players in the project are Havensteder, as the developer, and Stipo, as the urban strategist, advisor, and network purveyor. Many tertiary parties are involved in the project, both within and extending beyond the neighborhood boundaries. These parties include the municipality and local/neighboring art, urban, and cultural organizations.
Outcomes of the plinth strategy
Meetings among the partners and various others in the network slowly determined a set of values for the ZoHo project that focused on preserving the industrial character and manufacturing uses of the neighborhood, support businesses that promote local production of goods and services, and fostering creativity, openmindedness, collaboration, and flexibility.
Through no outside funding sources nor advertising, we have a growing list of over 300 diverse parties that have shown keen interest in relocating to ZoHo, on a temporary and permanent basis. By the summer 2013 the partners have successfully found two new major, high-quality tenants for the ground floor, securing over 1,000m2 of space in 2 out of the 5 buildings, of which a majority is public or semi-public space. We worked closely with the new tenants to encourage the hardware objectives listed in the previous post.
Above: before and after temporary use plinth strategy
To continue momentum and build an identity for the neighborhood, branding and communication is a necessary step to take. Complementing the ZoHo brand identity, the partners will organize an on-going marketing campaign. Events, festivals, meetings, etc, will be held in the neighborhood, all high-lighting its capacity as a “Makers Quarter.”
Roodkapje, a Rotterdam-based cultural and music venue secured over 600m2 and brought 2.000+ people to their opening party.
For more information on the ZoHo project please see http://www.zomerhofstraat76-90.com.