Publieke ruimte - De 99 van Amsterdam

A city where people feel free to decide their own destiny.

These are the results of dozens of conversations, discussions and exchanges of Cities for Change. Door uiteenlopende deelnemers en organisaties uit Amsterdam en andere steden in Europa.

Transition

The way the city is designed, constructed, built and revived reflects the diverse mic of its residents, their cultures and lifestyles, passions, limitations, orientations and creativity. Public space and housing – physical, political, cultural, digital – are basic needs and not a commercially tradeable product. Residents, users, entrepreneurs and local public authorities jointly shape the city.

‘Everyone wants a city that’s sufficiently clean and safe. Have we not gone too far? Because the city has only one narrative, one norm: successful, mainly based on consumption.’René Boer, critical researcher of public space

‘Who owns the city? The people living in it, the city council, the people owning bricks there, or anonymous private enterprises?’Gert Jan Bakker, consultant at Stichting !WOON

Recommendations

Far-reaching democratisation. In all planning and policies the focus is on the needs of districts, neighbourhoods and residents, and not just those of a privileged class of workers and real estate moguls. The city’s inhabitants are literally at the table where the decisions are taken.
Public space, like care and housing, is an essential provision in our daily lives and should not be left to the market. Where public authorities currently mainly collaborate with large private companies in public-private partnerships (PPPs), public-civil partnerships, PCPs, are set up instead. In which the ‘C’ may also refer to collective, cooperative, commons or community.
Move away from market value. Taking market logic, the price od land and economic value as a starting point gives way to a view of the city as a living social system and neighbourhoods as areas of solidarity and encounter. Urban planning is more than exploitation of land and residential areas are not a business case.
Frayed edges. In urban planning there are real and deliberately unstructured, unpredictable spaces where neighbourhoods, residents, communities can decide on their purpose.
Free space. In all districts, urban planning offers space for the subcultures that have always been part of the fabric of the city. These spaces can be temporary, so that alternative cultures can ‘travel the city’ and not be pushed to its edges.
Equal access. The city belongs to all residents, who must, in equal measure, have access to its public space. So without discrimination, without racist algorithms in its facial-recognition cameras, inaccessible pavements for people with a physical disability or unsafe streets and squares.
Not down to the square inch. In planning, maintenance and management, the public space is no longer ‘micromanaged’, as is currently all too often the case.

‘Who owns the city? The people living in it, the city council, the people owning bricks there, or anonymous private enterprises?’Gert Jan Bakker, consultant at Stichting !WOON

Which problems are the recommendations an answer to?

Cities around the world – including Amsterdam – are becoming smart and smooth: changed into polished, predictable, homogenous areas, swept clean of divergent structures and frayed edges. In urban planning and exploitation of land, (international) project developers and investors provide the bulk of the money, so local residents are side-lined. This deepens the dividing line between the privileged and the disadvantaged, and social structures and communities collapse. Visitors and residents are turned into passive consumers instead of active participants. And public space is increasingly less accessible to whoever or whatever deviates from the norm and is unexpected and unpredictable.

What is already happening in Amsterdam or other cities?

The Omgevingsvisie together with ‘Samen stadmaken’ (Co-creating the City) offers more room to own initiatives of individual residents, collectives and cooperatives.
The city council of Naples has a public space charter: the design of public space must be subject to a democratic process.
Naples also has a Department of the Commons which, among other things, earmarks abandoned buildings as commons , so that they become available for collective management by residents and social initiatives.
Bologna has an extensive convenant that enbles residents to co-design public spaces. Turin has somewhat adapted and embraced this approach.