International Journal of Heritage Studies Heritage planning and spatial development in the...

This article was downloaded by: [Bibliotheek TU Delft], [Eric Luiten]On: 16 August 2012, At: 02:58Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of HeritageStudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjhs20

Heritage planning and spatialdevelopment in the Netherlands:changing policies and perspectivesJoks Janssen a , Eric Luiten b , Hans Renes c & Jan Rouwendal ca Environmental Sciences, Wageningen University,Droevendaalsesteeg 3, Wageningen, PB, 6708, The Netherlandsb Urbanism, TU Delft, Delft, The Netherlandsc VU University, CLUE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Version of record first published: 01 Aug 2012

To cite this article: Joks Janssen, Eric Luiten, Hans Renes & Jan Rouwendal (2012): Heritageplanning and spatial development in the Netherlands: changing policies and perspectives,International Journal of Heritage Studies, DOI:10.1080/13527258.2012.710852

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2012.710852

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjhs20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2012.710852

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Heritage planning and spatial development in the Netherlands:changing policies and perspectives

Joks Janssena*, Eric Luitenb, Hans Renesc and Jan Rouwendalc

aEnvironmental Sciences, Wageningen University, Droevendaalsesteeg 3, Wageningen PB6708 The Netherlands; bUrbanism, TU Delft, Delft, The Netherlands; cVU University,CLUE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

(Received 22 April 2012; final version received 1 July 2012)

In recent years, the separation of heritage conservation concerns and spatialplanning concerns – a spectre of post-war modernism – is being criticised.Numerous commentators argue that heritage conservation needs to rethink itspurpose and role if it is to maintain its place in the planning system specificallyand urban and rural development more generally. This paper analyses the Belve-dere Memorandum and its incentive programme (1999–2009) by which theDutch government actively encouraged the integration of heritage conservationwith spatial planning. It is a first attempt to identify the impact of Belvedere onDutch heritage planning practises. We argue that Belvedere has contributed to areorientation of heritage conservation. At the same time, however, heritageconservation now faces new challenges as a result of the fact that thegovernment is reducing its involvement in spatial planning, of a turn-around insocio-economic and demographic development (from growth to shrinkage) andof a crisis in property development. We believe Belvedere can be called asuccess only if the heritage sector manages, under these changed circumstances,to actively respond to spatial challenges and forge links with social actors.

Keywords: heritage; spatial development; cultural planning; BelvedereMemorandum; the Netherlands

Introduction

From the late 1970s onwards, heritage conservation practice in most western Euro-pean countries has shifted from the legal protection of objects towards becomingpart of a broader movement for urban and regional regeneration and socio-economicdevelopment (Ashworth 1997, Ashworth and Howard 1999). During the 1980s and1990s heritage was strongly influenced by the proliferation of urban regenerationschemes. Transforming industrial cities into service-oriented economies has beenaccompanied by a growing interest in using built and landscape heritage as a toolfor urban regeneration (Roberts 2000). Evidently, the presence of heritage can offeropportunities for socio-economic development, such as the development of tourism,recreation, leisure and other kinds of cultural activities in the post-industrial cityand/or region. In recent years, a growing (and worldwide) concern for sustainabledevelopment has further increased the awareness of the regenerative potential of

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

International Journal of Heritage StudiesiFirst article, 2012, 1–21

ISSN 1352-7258 print/ISSN 1470-3610 online� 2012 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2012.710852http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

eek

TU

Del

ft],

[E

ric

Lui

ten]

at 0

2:58

16

Aug

ust 2

012

historic environments to produce socially inclusive and economically vibrant citiesand landscapes. As a result, heritage has become a key resource to be used in rede-velopment and regeneration schemes.

So, thinking about the ways in which historic assets and values can be used andadapted for social, cultural, ecological and economic uses is clearly evident in con-temporary conservation thinking and practice. However, integration of heritage con-servation and spatial planning policy is lagging behind. In most western Europeancountries, planning functions are weakly integrated with heritage conservationobjectives and the policy mechanisms for development and for conservation showlittle or no interconnection. Planners look to the future, citing historical storiesmainly as an introduction to plans. Rather than making a clear case for continuitybetween past and future, in many cases this is merely suggested. Physical traces ofthe past also receive little attention. Those concerned with protecting historic build-ings or archaeological remains attempt to exclude them from the dynamics of socialdevelopment. Statutory protection is by its very nature defensive, based on the ideaof a finite heritage resource that is under constant threat from spatial dynamics andgradually decreasing in number and quality. As a result, the historic environment isnot recognised as an integral part of the planning system. It is a world set apart bylisting and designation, and regulated by specific conservation regimes. Against thisbackground, academics and practitioners in the field of heritage have argued for amore integrated and inclusive approach, linking heritage conservation moredynamically with planning policy (Hamer 2000, Turnpenny 2004, Heathcott 2006,Loulanski 2006).

Over the course of the 1990s, a number of European countries recognised thatheritage planning had to move from control-based approaches to conservationtowards those based on dynamic management of change (see Fairclough andRippon 2002). In order to reform the planning and management of the historic envi-ronment accordingly, several governments developed public policies and nationalstrategies for a renewed direction of heritage conservation. For instance, in Englandthe Department for Culture, Media and Sport (2001) and English Heritage (2000)reviewed all policies relating to the historic environment, a process that had toresult in ‘an entirely new, integrated approach to managing our historic surround-ings for the next century’ (Cossons 2000). In order to use heritage more proactivelyas a resource for rural and urban development English Heritage stressed the needfor integration within the planning framework. Widening the perspective from spe-cific areas to wider landscapes should reinforce future opportunities for holisticapproaches to conservation planning. In France as well, shifts in state-led heritagepolicies were initiated, connecting heritage more closely to tourism policy andregional development (Poirrier 2003). And in Germany the so-called Den-kmalpflegediskussion focused on the question how state-led heritage policy couldbecome more dynamic and decentralised, giving room to engage with heritage forthe local public and other (private) stakeholders (Holtorf 2007).

The Europe-wide call for a more integrated and inclusive heritage planning alsoinfluenced the debate on heritage conservation and spatial planning in theNetherlands. Following the developments in neighbouring countries like England,Germany and France, the interest in the Netherlands in the role of heritage in spatialdevelopment increased significantly. In the 1990s, the then common approach toheritage underwent a substantial change. In retrospect, it may even be dubbed aparadigm shift, although this term is generally reserved for changes in academic

2 J. Janssen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

eek

TU

Del

ft],

[E

ric

Lui

ten]

at 0

2:58

16

Aug

ust 2

012

research (Kuhn 1962). In the Dutch heritage sector, the ‘culture of loss’ that hadtraditionally dominated heritage management made way for a ‘culture of profit’,entailing an approach to spatial, economic and ecological issues that had a broadersocial base and was more offensive (Kolen 2007). This shift occurred against thebackdrop of the revival and revaluation of historical interest in Dutch society,together with a growing interest in heritage (Van der Laarse 2005).

The paradigm shift was accelerated and intensified by the so-called ‘BelvedereMemorandum’ (1999). Belvedere was a programme in which the national govern-ment defined the outline for a reform of the relationship between heritage and spa-tial planning. It was a response to the prevailing fragmented and defensive heritagemanagement practice in the Netherlands. At the same time, the Memorandumattempted to get architects, landscape architects and other planners interested in his-tory and heritage as sources of inspiration and quality. The Belvedere programmeintroduced the idea that the future of heritage management lays in its relationshipwith spatial planning. The heritage sector would have to become future-orientedand offensive – and more pragmatic to a certain extent – and attempt to tie in withdevelopments in society, particularly spatial developments. These new ideas wereenshrined in a programme that would run for 10 years (1999–2009), in whichresearch and pilot projects would be subsidised, a large number of publicationswould be produced for a wide range of target audiences and an interuniversityresearch and educational programme would be established. The Belvedere pro-gramme has now ended, an exception being made for the educational part of theprogramme that has been extended to 2013.

In this paper, we take stock of 10 years of experiments, reflection and policy atthe point where heritage meets spatial planning. Although various attempts havebeen made at evaluating Belvedere practice, there has been no thorough, systematicanalysis as yet (see for some interesting, early observations on the Belvedereprogramme: Ashworth and Kuipers 2001, Vervloet et al. 2005, Schoorl 2005,Ashworth 2008, Groffen et al. 2008). We do not pretend to fill the gap entirely withthis paper, but we have attempted to set such an exercise in motion, as a basis forfurther research. This paper argues that Belvedere was an important driver behindthe reorientation of Dutch heritage conservation towards a new and more proactiveapproach. Prompted partly by Belvedere, a new form of heritage managementdeveloped in the Netherlands, focusing on issues of reuse. However, it is not saidthat the new, more proactive approach is there to stay. The old preservation ideal –to protect and preserve monuments and sites as unchanged as possible – is stillinfluential. Furthermore, the Belvedere legacy is challenged by a government that isreducing its involvement in spatial planning, of a turn-around in socio-economicand demographic development and of a crisis in property development. We con-clude that Belvedere can be called a success only if the heritage sector manages,under these changed circumstances, to actively respond to spatial challenges andforge links with social actors.

Background to Belvedere policy

Similar to widespread concern about the decline of the natural environment, protec-tion of historic buildings, urban ensembles and landscapes began not much morethan a century ago in the Netherlands. Unlike many other aspects of planning,concern for the natural and cultural heritage has been initiated and led by public

International Journal of Heritage Studies 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

eek

TU

Del

ft],

[E

ric

Lui

ten]

at 0

2:58

16

Aug

ust 2

012

opinion, albeit initially the opinion of a vocal and influential minority. The first ini-tiatives to protect built heritage were undertaken by the wealthy middle class. Forinstance, the Heemschut Heritage Association, established in 1911 by leading fig-ures in the Amsterdam civil society, was for decades an important social forceagainst the radical transformation of Dutch towns and cities, particularly during theReconstruction years following the Second World War. The same holds true for themyriad of societies, like the ANWB (Dutch Automobile Association) and Natuurmo-numenten (Dutch nature conservation organisation), campaigning for particularlocalities, periods or types of artefact. Gradually, the government transformed itsrole from that of facilitating historical engagement in society, to controlling themanagement of heritage of national importance. The Historic Buildings and Monu-ments (Preservation) Act of 1961 provided for the establishment of a governmentagency with far-reaching powers. A national list of monument and historic buildingswas established, on the basis of which owners could be awarded grants or taxbreaks for restoration work. Whether intentionally or not, this institutionalisation ofheritage management took an axe to the roots of social initiative for the protectionof important old buildings and townscapes, because it was based on a system ofexpertise. Heritage management legislation required a system of criteria that couldbe used to establish, in a more or less verifiable way, whether certain buildings orcollections of buildings were historically important enough to be given protectedstatus. A growing group of cultural heritage professionals acquired a monopoly onknowledge and expertise. Depending on which period they wished to becomeexperts on, they would study at a particular university, faculty and research group.The designation of important monuments and historic buildings became an academi-cally based interpretation of canonical, art historical and stylistic information andproperties. Built heritage (and, in its wake, archaeological heritage) becameseparated from society in a certain sense, as it became a collection curated by aca-demics, mirroring developments that had been going on for many years in themuseum world.

In other respects, too, the protection of built and landscape heritage had becomeproblematic towards the end of the last century. The number of objects regarded ashaving heritage value had seen explosive growth, resulting in ever lengthening listsof monuments, and ever widening extent of conservation area protection. In addi-tion to the nineteenth century interest in classical ruins and mediaeval churches andcastles, the twentieth century brought more and more categories: windmills, houses,factories, archaeological sites and even entire landscapes. In addition, more recentobjects were being nominated for protected status, including ‘young’ (1910–1940)and now even younger (1940–1965) monuments (Figure 1). Also, attention wasgiven to a wider variety of artefacts, including industrial heritage. The growinginterest in industrial heritage also meant that huge, empty complexes were givenprotected status (Nijhoff 1989). This could be put into effect only by giving them anew purpose, which meant that the issue of how objects were to be used began todominate debate. This is even more the case today, as traditional groups of pro-tected buildings, like churches, increasingly lose their original function. Protectionbecame an increasingly complex issue.

At the same time, however, collaboration between the various heritagedisciplines remained problematic. Archaeological and built heritage was representedby separate institutions,1 and there were no instruments available for the protectionof landscapes – the link between buildings, archaeological sites and the broader

4 J. Janssen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

eek

TU

Del

ft],

[E

ric

Lui

ten]

at 0

2:58

16

Aug

ust 2

012

environment. Since 1983, cultural landscapes had been the responsibility of theMinistry of Agriculture, while other heritage categories were cared for by theMinistry of Education, Culture and Science. The only way of protecting buildingsin relation to their surroundings was to designate them as urban conservation areas(in the Dutch Monuments Act these are named ‘protected village and town scener-ies’). This was an interesting category, because it linked the urban conservation areastatus with land use plans, and thus with spatial planning.

The protection of landscapes, in particular, was a continual source of disappoint-ment. Attempts at effective protection by the government met with resistance fromthe powerful agricultural sector, and in practice, they rarely if ever came to anything(Janssen 2009, Luiten 2011b, Renes 2011b). In the 1970s and 1980s a deteriorationtook place not only of landscape heritage, but also of the ecological values linkedto ‘traditional’ agricultural landscapes. This prompted a response from ecologists inthe 1990s, who came up with the idea of a National Ecological Network (Ecologi-sche Hoofdstructuur, EHS) that would connect fragmented and isolated natural areasinto a large-scale network. Many hectares of mostly farmland were purchased anddeveloped as ‘new nature’, farmers were encouraged and compensated to enhancenature on their land, and corridors were built for allowing wildlife to cross roadsand railways. As a result, attention shifted from historic cultural landscapes towardsthe nationwide effort to create interconnected nature areas.

Furthermore, the dilemmas associated with heritage had arisen in a context ofmajor social change, which can be summarised by the terms ‘participation’ and‘globalisation’. The term participation denotes a process whereby broader sectionsof the population began to demand a say in the implementation of policy. Theviews of heritage experts were challenged by the lay knowledge of citizens. This

Figure 1. The growing interest in post-war heritage in the Netherlands has resulted in theinclusion of several modernist building estates from the post-war recovery era as officialmonuments. For instance, the Housing Schutterswijk in Gorinchem by architects Aat Eversand Geert Sarlemijn recently became a heritage site. Reproduced with permission from theCultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

eek

TU

Del

ft],

[E

ric

Lui

ten]

at 0

2:58

16

Aug

ust 2

012

meant, for example, that attention shifted from aesthetics and material authenticityto criteria like representativeness and commemorative value, as can be seen, forexample, in the growing use of the French heritage concept of lieux de mémoire ina Dutch context (Frijhoff 2007).

Because of the globalisation process, cities and regions were confronted withintensified international competition and interdependence in the 1990s (Storper1997). This gave rise to the opportunity, and the need, to redefine regional and localidentities. It was no coincidence that the second part of Manuel Castell’s famousInformation Age trilogy was entitled The Power of Identity (Castells 1996), alludingto the fact that globalisation is associated with a search for new cultural identities.Sometimes new identities are forged, but more often old identities are rediscoveredin the form of cultural heritage.

The administrative unravelling of the nation state was also accompanied by aweakening official status of Modernism as the defining factor in the look of theworld around us. Modernism had already come under fire because of the democrati-sation movement in the 1970s, and the advent of a transnational media and tourismindustry in response to the growing prosperity and mobility (social and otherwise)of the middle class, with its growing awareness of quality and the environment inwhich we live (Mommaas 2000). The rise of the leisure and consumer culture alsoplayed a role, as the symbolic value of products and places increasingly came todefine their attractiveness. A trend reinforced by the shift from an economy domi-nated by industrial development towards a ‘new economy’ in which service, knowl-edge and creativity are the key concepts (Florida 2002).

Against the backdrop of these developments, local, regional and national author-ities felt a growing need to profile themselves as prime locations in a scaled up,global market for companies, residents and visitors. The reuse and branding of his-toric buildings and landscapes provided an answer to the growing need for newsources of spatial identification and distinction, in a situation where once firmlyestablished frameworks of identification and distinction (such as nation, class, reli-gion and modernity) had become blurred (Mommaas 2002). Culture in a broadsense, and cultural heritage in particular, not only turned out to be a valuable sourceof local and regional distinction and identification, but also a catalyst for urban andregional revitalisation (Janssen 2011).

The road to Belvedere

The Netherlands was neither unique nor innovative in linking material heritage withbroader social, cultural and spatial developments in towns and regions. One couldeven argue that the Netherlands lagged behind its neighbouring countries. In the late1980s and early 1990s, several western European countries had developed plans touse historic buildings and old landscapes (industrial or otherwise) for new spatialinterventions or transformations. The Internationale Baausstellung Emscher Park inGermany’s Ruhrgebiet was one successful and inspiring example (Raines 2011).This major restructuring programme launched in 1989 included over 120 projectsfor the rezoning and redevelopment of industrial heritage, based on the themes oftourism, leisure, quality living, the creative economy and urban ecology. Completedin 1999, it attracts over a million visitors a year.2 In preserving its industrialheritage in this way, the Ruhr Area not only remembered and celebrated its past, italso gave meaningful direction to the region’s future.

6 J. Janssen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

eek

TU

Del

ft],

[E

ric

Lui

ten]

at 0

2:58

16

Aug

ust 2

012

In other countries, too, including the USA, Australia, Britain, Denmark andItaly, lieux de mémoire, monuments, historic buildings and other cultural heritagesites and features were used at an early stage in the revitalisation of landscapes andurban spaces. For instance, in New York the redevelopment of nineteenth centuryloft buildings accompanied the urban revitalisation processes triggered by processesof gentrification (Zukin 1989). Not only spacious factory buildings but also exten-sive industrial landscapes (as in Manchester and Liverpool) that had lost their indus-trial function in the 1970s and 1980s, at a time when the public’s interest inindustrial life was growing, were redeveloped. The empty factories could continueto exist only if the sites were revitalised for new activities: cultural tourism, newforms of commerce that are currently referred to as ‘creative industries’, with theirown ‘creative class’ (Hospers 2002).

Following these often appealing rezoning and redevelopment projects, the Dutchnational government made the strategic use of heritage a central issue of spatialplanning policy. Heritage planning became official government policy, set out in theBelvedere Memorandum and supported by an incentive programme. The BelvedereMemorandum came about thanks to the synergy between two political ambitionsthat emerged in the latter years of the left-liberal coalition government (1994–2002). First, there was the large-scale physical reconstruction of the country’stopography, including high-profile projects like new international railway infrastruc-ture (the Betuwe freight line between the Port of Rotterdam and the German hinter-land, and the high-speed passenger link between Amsterdam and Brussels).Secondly, the ambitious programme to build 450,000 homes in the period 1995–2005 (known as the ‘Vinex programme’, after the Dutch acronym for the policydocument in which the plan was presented). These major reconstruction pro-grammes were partly a response to the rapid economic growth the country wasexperiencing, and they were undertaken from a spatial planning perspective. Thesecond political factor was the desire of social-democratic State Secretary for Cul-ture, Rick van der Ploeg, to bring art and culture – in museums, under the ground(archaeology) and in the open (monuments and historic buildings) – to a wideraudience in a more accessible and attractive way. This ambition, similar to socialinclusion policies of the 1990s in France and the UK, was reflected in nationalarchitecture and culture policy (Schoorl 2005).

These two ambitions came together in the Belvedere Memorandum, under theheading of development-oriented use of the national heritage, which involved takingadvantage of the ruthless disruption and exposure of landscapes and buried historyto aid the teaching of the nation’s military, economic and settlement history. Belve-dere was more than a preservation policy, though the awareness that valuable his-toric artefacts – landscapes, urban ensembles and buildings – were disappearingwas one of the motivations to start the programme. When the Belvedere Memoran-dum was published, it alluded to a broad dissatisfaction in society at the growinguniformity of towns and landscapes, a growing urban sprawl led by the demands ofthe market and the alleged loss of ‘identity’.

Belvedere explored the theme of (place) identity. The explicit objective was thediscovery, protection and enhancement of landscapes, whether rural or urban, thatwas deemed to be significant in projecting and strengthening local identities. Thesimple and clear logic was that heritage endows landscapes with meaning thatreflects a specifically local identity. The idea of place identity put forward by Belve-dere, however, was rather weakly conceptualised (Ashworth and Kuipers 2001).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

eek

TU

Del

ft],

[E

ric

Lui

ten]

at 0

2:58

16

Aug

ust 2

012

Belvedere presumed that identity was enclosed in spatial structures, and could berecognised, localised and listed with the help of historical research. Contrary to theobjectives of Belvedere, however, academics emphasised that identities are notwaiting to be discovered and then preserved for eternity but constantly made andre-made by (groups of) people (Schuurman 2003). Notwithstanding this poor con-ceptualisation of place identity, the Belvedere Memorandum cleverly exploited boththe willingness of local and regional authorities, social parties and the public to useand reuse history, the need in spatial planning for new, mutually reinforcing inter-ests and the need to ‘socialise’ traditional heritage management (Wallagh, 2005).

Spatial planning, heritage and architecture policy shored up the foundations ofthe new memorandum, which from the very beginning stood for two things: (1)early input from the cultural heritage and design disciplines in addressing spatialchallenges and, subsequently and (2) the cultivation of a more future-oriented visionof the built and landscape heritage reflected in the seemingly paradoxical slogan,‘preservation through development’ (behoud door ontwikkeling), which called foractive intervention rather than just passive protection. The first of these mainly con-cerned spatial planners and designers (architects, urban planners and landscapedesigners) and the second academics (geographers, archaeologists and art historians)concerned public servants and, ultimately, the public. According to the authors ofthe memorandum, ‘preservation by development’ required closer collaborationbetween planning and designing disciplines that were oriented at the future withoutpaying attention to the past, and historians who only had interest in preservation ofrelics of the past without looking at the future. To facilitate such collaboration, theterm ‘cultural planning’ came into vogue for a time (Bloemers and Van der Valk2004, Vervloet et al. 2005).

The term ‘cultural planning’, prominent in the discourse on Belvedere, wasdesigned to bring greater focus to the professional and public debate on the cultureof spatial interventions. Belvedere advocated a culturally inspired approach inresponse to a ‘planning machinery’ that had gone into overdrive, which was tooconcerned with opaque interests, procedures and regulations. The extent to whichcultural heritage could be incorporated into developments would become a separateconsideration in spatial transformations. This should not occur in a dogmatic way,however, but on the basis of careful considerations of wishes concerning the use ofspace and the quality and identity of existing landscape designs. Cultural planninginvolved a new way of looking at spatial planning, uniting the concepts of preserva-tion and development. Planners were encouraged both to use characteristic featuresof a building or landscape in a creative way, and to exploit the value and opportuni-ties afforded by autonomous regional investment plans.

Belvedere as innovation

The Belvedere Memorandum established a programme that was to run for 10 years(1999–2009).3 A project office was set up to put the Belvedere approach intopractice, with the help of grants for promising and interesting Belvedere projects,meetings (between heritage specialists, planners and designers), design workshops,excursions, publications and so forth.4 Initially, the approach was focused on thoseareas in the Netherlands which were seen as most valuable in terms of heritage, theso-called Belvedere areas. Later on, the focus widened from specific Belvedereareas to the Netherlands as a whole.5 The intention of the programme was to

8 J. Janssen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

eek

TU

Del

ft],

[E

ric

Lui

ten]

at 0

2:58

16

Aug

ust 2

012

provide stimulation, policy guidance, seed-corn funding and possibly expertise insupport of local projects devised and executed by local public and non-statutoryagencies and private firms. Although the emphasis was on local projects, an excep-tion was made for the New Dutch Waterline – a military defence line extendingfrom the former Zuiderzee near Muiden to the Biesbosch. The Waterline was estab-lished as the first national Belvedere project with a national project organisation,governed by the five departments involved in the Belvedere programme (Figure 2).In 2001 the Roman Limes (the defence system of Ancient Rome) was the adoptedsecond national project. Finally, a teaching and research network for designers andheritage specialists came into being at three Dutch universities (TU Delft, VUAmsterdam and Wageningen University).

The 10 years of Belvedere were an exercise in uniting the heritage sector andfinding new, more productive links between heritage and nature management, heri-tage and water management, heritage and property development, heritage andleisure. Monuments, historic buildings and historic landscapes that were seen as

Figure 2. The Belvedere Memorandum identified the New Dutch Waterline (‘NieuweHollandse Waterlinie’) as a National Project. A 85 km long ingenious system of sluices,dikes and canals, received a new purpose. Reproduced with permission from the CulturalHeritage Agency of the Netherlands, Amersfoort.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

eek

TU

Del

ft],

[E

ric

Lui

ten]

at 0

2:58

16

Aug

ust 2

012

symbolic for the identity of the Netherlands were released from their splendid isola-tion and given new meaning for designers, users, investors and administrators.Besides this repositioning of the heritage sector, Belvedere also sought to bringabout two organisational innovations that can be described as ‘internal integration’and ‘external integration’. The first refers to the stronger collaboration between thefragmented cluster of heritage disciplines themselves, each with their own knowl-edge bases, rules, values and languages. Collaboration between archaeologists, land-scape historians, historical geographers and architectural historians needed a boost.In the early years of the twenty-first century, several steps were taken, including theestablishment of interdisciplinary cultural heritage study programmes at a numberof universities and the merger of the two government agencies to form today’sCultural Heritage Agency.

However, the impact of Belvedere was not the same in all heritage sectors. Thestronger link between heritage and spatial planning has had relatively few implica-tions for the management of historic landscapes, which has always been highlydependent on planning instruments. Archaeology’s position was strengthened aboveall by the Malta Convention, which has given it a permanent role in planning pro-cedures (in terms both of investigation and of preservation in situ and of intensiveresearch when the ‘soil archive’ will be destroyed). Certainly inspired by Belvederewere the plans to embed the management of historic buildings and monumentsmore firmly in spatial planning (Beleidsbrief MoMo [Policy Document on the Mod-ernisation of Heritage Management] 2009). One point of debate in this connectionis the question whether planning tools can replace the traditional statutory protec-tion of groups of buildings (urban conservation areas) (Luiten 2011a).

The term ‘external integration’ refers to collaboration between heritage disci-plines and planners, politicians, the public and other groups in society. Knowledgefrom historical disciplines and from planning and architectural disciplines had to becombined to be able to connect past, present and future. This theme was exploredin the pilot projects mentioned above, which were required to be innovative anddemonstrate both internal and external integration. Over the course of 10 years,more than 400 such projects were initiated and elaborated, ranging in scale fromlocal to national. The plans have been published on a website (www.belvedere.nu)and summarised in regular newsletters, in booklets intended for the general publicand in a final publication (Eerden et al. 2009). The interuniversity teaching networkestablished a joint interdisciplinary and interuniversity course and produced a largenumber of publications, ranging from case books to manuals for the new heritagemanagement and more theoretical reviews (for instance, Van der Zande and During2009, Bosma and Kolen 2010, Labuhn and Luiten 2012).

External integration was further explored in an academic research programmeentitled Protection and Development of the Dutch Archaeological-Historical Land-scape, financed by the Dutch Science Foundation together with the same govern-ment departments that were also responsible for Belvedere and aiming at ascientific elaboration of the relations between cultural heritage and planning. Thisalso ran from 1999 to 2009, and was concluded by an international conference(2009) and a summarising publication (Bloemers et al. 2010).

The ‘internal’ and ‘external’ integration of the heritage sector set in motion bythe Belvedere innovation programme produced a wide range of results. Four obvi-ous developments that have resulted from 10 years of academic and practical experi-ments within the programme are listed below. These developments supported the

10 J. Janssen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

eek

TU

Del

ft],

[E

ric

Lui

ten]

at 0

2:58

16

Aug

ust 2

012

http://www.belvedere.nu

above-mentioned paradigm shift (from preservation by protection to preservation bydevelopment):

(1) Broadening of the concept of heritage. When the Belvedere Memorandumwas drawn up, the concept of ‘cultural heritage’ still meant: ‘features, objectsand patterns, structures which, either visibly or invisibly, constitute part ofour society and give an impression of a historic situation or development.The cultural heritage thus encompasses both archaeological and built heritage(including urban planning) and historic landscape heritage’. The focus wastherefore on the material culture of a certain age. Spatial planners and heri-tage managers tended to reduce the cultural heritage to physical and spatialvalues, overlooking their social and cultural significance. Thanks partly toBelvedere, interest in physical objects and structures is now accompanied byan understanding of the non-material (intangible) dimension and the dynam-ics of memory associated with it. Several Belvedere projects have, for exam-ple, shown how different generations and highly diverse social groupsrepeatedly appropriate heritage to define their own identity. The non-materialdimension has helped define the cultural and historical identity of places andbuildings in specific projects set up in response to Belvedere. It includes oralhistory, myths and sagas, and historical events. One example has been theredevelopment of the Strijp S complex belonging to the Philips company inEindhoven (Figure 3). There, the former physics laboratory, the site of alarge number of inventions that have transformed the electronics industry,was incorporated into the redevelopment plan not because of its physicalarchitecture, but because of its non-material value as a place of scientificinnovation.

(2) Rejuvenation of the concept of heritage. Besides a focus on the non-materialdimension of heritage, there has also been a rejuvenation of the conceptitself. This can be seen most clearly in the growing interest (especiallyamong professionals) in the post-war heritage of Modernism, the large-scaleresidential developments of the 1950s and 1960s, and in even younger

Figure 3. The former Philips complex Strijp-S, a 66 acre industrial site in the city ofEindhoven, is in the process of being transformed into a new urban quarter. The industrialheritage is reused for cultural purposes. Reproduced with permission from the CulturalHeritage Agency of the Netherlands, Amersfoort.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

eek

TU

Del

ft],

[E

ric

Lui

ten]

at 0

2:58

16

Aug

ust 2

012

objects. Such interest barely existed at the time when the Belvedere Memo-randum was published. Debates on the inclusion of the post-war north-eastPolder on UNESCO’s World Heritage List or the demolition of the BlackMadonna (a building from 1985 in The Hague, designed by architect CarelWeeber) also illustrate this process: though age remains an important factorin the awarding of official protected status under the Monuments and His-toric Buildings Act, it is less and less so in current debates on the use ofrecent heritage and landscape heritage. The interest in post-war heritage isnot unique to the Netherlands, as is shown by English Heritage’s extensiveresearch programme exploring the possibilities and opportunities for preserv-ing and developing the post-war heritage from the period 1950–2000 (While2006, Penrose 2007).

(3) Public participation. In association with the broadening and rejuvenation ofthe concept of heritage, there has also been a notable growth in interest andinput from non-experts in determining what qualifies as heritage and how itshould be dealt with. In 1999, the Belvedere Memorandum based its defini-tion of heritage and its evaluation entirely on the views of experts. Theyaccorded buildings and landscapes their historic importance. In the practiceencouraged by the Belvedere innovation programme, it soon became clearthat the changing role of the public in the spatial debate in the context ofdevelopment planning and regional development was also having an impacton the assessment of historical importance (Duineveld et al. 2010). In thecity of Amersfoort the Wagenwerkplaats (a repair workshop belonging to theDutch Railway Company), which was a permanent feature in the collectivememory of the local community, was preserved thanks to an initiative bylocal residents and former railway employees. The campaign, financially sup-ported by the Belvedere programme, helped ensure the future of the shedand its redevelopment as a collective facility for creative industries. The wayin which policy on spatial planning took shape from 2004 (when the PolicyDocument on Spatial Planning was published) changed dramatically: theone-sided approach via the public sector (government) made way for hori-zontal collaboration (governance). Besides the knowledge and opinion ofexperts, the public’s knowledge and valuation of cultural heritage thus cameto play an increasingly important role in integrating remnants from the pastinto spatial developments. Though public knowledge and views overlappedto some extent with those of experts, they also added to them in somerespects. The larger public have engaged with heritage, but to them it hasmore social and cultural meaning than physical and spatial significance. Thepublic’s appreciation of cultural heritage is a dynamic phenomenon, and itdiffers between individuals and groups.

(4) Interest in and input from designers. Preservation by development impliesthat the design disciplines will be given a greater role in recycling valuableelements of our surrounding environment. The search for new functions forold buildings and landscape patterns and the integration of these functionsinto existing structures is essentially a design challenge. Designers are con-cerned not so much with the traditional assessment of the value of heritageas with enhancing its value. Architects, urban planners and landscape design-ers bring to heritage management the skills needed to build on the historicessence of an old object, thus discovering potential new uses. The old and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

eek

TU

Del

ft],

[E

ric

Lui

ten]

at 0

2:58

16

Aug

ust 2

012

the new must be linked in a new way. This will not happen by itself. Such aprocess requires design input, giving the architectural and landscape interpre-tation more weight. In the context of the project that was initiated to high-light the position of the former border of the Roman Empire (the limes),artists and landscape designers made a host of suggestions, several of whichwere put into practice (Berkers and Vanstiphout 2009). Belvedere encourageddesigners to relate much more explicitly to monuments, historic buildingsand cultural landscapes. Heritage management also changed: coherence andspatial quality became important factors, alongside the value of the objectitself. As a result, design has also become more important for heritage man-agement. Efforts are no longer focused exclusively on preservation, but alsoon careful and appropriate development. The bringing together of design andheritage management thanks to Belvedere has resulted in a huge range ofnew spatial symbioses between the old and the new (Labuhn and Luiten2012).

In retrospect, we may conclude that the Belvedere innovation programme prompteda great deal of debate in the early years, in particular, and that it certainly helped inthe reorientation of Dutch heritage conservation. Since its start in 1999 the Belve-dere policy both evolved in the diversity and creativity of its scope and devolvedinto numerous and very varied local coalitions of official and unofficial agenciespursuing regional and local interests. It is not only the original political intentions,but also these local ‘projects’ that characterise the Belvedere contribution to Dutchspatial planning. These projects have clearly changed the heritage sector in becom-ing more receptive to collaboration with spatial planners, designers and citizens.Conversely, the concept of ‘preservation by development’ has taken root amongplanners and designers, inspiring them to be more aware of the past in their work.In many spatial development projects, including some of the large ‘Vinex’ residen-tial developments, heritage has been integrated into plans in highly innovative ways(Renes 2011a).

The world of heritage has taken on a new prestige. At the same time, heritageplanning has become more democratic thanks to the turn-around in policy, set inmotion by Belvedere and reinforced by successive policy documents, including thePolicy Document on Spatial Planning (Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning andthe Environment 2006) and the National Policy Strategy for Infrastructure and Spa-tial Planning (Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment 2011). As Van derZande and During (2009) put it: heritage had been taken from the people, and itwas up to Belvedere to remedy the situation. Belvedere reflected a more generalchange in administrative thinking that is characterised by more collaboration. Theparticipation of non-experts in integrating heritage into spatial projects does varyaccording to scale (involvement is greatest in local projects) and theme (involve-ment is greater in the case of historic landscapes than of post-war heritage from thereconstruction period). Historic research also seems to be more democratised thanspatial design and policy, although changes are afoot in this respect.

Yet, there was a lot of opposition in the heritage sector. This was undoubtedlylinked to a sense of threat among many people in the sector, particularly those car-ing for the built heritage, a sector that has always worked on the basis of standards.Anything goes in the post-modern world, one plan is not better than the other, andthe opinion of an expert carries no more weight than that of a layperson. There has


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

eek

TU

Del

ft],

[E

ric

Lui

ten]

at 0

2:58

16

Aug

ust 2

012

also been criticism of the major role played by designers, who have positionedthemselves as intermediaries between government and public, and who appear tohave profited more from the innovation programme than the heritage sector itself.There has for example been a great deal of criticism of the unclear, intuitive andlargely pragmatic (perhaps even opportunistic) use of history in the design process.This applies both to the interpretation of the historical development of the place orarea in question and to reference to design traditions themselves (Luiten 2006).

New challenges and alliances in the post-Belvedere age

In retrospect, the Belvedere innovation programme can be described as a well-timedinitiative that not only made clever use of the growing public interest in history, butalso neatly tied in with the search in Dutch spatial planning for new, mutually rein-forcing interests, as the Scientific Council for Government Policy had called for inits report on ‘the politics of spatial development’ (WRR 1998). The economic situa-tion also favoured the programme. The same holds true for the associated politicalambition to remodel the Netherlands on a large scale (‘Vinex’ policy, infrastructureplanning and restructuring of rural areas). These circumstances have changed radi-cally in recent years, however, and this has had implications for the integration ofheritage into spatial planning.

The end of 10 years of Belvedere policy in 2009 coincided with the globalbanking crisis, the financial and economic effects of which will be felt for a longtime to come in Dutch spatial planning. Economic growth can no longer be takenfor granted. Regional development and property development are in a dip. Expertsare questioning whether Dutch spatial planning can be financed (Van der Krabben2011). The growth idea, so dominant in spatial planning in the Netherlands, is ripefor review now that population growth is flattening out. Expansion has been theoverriding concern of Dutch spatial planning since the late nineteenth century. Now,the paces of expansion are slowing down; some parts of the Netherlands will evensee a decline in the near future, a development that is often accompanied by eco-nomic and social stagnation: a downward spiral of unemployment, devaluation anddepopulation. A new phase of urbanisation is set to occur, which will not only seegrowing differences between shrinking and growing regions, but also a shift infocus from urban expansion to the reconstruction of built-up areas (CPB 2010,VROMRaad 2010).

The recent structural economic and demographic changes have enhanced thetransformation process already underway in spatial planning policy. Belvedere grewout of a situation in which the national government claimed an active role in thedebate on how space in the Netherlands should be used. The current liberal-Christian democratic government has made major steps towards the further decen-tralisation of government responsibilities. Major restrictions have been imposed onnational government involvement. The current National Policy Strategy for Infra-structure and Spatial Planning has reduced the number of ‘national interests’ from39 to 13. As a result, more and more responsibilities in areas like heritage andnature protection and spatial planning have been devolved to lower levels ofgovernment. The recent ‘Strategy for Heritage and Territory’ (Ministry of Educa-tion, Culture & Science, OC&W 2011) lists only a few issues on which centralgovernment has reserved a role (limited and largely facilitating) for itself: (1) worldheritage; (2) the heritage of coast, sea and rivers in relation to climate change; (3)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

eek

TU

Del

ft],

[E

ric

Lui

ten]

at 0

2:58

16

Aug

ust 2

012

reuse and redevelopment of historic vacant properties; (4) the role of heritage inliving landscapes and (5) selection, description and protection of post-war buildings,urban ensembles and rural landscapes.

The post-Belvedere era, in which the philosophy and instruments of culturalplanning will be required to fit into regular knowledge, policy and research struc-tures, is thus getting underway in a radically changed social and administrative con-text (Bosma 2008). The key challenge is therefore to redefine the relationshipbetween heritage and spatial planning.

First, we expect the changes touched upon above to mean that heritage issueswill arise more often in the context of transformation and rezoning of the urban andrural topography. Substantial urban expansion projects will be confined mainly tothe Randstad conurbation in the west of the country, and in parts of Brabant andGelderland provinces to the south and east, laying claim to heritage values for thecreation of residential, work and leisure facilities. The transformation of dilapidatedresidential areas will become more important, and it is here that the relationshipwith heritage (mainly the more recent heritage) is most evident and, at the sametime, highly complex. In such cases, the heritage debate is likely to be about demo-lition or restructuring with respect for the original design and about the variousmeanings different groups of residents attribute to their environment. The sameapplies to disused industrial and commercial sites, whose historic value and lowcosts makes them attractive as locations for the creative industry. In every case,local authorities will have to profile their heritage strategically, more so than in thepast, in order to attract residents, visitors and companies.

The issue of added economic value will arise more frequently. Heritage manage-ment has an independent responsibility, in this economic recession, to come up withfinancially feasible solutions for the preservation and development of old buildingsand ensembles. Placing restrictions on use and adaptation also implies sharedresponsibility for the financial aspects, otherwise the heritage sector will eventuallyundermine itself, as many historic buildings will no longer be used and maintained.Exposure to market forces will mean that, more than in the past, heritage objectswill be required to prove its economic relevance. Changing public attitudes haveled to economic studies focusing more on the benefits to society. If businesses,associations and public authorities have the money to revitalise heritage buildingsand sites that have been neglected for years and use them for new purposes, theygain in value. An attempt can be made to measure this, and economists have madesome progress in developing methods that can help. This is not only important asan academic exercise: the costs are generally a known factor in any debate onwhether public money should be invested in cultural heritage. The costs are oftenhigh in relation to the expected revenues, and can therefore easily be used to argueagainst investment. However, if it can be argued on good grounds that there areother benefits to society, at least some of which can be expressed in financial terms,this can help to clarify matters for policy-makers.6

It is also expected that, more than in the past, heritage will have to ‘hitch a ride’with major spatial transformations. The heritage sector is currently cautiouslyexploring the extent to which depopulation in several parts of the Netherlands – arelatively new phenomenon in this country – provides opportunities for the heritage.Regional depopulation implies that the market for new properties will make wayfor a market in replacement and – even more so – reused properties in many partsof the country (as elsewhere in Europe). Other major spatial transformations also


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

eek

TU

Del

ft],

[E

ric

Lui

ten]

at 0

2:58

16

Aug

ust 2

012

hold out the prospect of risks to and opportunities for input from the heritage sector.One of these is climate change. Another will involve the land used for agriculturalproduction that, after half a century of operating in a protected European market,will be increasingly exposed to global market forces, and may well see food andenergy supply interests in competition with each other (Renes 2011a). Preservationof cultural heritage and ecological quality will have to be fought for once more inthese new circumstances.

In some of these arenas, civil society will claim a role in decision-making. Wealready see residents increasingly putting forward strong initiatives to preserve thevitality of their local environment, particularly in depopulating areas where servicesand facilities are in decline and traditional ways of life and identities are comingunder increasing pressure. In this context, decision-making is increasingly a matterof dealing with emotions, rather than of planned, rational analysis (Duineveld et al.2010). The further depopulation and structural changes in spatial planning progress,the more the spatial quality of the Netherlands will come to depend on bottom-upinitiatives, collective or otherwise.

As traditional parties involved in regional development, such as local authorities,housing corporations and property developers, commission fewer and fewer pro-jects, vitality springs from the needs and interests of the region itself. Developmentsare then based on actual need and the inherent qualities of the region, with a focuson the desires and requirements of users and owners. Responsibility for the qualityof life and the contribution of heritage will come to rest with new public–privatepartnerships whose success will not always be guaranteed from the outset. Thistrend will interfere with the growing influence of Europe. A dilemma arises wherecivic engagement meets European governance: should heritage policy be translatedinto law (for example, European directives) or should it be based on faith in thecreativity and organisational capacity of parties in the region? These developmentswill give rise to debate on the question of whether heritage necessarily has toinvolve bureaucracy and government interference and whether heritage managementcan be left to private initiative. The next generation of heritage specialists will facea host of attributed meanings, claims and emotionally driven approaches.

Finally, as a result of several major social changes (secularisation, the growth ofthe service economy, privatisation, internationalisation and so forth), a new batch ofheritage properties are set to come onto the market. After the harbour basins, facto-ries and farms from the twentieth century, we will see new groups of buildings andensembles losing their economic and functional basis (CRA 2008). Hundreds ofchurches and monasteries are being demolished or sold to healthcare companies orproperty developers, inner city industrial sites are being investigated to see whatpotential they hold for the city, military barracks are being transformed into residen-tial developments, military sites are being ‘given back’ to nature, old border controlfacilities are being reused for recreational purposes and urban post offices are clos-ing. These radical transformations have put heritage management and the designdisciplines on the alert. What is the ideal balance between permanence and change?Is there an adequate programmatic and functional basis (including in economicterms) for redevelopment, and how should the programmatic shifts be interpreted?What significance do physical relics retain when the social organisation is removed?Can redevelopment of this new generation of heritage sites be organised via anorganic, bottom-up movement? Is restoration with an emphasis on the visual ormaterial preservation still a good guide to giving a historic building a new life? The


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

eek

TU

Del

ft],

[E

ric

Lui

ten]

at 0

2:58

16

Aug

ust 2

012

future generation of planners and designers will certainly have a large variety ofmodification, design and management strategies to choose from when it comes toheritage concern.

Conclusions

The Belvedere innovation programme, as we have argued above, redefined andboosted the relationship between the heritage and spatial planning in the Nether-lands. The Belvedere programme called into question the closed system of profes-sional assessment and material fixation. It provided a new strategy for thepreservation of historic buildings and sites. A strategy designed not to turn builtheritage into museum pieces but to keep it in social, functional and economic circu-lation. Belvedere takes an open view of the heritage. It does not impose any prede-fined aesthetic or programmatic restrictions on revitalisation and potentialtransformation that a building, neighbourhood, site or region may undergo. In thisway, heritage provides the stakes in project-based negotiations and spatial planning.Looking back at the past 10 years, we can conclude that the Belvedere programmehas had a major impact on the world of clients, architects and urban planners. Inter-est in the history of buildings, neighbourhoods and landscapes has seen a sharpincrease. In large parts of the heritage sector, the old defensive attitude has cau-tiously made way for a more offensive, future-oriented attitude. The link betweenheritage preservation and spatial planning has been incorporated into policy in allkinds of ways over the past 10 years and into new collaborative practices in heritagemanagement, planning and design.

The changes we have described in the world of heritage management have beenaccompanied by a redefinition of the concept of heritage, from a shrinking resourcethat is under constant threat to an endless supply that is continually being redefined.We can conclude that the focus of Dutch heritage management has finally shiftedfrom an object-based approach to a more area- or region-based approach. Heritageis no longer shielded from spatial dynamics, but is now used to enhance the spatialquality of towns and regions. Furthermore, the expert system of traditional heritagemanagement has been challenged and the public have been allowed more input.Finally, we have outlined the new context in which heritage management is nowtaking place, in which structural changes in the field of spatial planning (fromgrowth to stabilisation or depopulation and changes in commissioning) will definehow it develops.

Compared with the Belvedere era (1999–2009), heritage issues will have to bedealt with in a new way. We expect the paradigm shift described above, from log-ical positivism (leading to objectified assessment and selection and a rationalapproach to heritage) towards social constructivism (with scope for emotion andengagement, different cultural perspectives and forms of appropriation andappreciation) to become even more important. Whether it will be possible to makea success of heritage management in the post-Belvedere era depends largely onwhether the heritage sector itself actively seeks to connect with major spatialchallenges and new clients. Without the support of an innovative governmentprogramme, the sector will have to take the initiative itself. Against this back-ground, the question arises as to whether the heritage sector has changed enoughto use the broad public appreciation of the history of towns and landscapes toshape the changing future.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

eek

TU

Del

ft],

[E

ric

Lui

ten]

at 0

2:58

16

Aug

ust 2

012

Our impression is that there is much to be gained in this area. An excessivelyrigid approach to heritage management is neither socially justifiable nor economi-cally viable, and it creates little cultural value. To change it, we need to bring theheritage sector out of its isolated position. Contemporary culture and programmaticreform are needed to give heritage new meaning, and thus a future. The heritagesector must move out of its comfort zone and participate wholeheartedly in the newspatial transformation challenges facing towns and regions. Ten years of Belvederepolicy have shown that towns and cities where heritage management is interwovenwith urban and spatial planning succeed best in bringing their own heritage into thereprogramming of their town or city.

Notes1. In 2006 the State Service for Archaeological Investigations (Rijksdienst voor het Oud-

heidkundig Bodemonderzoek) and the State Service for the Conservation of Monu-ments (Rijksdienst voor de Monumentenzorg) merged into the State Service forArcheology, Cultural Landscapes and Monuments (Rijksdienst voor Archeologie,Cultuurlandschap en Monumenten). Currently, this organisation is called The CulturalHeritage Agency. It is part of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. TheAgency works to protect the Netherlands’ most important movable and immovableheritage.

2. Because of The Capital of Culture programme in 2010 the number of tourists in theRuhr area rose significantly (by 13.4%, of which 18.1% were from outside Germany)compared with the same period of the previous year. About 10.5 million visitorsattended the Capital of Culture events. See, Zentrum fur Kulturforschung (2011).

3. The Belvedere programme itself had no statutory status but was debated (and adopted)by the Dutch parliament, thus giving it status in Dutch spatial policy. The BelvedereMemorandum was taken into account when preparing the Netherlands’ Fifth Memoran-dum on Spatial Planning, which was published in 2000. In the same year, however, theDutch government was brought down because of the Screbrenica affair and earlyelections meant that the Fifth Memorandum fell at the last hurdle.

4. The Belvedere Memorandum contained a map indicating the most valuable historic sitesof the Netherlands. The map was presented as an (GIS-based) instrument and methodfor the assessment of heritage values. It had been compiled using expert assessments bycentral government and provincial authorities. The map distinguished between areas withsectoral heritage values (archeological, landscape and built heritage) and those withcombined heritage values – the so-called Belvedere areas.

5. According to the Belvedere Memorandum the interests of heritage should form part ofthe planning procedure and hence of the regular planning costs. However, additionalresources were made available (rising from e 5 million in 2000 to 8,2 million in 2003and subsequent years), in order to stimulate the integration of heritage in spatial policy.Furthermore, a special budget was allocated with which experience could be gained inthe development-oriented approach to heritage, while structural resources were madeavailable to enable larger-scale projects, such as the New Dutch Waterline (Nieuwe Hol-landse Waterlinie), a water defence line in the Randstad area.

6. For example, Van Duijn and Rouwendal (2012) measured appreciation of the culturalheritage in historic city centres on the basis of house prices in the immediate vicinity,and found substantial effects.

Notes on contributorsJoks Janssen, PhD, is an urban planner, senior advisor on Spatial Development for theprovince of North-Brabant and professor of Heritage and Spatial Planning in the Land UsePlanning Group at Wageningen University, The Netherlands.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

eek

TU

Del

ft],

[E

ric

Lui

ten]

at 0

2:58

16

Aug

ust 2

012

Hans Renes, PhD, is a historical geographer, senior lecturer in Geography at the Faculty ofGeosciences at Utrecht University and professor of Heritage of City and Countryside in theArts Department at VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Eric Luiten is a landscape architect, Dutch Government advisor for Landscape and Waterand professor of Heritage and Spatial Design in the Department of Urbanism at DelftUniversity of Technology, The Netherlands.

Jan Rouwendal, PhD, is an economist, senior lecturer in Spatial Economy and professor ofEconomic Valuation of Heritage in the Economics and Business Administration Departmentat VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

ReferencesAshworth, G.J., 1997. Conservation as preservation or as heritage: two paradigms and two

answers. Built Environment, 23, 92–102.Ashworth, G.J., 2008. In search of the place identity dividend: using heritage landscapes to

create place identity. In: J. Eyles and A. Williams, eds. Sense of place, health and qual-ity of life. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 185–196.

Ashworth, G.J. and Howard, P., 1999. European heritage planning and management. Exeter:Intellect.

Ashworth, G.J. and Kuipers, M.J., 2001. Conservation and identity: a new vision of pastsand futures in the Netherlands. European Spatial Research and Policy, 8 (2), 55–65.

Belvedere Nota, 1999. Beleidsnota over de relatie cultuurhistorie en ruimtelijke ordening.Den Haag: VNG.

Berkers, M. and Vanstiphout, M., 2009. Limesweg. Amsterdam: Architectura & Natura.Bloemers, J.F.H. and Van der Valk, A.J.J., 2004. Multiple and sustainable landscapes linking

heritage management and spatial planning in the Netherlands. In: W. van der Knaap andA. van der Valk, eds. Paper for the fifth international workshop on sustainable land-useplanning. Wageningen: Wageningen University, 21–33.

Bloemers, T., et al., 2010. The cultural landscape & heritage paradox; protection and devel-opment of the Dutch archaeological–historical landscape and its European dimension.Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Bosma, K., 2008. Het post-Belvederetijdperk: cultuurhistorisch beleid verankerd in de ruim-telijke ordening en in de ontwerpopgave. Den Haag: Atelier Rijksbouwmeester.

Bosma, K. and Kolen, J., 2010. Geschiedenis en ontwerp. Handboek voor de omgang metcultureel erfgoed. Nijmegen: Uitgeverij Vantilt.

Castells, M., 1996. The power of identity. The information age: economy, society and culture2. Malden: Blackwell.

Centraal Planbureau [CPB], 2010. Stad en land. Den Haag: CPB.College van Rijksadviseurs [CRA], 2008. De oude kaart van Nederland: leegstand en herbe-

stemming. Den Haag: CRA.Cossons, N., 2000. Foreword: our questions for you. In: Review of policies relating to the

historic environment. London: English Heritage.Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), 2001. The historic environment: a force

for our future. London: DCMS.Duineveld, M., et al., 2010. The importance of being nimby: Een essay over burgerverzet en

erfgoed. Wageningen: Wageningen University.Eerden, M., et al., 2009. Belvedere. NU. Praktijkboek cultuurhistorie en ruimtelijke ontwik-

keling. Utrecht: Uitgeverij Matrijs.English Heritage (Collective authorship), 2000. Power of place: the future of the historic

environment [online]. London: English Heritage. Available from: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/discovery/heritage-review/index.asp [Accessed 4 June 2012].

Fairclough, G. and Rippon, S., 2002. Europe’s landscape: archeologists and the manage-ment of change. Brussels: EAC (EAC, Occasional Paper 2).

Florida, R., 2002. The rise of the creative class: and how it’s transforming work, leisure,community and everyday life. New York, NY: Perseus Book Group.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

eek

TU

Del

ft],

[E

ric

Lui

ten]

at 0

2:58

16

Aug

ust 2

012

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/discovery/heritage-review/index.asp

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/discovery/heritage-review/index.asp

Frijhoff, W., 2007. Dynamisch erfgoed. Heeft de cultuurgeschiedenis toekomst? Nijmegen:Uitgeverij SUN.

Groffen, B., et al., 2008. Evaluatie Belvedere: op na(ar) 2009. Nijmegen: Royal Haskoning.Hamer, D., 2000. Planning and heritage: towards integration. In: R. Freestone, ed. Urban

planning in a changing world. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis, 194–211.Heathcott, J., 2006. Curating the city: challenges for historic preservation in the twenty-first

century. Journal of Planning History, 5 (1), 75–83.Holtorf, C., 2007. What does not move any hearts – why should it be saved? The

Denkmalpflegediskussion in Germany. International Journal of Cultural Property, 14(1), 33–55.

Hospers, G., 2002. Industrial heritage tourism and regional restructuring in the EuropeanUnion. European Planning Studies, 10, 398–404.

Janssen, J., 2009. Protected landscapes in the Netherlands: changing ideas and approaches.Planning Perspectives, 24 (4), 435–455.

Janssen, J., 2011. De toekomst van het verleden. Tijdschrift voor Openbaar Bestuur, 5, 14–18.Kolen, J., 2007. Het historisch weefsel. Over de transformatie van de regio en de omgang

met het verleden in de 21ste eeuw. In: J. Rodermond, ed. Perspectief. Maakbaregeschiedenis. Rotterdam: Stimuleringsfonds voor Architectuur, 46–77.

Kuhn, T.S., 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of ChicagoPress.

Labuhn, B. & Luiten, E., 2012. Design with heritage: the Dutch Belvedere experience.Wageningen: Uitgeverij Blauwdruk.

Loulanski, T., 2006. Revising the concept for cultural heritage: the argument for a functionalapproach. International Journal of Cultural Property, 13, 207–233.

Luiten, E., 2006. Tot hier … en nu verder. Ruimtelijk ontwerp en historisch besef [Inauguraladdress]. Delft: Technische Universiteit Delft.

Luiten, E., 2011a. Gereanimeerd erfgoed. Nationaal Project Nieuwe Hollandse Waterlinie alsformat voor het landschapsbeleid. KNOB Bulletin, (6), 223–230.

Luiten, E., 2011b. Schilderij Nederland. De problematische bescherming van het cultuur-landschap. In: W. Eggenkamp, ed. Toekomst Beschermd Gezicht?. Den Haag: Collegevan Rijksadviseurs, 42–59.

Ministerie van OC&W, 2009. Beleidsbrief Momo Modernisering Monumentenzorg. DenHaag: Ministerie van OC&W.

Mommaas, J.T., 2000. De culturalisering van stad en land. Stedebouw & RuimtelijkeOrdening, 81 (5), 7–11.

Mommaas, J.T., 2002. City branding: the necessity of socio-cultural goals. In: T. Hauben, G.Ball, and E. Brinkman, eds. City branding: image building & building images. Rotter-dam: Nai Uitgevers, 32–48.

Nijhof, P., 1989. Het industrieel erfgoed en de kunst van het vernietigen. Zeist: Rijksdienstvoor de Monumentenzorg.

Penrose, S., 2007. Images of change: an archaeology of England’s contemporary landscape.Swindon: English Heritage.

Poirrier, P., 2003. Heritage and cultural policy in france under the fifth republic.International Journal of Policy, 9 (2), 215–225.

Raines, A.B., 2011. Wandel durch (Industrie) Kultur [Change through (industrial) culture]:conservation and renewal in the Ruhrgebiet. Planning Perspectives, 26 (2), 183–207.

Renes, H., 2011a. Erfgoed in interessante tijden [Inaugural address]. Amsterdam: VrijeUniversiteit Amsterdam.

Renes, H., 2011b. The Dutch national landscapes 1975–2010: policies, aims and results.Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 102 (2), 236–244.

Roberts, P., 2000. The evolution, definition and purpose of urban regeneration. In: P. Robertsand H. Sykes, eds. Urban regeneration. London: Sage, 9–36.

Schoorl, F., 2005. On authenticity and artificiality in heritage policies in the Netherlands.Museum International, 57 (3), 79–85.

Schuurman, A., 2003. Vertel, Muze, vertel. Geschiedenis, ruimte en cultureel erfgoed. In: M.A.W. Gerding, ed. Belvedere en de geschiedenis van de groene ruimte. Groningen enWageningen: NAHI, 9–49.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

eek

TU

Del

ft],

[E

ric

Lui

ten]

at 0

2:58

16

Aug

ust 2

012

Storper, M., 1997. The regional world: territorial development in a global economy. NewYork, NY: The Guilford Press.

Turnpenny, M., 2004. Cultural heritage, an ill defined concept? A call for joined up policy.International Journal of Heritage Studies, 10 (3), 295–307.

Van der Krabben, E., 2011. Gebiedsontwikkeling in zorgelijke tijden. Kan de Nederlandseruimtelijke ordening zichzelf nog wel bedruipen? [Inaugural address]. Nijmegen:Radboud Universiteit.

van der Laarse, R., 2005. Bezeten van vroeger: Erfgoed, identiteit en musealisering.Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Het Spinhuis.

van der Zande, A. and During, R., 2009. Erfgoed en ruimtelijke planning; ‘Sterft, gij oudevormen en gedachten!’. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers.

Van Duijn, M. and Rouwendal, J., 2012. Cultural heritage and the location choice of Dutchhouseholds in a residential sorting model. Working paper. Amsterdam: VU University.

Vervloet, J.A.J., Nijman, J.H., and Somsen, A.J., 2005. Planning for the future: towards asustainable design and land use of an ancient flooded military defence line. Landscapeand Urban Planning, 70, 153–163.

VROMRaad, 2010. Duurzame verstedelijking. Den Haag: VROMRaad.Wallagh, G., 2005. Urgentie gezocht. Belvederebeleid te ver verwijderd van alledaagse

realiteit. In: J. Rodermond, ed. Ontwerpen aan geschiedenis. Een cultuur van hetmaken. Rotterdam: Stimuleringsfonds voor Architectuur, 19–22.

Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid [WRR], 1998. Ruimtelijke ontwikkeling-spolitiek. Den Haag: SDU Uitgevers.

While, A., 2006. Modernism vs. urban renaissance: negotiating post-war heritage in Englishcity centres. Urban Studies, 43, 2399–2419.

Zentrum fur Kulturforschung, 2011. Mit Kultur zur Metropole? Evaluation der Kulturhaupts-tadt Europas RUHR.2010. Berlin: Zentrum fur Kulturforschung, p. 57.

Zukin, S., 1989. Loft living: culture and capital in urban change. New Brunswick, NJ:Rutgers University Press.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

eek

TU

Del

ft],

[E

ric

Lui

ten]

at 0

2:58

16

Aug

ust 2

012

International Journal of Heritage Studies Heritage planning and spatial development in the...

Documents

Transcript of International Journal of Heritage Studies Heritage planning and spatial development in the...