Janssen et al. Urban nodes of soft infrastructure

Urban nodes of soft infrastructure in Amsterdam and Berlin

How bottom-up initiatives facilitate and stimulate vital and viable cities

N. JANSSEN; R. JOHANN !Nico Janssen

Kapteynstraat 19B, 1097 KN Amsterdam, the Netherlands 0031641508452, nico@janssen-johann.eu

Rainer Johann Eisenbahnstrasse 6, 10997 Berlin-Kreuzberg, Germany

0031641508452, rainer@janssen-johann.eu

Keywords: bottom-up, urban development, vital cities, city planning, social infra-structure !Introduction

Over the last decades, a variety of local, community oriented, innovative urban in-itiatives developed in the metropolitan areas of Amsterdam and Berlin. They mani-fest themselves in unused locations and spaces, like wastelands, released plots, va-cant offices, school buildings and abandoned factories. Temporarily or structural, they offer a broad mix of cultural, economic, recreational and social facilities, func-tions and services to the local neighborhood and broader city. Attracted by their of-ten appealing appearance and offered facilities and functions, local residents, city dwellers, tourists and other groups come to these places, to meet, work, recreate and make use of the facilities. !Many of these often eclectic and authentic places are originated, developed and ope-rated by local community residents, artists and small enterprises. Most of them cont-ribute substantially to the livability and (re)vitalization of local communities and have significantly spatial and urban value. Because they extend the formal, ‘hard’ infrastructure provided by the local government, by adding a social component to it, these places and initiatives are named ‘Urban nodes of soft infrastructure’, or in Dutch: ‘Knooppunten van zachte infrastructuur’. !Since the famous study and publication “Urban Pioneers” by Klaus Overmeyer in 2007 [1], urban bottom-up places attract a lot of attention of urban researchers and

Janssen et al. Urban nodes of soft infrastructure

more popular publicity. Most studies and publications focus primarily on temporal of more hip and sexy places. In contrast, our research concentrated on places that offer, on a permanent basis, a broad mix of social, cultural and community services and functions to the local community and other city residents.

Figure 1: Vrijburcht (Amsterdam - Oost) !Key findings of our research project indicate that these, permanent bottom-up devel-oped urban nodes:

- Have substantial (local) value in terms of architecture, urban development, inno-vation and social, economic, cultural and ecological contribution.

- Are relatively cheap in terms of costs and investments compared to formal initia-tives from authorities and professional social and urban city developers.

- Need one or two inspiring initiators who will put al their efforts and determination in realizing the initiative and making a success out of it.

- Benefit from a large and eclectic mix of community oriented facilities, functions and services, including cheap catering.

- Often encounter a lot of difficulties and resistance to be developed, partly due to to lack of cooperation, or even counteraction by traditional stakeholders, like the (local) authorities. !

We believe that the findings of this study are of primary interest to politicians, admi-nistrators, planners, urbanists, housing cooperatives and other professionals involved in urban development and (re)vitalization of neighbourhoods. !

Janssen et al. Urban nodes of soft infrastructure

Research background

The immediate cause for our research project was an Open Call [2] in 2011 of the Netherlands Architecture Fund (SfA), shortly afterwards renamed to Creative Indu-stries Fund NL. In the Open Call, the SfA asked for new answers and research on innovative, urban arrangements and strategies that could effectively respond to cur-rent and future economic and social issues, trends and conditions concerning the urban and social program of the city. The Open Call stemmed from the noticing of the SfA and managing ministries that there existed a (growing) gap between the concerns and policies of urban planners and (local) authorities and the societal chal-lenges and issues in the field of education, healthcare, welfare, sports, arts and cultu-re, leisure, transportation and public space for meeting [3]. As a whole, these issues and challenges are of direct relevance for the sustainable vitality and viability of urban areas.

Map 1: Urban nodes of soft infrastructure in Amsterdam !Caused by the financial crisis of 2008, not only the commercial but also (semi) pu-blic and social sector underwent sharp budget cuts and shrinkage of resources avai-lable for investment in (semi) public, communal and societal services and facilities. A trend that is expected to be continued in the near and further future. Also a lack of interest by urban planners and developers in societal problems and the viability and vitality of the city was noted by the SfA. Another thing the SfA and ministries ob-served was a structural lack of involvement of citizens and local social and civil organizations, like childcare, catering, welfare, family doctors, elderly organizations,

Janssen et al. Urban nodes of soft infrastructure

schools, sports clubs and other social parties in urban planning and development. This applies even more for vulnerable people such as the disabled, the elderly and people who are socially isolated. !Growing interest for spontaneous, organic, bottom-up urban development

Parallel to the traditional, top-down modernist approach to urban planning and de-velopment in the Netherlands and Germany, in both countries there is growing inte-rest for spontaneous, organic, bottom-up urban development, reflected in an increa-sing number of urban initiatives by citizens, small entrepreneurs and civil society. Literature describes this phenomenon as DIY: Do-It-Yourself Urbanism, following well-known concepts and studies like “Urban Pioneers” [1], “City as Loft” [4], “Vormgeven aan de spontane stad” [5], “Selfmade City” [6], “Ortsentwürfe” [7] and “Meer ruimte voor initiatief” [8]. !While these research projects and research publications clearly expose this recent trend of organic and bottom-up urban development, often by focussing primarily on the more sexy, recreational temporarily initiatives, they pay less attention to the need for viable and vital neighbourhoods and the role that structural community oriented bottom-up initiatives (can) play in this. !Berlin versus Amsterdam

Amsterdam and Berlin are two important European metropoles, who share many commonalities, but also vary a lot in spatial structure, political and economic situati-on and urban planning regime. Both cities have a long standing tradition in top-down, modernist urban planning, but also in anarchism, wide protests against the (local) authorities, citizen activism and squatting. But while in Amsterdam the mo-dernist urban policy led to modernist quarters on former agricultural land, beyond the old city borders, in Berlin the modernist policy resulted in large-scale clearance and demolition of old(er) neighbourhoods in East and West Berlin. !And while the Amsterdam squatter scene had its heydays in the ’70s and ‘80s and since then faded into the background, the squatter scene in Berlin stayed vibrant and adapted to new, modern circumstances. They metamorphosed into a hip and sexy scene and became after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 famous for transforming empty buildings and lots into temporary hip and sexy, mostly recreational places. !Another important difference between both cities is that, after the fall of the Berlin Wall and reunion of East and West part, Berlin was littered with countless unused buildings, wastelands and factories. Even the shortlived real estate boom in Berlin,

Janssen et al. Urban nodes of soft infrastructure

caused by the early nineties reunion, didn’t change much in the amount of available (free) space in Berlin. Taking and using these empty spaces and buildings for tempo-rary use was simple and in most cases not forbidden in Berlin. In Amsterdam, howe-ver, there was almost no free space or vacant building available after the real estate boom of the nineties. For a long period the main concern of the city of Amsterdam was not to waste any valuable space and to use spatial leftovers as (commercial) effective as possible, predominantly for housing and office building purposes. !Combined with other interesting commonalities and differences, like their common social political history, resulting in a large social housing sector with strong housing corporations, or a similar city administration system, Berlin and Amsterdam make an interesting case to compare on organic urban development.

Figure 2: ExRotaprint (Berlin - Wedding) !Research program

In the research project we studied in depth more then twenty bottom-up initiated Urban nodes of soft infrastructure in the metropolitan areas of Amsterdam and Ber-lin. These nodes of soft infrastructure were examined based on the following questi-ons:

1. What are the (specific) features and characteristics of these vital urban nodes? 2. How do these vital urban nodes emerge, develop and work and what drives and

motivates their initiators? 3. Which other stakeholders (actors) are closely involved in the genesis, function-

Janssen et al. Urban nodes of soft infrastructure

ing and success of these vital urban nodes? 4. What are the benefits of these bottom-up urban nodes and what is their impact

on the viability and vitality of the district, neighborhood, or city as a whole? 5. What sort of problems are encountered when setting up and operating these

bottom-up (urban) nodes and what sort of resistance and obstacles are met? 6. How can the emergence of nodes of soft infrastructure be encouraged and facili-

tated and how (by what means), can obstacles for their development and success be removed? !

Findings

Urban nodes: conspicuous places with a broad offer of functions and facilities

Urban nodes of soft infrastructure almost always are urban or architectural conspic-uous places and buildings in the city and surprisingly often it are monuments. For commercial project developers these places often are to complex, small, old or un-popular to renovate or (re)develop. The wide and eclectic offer of small-scale com-munity-oriented (social) functions and facilities strongly contributes to the success of these places. The more and diverse their offer, the better it seems. For example, the Meevaart, located in a classic late 19th century former school building in Ams-terdam, is home to more than twenty different facilities (functions), ranging from catering and meeting place, to neighborhood garden, training room, music lessons provider, sports facility, et cetera. Accessible meeting place and cheap, attractive catering also is very important for success of local oriented bottom-up urban nodes. !Urban nodes often have considerable (local) economic impact

Because of their large share of volunteering work, are urban nodes relatively inex-pensive to develop and exploit. They almost always have wide local exposure and support and generate surprisingly much (local) employment and economic value. ExRotaprint in Berlin for example is responsible for more than 300 (direct or indi-rect) full-time jobs and more than 3 million in annual tax revenues. Vrijburcht in Amsterdam ‘generates’ around 50 full-time jobs and the monetized economic and the social value of Park Frankendael amounts to tens of millions of euros. Because initiators of urban nodes try to realize their ideals and dreams through their initiative, these initiatives remarkably often are precursors and innovators in all sorts of areas. For instance, Hockey club AthenA in Amsterdam realized the most sustainable sport ‘canteen’ of the Netherlands., !Origination and succes cannot be planned

It’s impossible to predict in advance the occurrence or success of bottom-up urban nodes or plan for success. Each node has its own special triggers and complex dy-

Janssen et al. Urban nodes of soft infrastructure

namics for initiation, development and success. A dynamic process that has no linear path, but often exists of a large number of coincidental twists and involvement of a large number of (different) actors. A bold, visionary initiator who will stop at not-hing in realizing the initiative is necessary for its success. Initiators of urban nodes are often to greater or lesser extent dependent on the cooperation of the government. For example in finding funding for their initiative, or the willingness to release or cede lots or buildings owned by the (local) authorities, in changing zoning or vice versa reversing planned zoning changes, et cetera.

Map 2: Bottom-up urban nodes in Berlin !Initiators are barely noted or acknowledged by politics and planners

Authorities still are mainly focused on direct financial benefits in urban development and planning and much less or not at all to more intangible effects and benefits. Sub-sequently, the often major positive (social) benefits of local initiatives and bottom-up urban nodes for the neighborhood and community are barely acknowledged. Co-production with residents, community initiatives, developers and local authorities in developing the city and ensuring the vitality of neighbourhoods is still a long way to go, as is also revealed by other urban studies. However, bottom-up urban nodes are not the panacea for all problems concerning the vitality and livability of neighbour-hoods. Origination of urban nodes is often hindered by planners and politics

Our research shows that most bottom-up initiators of urban nodes face many hurdles and problems in realizing their initiative. Many of these barriers are tied to the regu-

Janssen et al. Urban nodes of soft infrastructure

lar, with urban development and social and city planning involved stakeholders, such as the (local) government, urban planners, urban financiers and social and commer-cial developers. These parties, who are used to direct the urban development process or warrant the vitality and viability of neighbourhoods, often have very different ideas and agendas on what should happen to free, or to be released plots and buil-dings in the city, as compared to local residents and bottom-up initiators. Bottom-up initiatives are hardly seen or acknowledged as serious partners and primarily regar-ded as cute, temporary, often cultural fringes. Trailblazers for when it really comes down to it. !Noteworthy differences between Berlin (Germany) and Amsterdam (the Netherlands)

Striking difference between Amsterdam (the Netherlands) and Berlin (Germany) is that German initiators generally operate much looser and independent from (local) authorities then their Dutch counterparts. In Amsterdam, initiators often look to the local government for admission, sponsoring and other forms of help. Dutch initiators expect this government support. In Berlin, this attitude hardly is seen, partly because its much easier to find funding in Germany and because real estate prices are much lower and the German government is much less caring about social cohesion and quality of life in neighbourhoods and districts. In the Netherlands (Amsterdam) in-itiators and government often try to accomplish some sort of cooperation. In connec-tion with this, Dutch authorities have a strong tendency to encapsulate social initiati-ves in their (own) regular policy. !Discussion

Our research shows that (local) government and urban planning practice still prima-rily sectoral are organized and focussed on top-down planning and involvement of traditional urban development stakeholders. The primarily hierarchical, closed, com-plex system of urban practices, procedures and professional parties, has a very trou-blesome relation with bottom-op initiatives and organic urban development. Instead of thinking in financial soundness and financial results of plans, in bricks and mass volume and involvement of professional parties, local authorities should put more trust in passionate, often highly skilled citizens who want to improve the local urban environment and social infrastructure. More attention should given by (local) autho-rities in creating circumstances that stimulate the arise and development of sustaina-ble, vital, viable neighborhood and city quarters. For this, a less rigid system of ur-ban planning and more open eye for civil parties and their urban initiatives is nee-ded. There is need for an open, facilitating, democratic approach to urban planning. !

Janssen et al. Urban nodes of soft infrastructure

The researched urban nodes indicate several specific issues to be resolved in stimu-lating and facilitating successful development and operation of urban nodes in Am-sterdam and Berlin. Issues are the legal form of urban node initiatives, the valuation and transfer of communal land and buildings on urban node initiators, the financing of the development of urban nodes (and specifically the purchase of land and buil-dings), the mobilization of sufficient financial and real-estate expertise to create a good plan and build a solid business case for development of the urban node and finally, cooperation between (local) urban authorities and urban node initiators. !Germany (Berlin) and the Netherlands (Amsterdam) can learn a lot from each other in creating a climate that stimulates organic urban development and origination of successful urban nodes with a large amount of societal benefits for residents and neighbourhoods. For instance, one of the main problems in the Netherlands is lack of a suitable legal form that reflects the social and communal goals of urban nodes. The three most often used legal forms; the association, foundation and cooperative organization, all have their problems and disadvantages and don’t comply complete-ly to the desired legal structure. In Germany, there exist the gGmbH, or ‘gemeinnüt-zige Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung’. A legal form based on the private com-pany structure that is specifically created for social and societal organizations. This legal form is very popular with urban node initiators. The Dutch (Amsterdam) lease-hold system gives some starting points for an effective way of transferring commu-nal land (and buildings) to civil urban node initiators, taking in account communal goals. However, the current use of the leasehold system in Amsterdam is very com-plex, technical and not aimed for helping civil urban initiatives or creating vital and livable neighbourhoods. Et cetera. !Acknowledgments

Finally, we want to acknowledge the Creative Industries Fund NL as main funder of this research project for their trust in us and all those who have contributed with their knowledge and enthusiasm to the success of the project. We also want to thank Jeroen Bakker for ICT support, Yvonne Siegmund for designing schemes and images and the members of the consultative group; Vincent Kompier, Stefan Metaal, Jan Poolen and Eric Frijters for their opinions and reflections that inspired us and kept on the right path. !!

Janssen et al. Urban nodes of soft infrastructure

References

[1] Overmeyer, K. (ed.) (2007), Urban Pioneers: Temporary Use and Urban Development in Berlin, JOVIS Verlag GmbH, Berlin

[2] Open Oproep: Strategieën voor een precieze, programmatische stedenbouw (2010), de Architect [Online], Available from: http://www.dearchitect.nl/nieuws/2010/10/20/open-oproep-sfa-strategieen-voor-een-precieze-programmatische-stedenbouw.html [Accessed 4 June 2015]

[3] Subsidie stimulering stedenbouw van start (2010), Stimuleringsfonds voor Architectuur [Online], Available from: http://stimuleringsfonds.nl/nl/actueel/nieuws/subsidie_stimule-ring_stedenbouw_van_start [Accessed 4 June 2015]

[4] Baum, M. and Christaanse, K. (Eds.) (2012), City as loft: adaptive reuse as a resource for sustainable urban development, gta Verlag, Zürich

[5] Buitelaar, E. et al. (2012), Vormgeven aan de spontane stad: belemmeringen en kansen voor organische stedelijke herontwikkeling, Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving; Urhahn Urban Design, Den Haag

[6] Ring, K. (ed.) (2013), Self Made City, Kristien Ring; AA PROJECTS und Senatsverwal-tung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt, Berlin

[7] Lange, B. et al. (Eds.) (2013), Ortsentwürfe: Urbanität im 21. Jahrhundert, Jovis, Berlin [8] Niemans, E. and Slegh, E. (Eds.) (2014), Meer ruimte voor initiatief, Organische

stedelijke ontwikkeling: Een tussenstand, Platform31, Den Haag