- Email: [email protected]
Dutch growth management: the two faces of success
ABSTRACT Faludi, A., 1992. Dutch growth management:
the two faces of success. Landscape [‘&an Ham.. 22: 93- 106.
Growth management has two faces: preventing grou;th where it should not occur, and providing for commensurate growth elsewhere. Dutch planning has been successful in doing both. Government control over land has contributed to its success. In addition. the Dutch coordinate policies to make development fall into a weil thought out pattern by invoking an agreed planning doctrine reflecting a predilection for rule and order. But the ability to sustam this will be severely tested by the requirement for an additional 1 million housing units to be built in the most densely populated part of the western Netherlands, the Randstad.
INTItODUCTION The edges of most Dutch towns and cities are clearly marked by canals, rows of trees, open space, and the like. These edges signal the will to maintain the distinction between town and -’ rntry. Above all, they bear witness to the intenlion and the ability of the Dutch to keep development at bay. Order is the rule, and Dutch rulers are called upon to maintain order. This is the key to understanding Dutch growth management which has been a remarkable success since the mid-l 970s. Growth management concerns the location, intensity and timing of development. (In the USA, it also involves developers in the financing of infrastructure; see Chinitz, 1990, p. 6.) Successful growth management has two faces. First, the prevention of growth where (as seen from some overall point of view) growth should not occur; this particularly concerns Correspondence to: A. Faludi, Institute of Planning and Demography, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130, 1018 VZ, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
areas of outstanding scenic beauty, first class agricultural land, fragile environments and areas where there are hazards ( such as on flood plains or near major polluters). Second, the provision for commensurate growth (with all facilities included) in other, more suitable areas. The need to make provisions for growth is based on the assumption that there are real needs which must be met. Housing an expanding population according to prevailing standards (such as was the policy of successive Dutch post-war governments) does mean essential growth. Of course, we might argue on two grounds that such growth is not essential: (a) The standards themselves might not be commensurate with the need to preserve resources. Therefore they might be in need of review. (b) Growth might not have to occur in the jurisdiction under consideration, but elsewhere (what in British parlance is called NIMBY: Not In My Back Yard ). Neither argument holds water, and each for
0 1992 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved 0169-2046/92/$05.00
good reason.
First,
.
1x ftxsible
to
lower
s of open space. access. Rather, the future seems to lie in ~~~i~t~i~i~~ and even increasing the sul$jeclive ~~~0~~~~~~ of environmental quality, whilst at the same time making growth more sustainable, as current wisdom has it. Second, local growth management may have non-local ramifications (Chinitz, 1990, p. 3 ). For the purposes of housing policy , larger areas are more or less closed systems; the population cannot be moved elsewhere. This is especially so with nation states. Clearly. it would not be feasible for a nation state not to cater to housing needs for reasons of growth cDntro1. Pressure for growth may be irresistible, therefore. Where this pressure occurs in a situation of limited resourcc”s, we can expect grovr;th management. Now since it concerns a bounded territory, growth management carfies within it the idea of some form of overall plan indicating where and when growth is permissible and which land uses should be preserved. Consideration will first be given to the nature of Dutch housing needs. The Dutch response, (since the mid-l 97Os, anyway} in terms of successful growth management, will be introduced in the two sections that follow. Next we shall point out that such success is in need of explanation. Drawing on previous work, we shall suggest that the secret of Dutch success in this field lies in the existence of an agreed national planning doctrine. This doctrine will then be shown to reflect a Dutch predilection for the rule and order which has been the leitmotif of successive generations of planners, guiding the way in which they formulate and use concepts, and their planning concepts and conduct as a whole. The two sections after that flesh out the idea of rule and order as reflected in Dutch national planning doctrine and the two faces of Dutch growth management. We end with speculations as to the future of Dutch growth management. Contrary to what is being said elsewhere, we think that Dutch
radically
the stsndii
growth control will co~t~~~e to be a cornerstone of Dutch national planning doctrine.
etc. in the short term.
The Dutch population expanded rapidly after Would War II. In the early 196bs it seemed that, by the year 2000, there would be 20 mille living in the Netherlands, compared :k”ith approximately 12 million at that time. 9?1BTdamage had led to an acute housing shortage. This shortage was regarded as public enem) :: umber one, and the challenge to house the miiirons still to be born was considered a worth~.iriIe task to be approached with traditional t’:utch industriousness and eff%acy. So. by any standards, urban growth was (and still is, see beiow ) an essential ingredient of the Dutch situation; the more so since, in theory if not in practice, the Dutch government had been committed to safeguarding adequate housing for all, ever since the 1920s (De Ruijter. 1987 ). This commitment has become so intense since then that the right to adequate housing is now enshrined in the newly revised constitution. Besides, rising aspirations leading to a more suburban lifestyle in the 1960s and 1970s me.ant that space requirements per capita were also on the increase. Even when it became clear that the population would stabilise at around 15 million some time during the twenty first century, the task of meeting their aspirations continued to seem daunting. More recently, another source of housing need, dear to the hearts of progressives, has gained public recognition. Traditionally, the Dutch have been family-centered with rather strict mores. In the 1960s and 197Os, they began to embrace more liberal lifestyles with a vengeance. Young people now leave their parental households early, laying claim to independent housing. They compete with the growing number of divorcees. As a result, even though population growth is modest these days, household formation continues at a rapid rate, fueling a continuing housing need, albeit of a
arming Report alder disay mean adding 1 rn~l~io~ houses to the existing fabric of the western Netherlands or Randstad etween now and the Year 2015 (Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and Environment, 1988; Needham and Dekker, I 988 ).
DUTCH RESPONSE Considering the sheer density of existing development, meeting Dutch housing needs has presented major challenges in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Questions in need of a coherent answer, reflecting the exigencies of the situation including the morphology and sheer boundedness of Du?ch space, remain the same. (a) Where should the requisite growth go? (b ) Which areas should remain unspoiled? (c) How can this be achieved? After initial failures, the Dutch government, in conjunction with the provinces and the major towns and cities most immediately affected by the housing shortage, has been remarkably successful in channeling growth since the mid 1970s. This involved the two-pronged attack on the problem which has been identified above as typical of growth management. First, Dutch national planning imposed effective limits to the growth of rural settlements within commuting distance of major population centers (as most rural settlements are anyway in the Netherlands). They were not allowed to entice outsiders into wanting to settle there. Growth was pegged to the needs of the indigenous population. This was achieved by inducing Provinces to attend to such matters in their autonomous task of approving local planning schemes. Local communities had to prove that there was indigenous demand for the provisions which their plans made, otherwise approval was not given. Second, the massive subsidies which the national government provides in pursuance of its
policy of housing for all were targeted in such a way as to pro dozen deliberately chosen new towns and expanding towns (called growth centers and growth towns, depending on the extent of the intended growth and their relation to the donors). In addition, these communities were given priority treatment for many other related grants and projects. In the early 198Ck, at the crest of the wave of this policy (coinciding, it must be said, with a slump in private home construction which is inherently less susceptible to government control), close to one quarter of all new housing went to the few communities earmarked for growth. To put this in perspective, there were more than 700 municipalities at the time, so for the few growth centers and growth towns to have an almost 25?43share of all housebtiilding is impressive. So successful was the government policy of encouraging growth that most of the designated new towns and expanded towns actually exceeded their growth targets. Also, there are now more than half a million witnesses to the success of this policy; these are the people who have migrated to where successive govemment documents said they ought to go. Half a million out of a population of 15 million moving within a time span of less than two decades is the equivalent of approximately 9 million American citizens going to new towns located on public transport routes, with all facilities provided for them. Initially, it must be said, the policy had been anything but a success. The principles had been enunciated as early as the late 195Os, and SUCcessive policy documents had elaborated upon them. These principles were the following: (a) recognition of the western Netherlands as the core of the country; the source of economic dynamism but beset by the problems of overcrowding and environmental deterioration; (b) the concomitant perception of the remainder of the country as relatively empty with the response shifting from regarding the pe-
Vh
riphery as in need of development to seeing it as blessed with a more healthy environment; (c) as regards the western Netherlands, the recognition of the uniqueness of the existing pattern of urban development which formed a ring of towns and cities, none of them very dominant compared with all the others, and arranged around an area of open space (with the intention, so far, to keep it that way; see Wijers, 1975 ). This Randstad/Green Heart complex of ideas is one of the most characteristic features of Dutch national planning doctrine and the central metaphor to which it owes its later successes (see Fig. I ). Noteworthy amongst the succession of government documents is the so-called Seconc’ Report on Physical Planning, which came the closest of all the national planning documents to being a national plan. (Needham and Dekker. 1988, p. 336. ) In pursuance of the Green Heart policy, it had stilaulated in the mid- 1960s
4
F4LL’DI
that the smallest settlements must cater only for their indigenous housing needs. Up to the mid-197Os, however, it was exactly these settlements which enjoyed the fastest growth. Glasbergen and Simonis ( 1979) have determined the forces responsible in two components. (a) The overwhelming desire of middle- to high-income families to move to homes with gardens, a desire which the availability of the motorcar in the 1960s had made possible. (b) The equally strong desire of local politicians to provide housing and other facilities in line with what they considered to be modem requirements. This desire could only be met by means of larger schemes for suburbanites, as well as for the indigenous population. There are several reasons for this. First, government subsidies, especially for low-cost housing, required larger schemes in order to achieve economies of scale and thus remain below the
Fig. 1. Randstad showing the three most important elements for planning. (i ) Bounded urban zones plus central open area; (ii) agglomerations as independent elements plus buffer zones; (iii) outward expansion. From Wijers ( 1975 ), p. 9.
and the building industry were promoting industrialised building techniques which also favored larger schemes. Fourth, it is common for Dutch low-cost development to be subsidised by development designed for people with middle and high incomes. This is facilitated through iand pricing. The price charged for low-income housing is substantially less, with the balance being distributed over the other income levels. This, again, requires new development to come in sizable increments, with each scheme representing as near a cross-section of the population in terms of income distribution as is feasible. Fifth, the government was committed to fulfilling the annual housing program drawn up to combat the housing shortage. This commitment was such that the Minister of Physical Planning (who happens also to be responsiile for housing) could not afford to let planning considerations stand in the way of this goal. In this way, local imperatives and those of national housing policy combined to undermine planning policies concerning the Green Heart. Government housing officials even went as far as to encourage municipalities to hold back from submitting their plans for approval until later in the year, at which time the annual figures for housing starts would be debated in parliament, thus the Minister was put under pressure to approve schemes, even where they contravened planning policy. Glasbergen and Simonis’ case studies gave them cause for much reflection upon the nature of state intervention, the distribution of powers between central and local government, etc. But by the time their study was published, the situation had changed, because among other reasons, one of the conditions for success which they had identified on the basis of their research had been fulfilled: a positive policy providing alternatives to suburban growth At
that
time,
into
its mvn.
alanced growth management came
the gove~me~t
This section discusses the period during growth policy was successful. In it the policy was one of ‘concentrated deconcentration’, a term which we shall explain below when dealing with the ideas behind Dutch planning doctrine. It is important to note that now, even though ideas are changing, this policy continues, albeit in reduced form. This is because investments in infrastructure, municipal services, etc., in the new towns and expanded towns need to be safeguarded. Go,although the government began to have its doubts about the wisdom of concentrated deconcentration as early as the mid- 198Os, implementation of this policy continued. Such are the dictates of committed costs. The milestones in the development of Dutch growth management were: (a) a 1972 housing policy statement providing subsidies and other forms of special considerations extended to designated communities willing to expand by a minimum of 6000 housing units over a loyear period; (b) part 2 of the Third Report on Physical Planning (the so-called Urbanisation Report) giving coherent expression to this policy against the broader issues of the day such as the growing concern for the ‘limits of growth’ and the wasteful aspects of suburban development (with energy consumption being at the front of everybody’s mind). As emphasised previously, this policy has been successfully implemented. How could this be? The question is the more urgent since the Urbanisation Report (as indicated, the most comprehensive statement of this policy) does not measure up to the standards which one applies to a policy document. In Faludi ( 1987, pp. 129) we indicated why. For the Urbanisation Report to operate as an effective guide to action, it would have had to include more spewhich
4.
3s
cilia guidance POthose in the field. But it did
no\ do so. In particular% there were no contingency plans. Indeed, lip service to uncertainty apar,. the Urhanisaticn Report lacked any form Of meaningful provision for uncertainty management (De Ruijter. 1978 B.Not even the financial implications of the policy have been properly anaiysed: a key aspect, one would think. of a policy mostly concerned with the allocation ofgovernment funds. WH.4T SOURCES OF SUCCESS? The remarkable feat of Dutch growth management is in need of explanation for yet another reason, The literature &ounds with analyses of implementation failure but offers little in the way of analysing success. Folklore has it that the perennial struggle against the sea has made the Dutch a highly disciplined people, well-used to accepting common responsibility and public control. The degree of public control over land is indeed extraordinary. Approximately 80% of all land coming into development goes through the hands of the municipality concerned. This cuts out most of the land speculation which is the bzne of planning in other countries. Land is a neutral input and land policy ‘<...in the service of, and an instrument for, housing and town planning policy...“, Needham ( 1988, p. 49; a student of Dutch land policy coming, like the present author, from abroad) observes with amazement. Add to this the fact that the national government is a major source of funds where housing development is concerned. In the early 1980s when private investors shied away ?;om housing, most development received some kind of government subsidy. Now, the policy is to reduce the proportion of subsidised housing to a ‘mere’ 50%, still staggeringly high to foreign eyes. ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune’, as the saying goes. The success of Dutch growth management may seem less of a mystery, therefore, than it does at first sight. Coupled with the land policy de-
F4LLlDI1
scribed above, government funding of housing creates the preconditions for successful growth management. Government funding and land policy were two preconditions. indeed. Without them the success of Dutch growth management would have been difficult to achieve. But they do not explain why this success came in the 1970s and 1980s and not before. After all, both preconditions existed before then. (a ) Public land acquisition using powers of eminent domain has been standard procedure since the beginning of this century. Compensation was somewhat more than existing-use value. but less than what the land would have fetched on the free market, if indeed such a thing as a free market in land for development existed in the Netherlands (see Needham et al., 1989). (b) Housing subsidies, too, were introduced a long time ago, to be exact in 1901 when the first Housing Act was passed. After World War II, grants took on massive proportions, yet without growth management becoming an immediate issue, let alone the success which it has been since the mid- 1970s. So what explains Dutch success in coordinating the use of these (and other) instruments to make new development fall into a well thought out pattern? We think this can be explained by one key factor: the consensus which, by that time, had been formed about the doctrine to be followed. This is what we turn to next. PLANNING DOCTRINE To explain Dutch planning success we need to look at the ideas underlying Dutch growth management. They concern the organisation of space and the role of government in it. In the Dutch case, these ideas form a coherent whole. This body of thought commands considerable support, both from the professional community (which formulated the ideas, propagated them and is now administering the policies
YY
parts.For dhis the
vari-
ety of actors invslv ent as a ~la~~~ng doctrine. Elsewhere ( Faludi. 1989, pp. 60-6 1: see also Alexander and Faludi, 1990) we descri planning doctrine as a coherent body of tho sustained ever a period of time relating to (a) spatial arrangements within an area of jurisdiction, (b ) the development of that area and (c) the way both are to be handled. Using the London conurbation and, indeed, the Dutch Randstad/Green Heart complex of ideas as examples, we claimed that a fully developed doctrine integrates views about spatial arrangements and development into an overall principle of spatial organisation for ;he plan area. As regards the way govemment handles development, we claimed that this reflected planning principles addressing two related issues. First, the preparation of plans based on, albeit implicit, notions about the relationship between knowledge and action, and the nature of democratic governance. Second, the form and use of plans is based on legal theory, amongst other things. Although many of its elements may come from elsewhere, such planning doctrine .is specific to the area and the planning subject concerned. The reverse side of the coin is that, without a planning subject with jurisdiction over its territory, we would not expect to find planning doctrine. But not all planning subjects with jurisdiction over their territory formulate a planning doctrine. For this to happen, a further condition needs to be met, i.e. the subject must perceive its jurisdiction as having a distinct shape requiring a coordinated response. Otherwise it would not grope towards identifying the most suitable principle of spatial organisation. We can also say that the planning subject must see its territory as forming a coherent whole. This is partly a matter of perception, in particular of interdependences among its constituent
UQXEX, there must be relevant knowledge based on research available. Ultirflatek Qf course, the acceptance of interdependence requiring a policy response is a matter of political choice. Dutch growth management se3xs to provide an object lesson in the development and working of planning doctrine. It is to an elaboration of this lesson tha; we n :w turn. lt was the articulation of Dutch planning doctrine, or rather of the planning policies therein, which made the Urbanisation Report into the effective instrument of planning policy which it was. The underlying doctrine substituted for the lack of guidance given by the policy statements as such. Planning doctrine may shape the assumptive world ( Fudge and Barrett, 19t Y pp. 265-266) of planners. In intemalising ctc-trine, the many actors invo!ved pltrsue simi!ar ends and draw on similar imagery. This accounts in no small way for the achievements which we have reported on. As an aside, the doctrine was so successfully articulated that the key concepts denoting the principle of spatial organisation, such as Randstad, Green Heart and growth center have become household words in the Dutch language. The proverbial man in the street knows them, they are being invoked as rallying cries, as a way of designating regions, and Randstad is even the chosen name for a new and growing business enterprise. There can hardly be a more evident indicator of success of planning concepts than this! The articulation of doctrine apart, there were other factors responsible for its success. The National Physical Planning Agency made a good job of publicising the policy in both the popular press and planning journals alike. Many meetings were held to discuss the strategy, quite apart from the consultation which is a regular feature of Dutch planning procedures. Not the least important had been the emissaries of the national agency, five (now four) planning inspectors (something which Glasbergen and Simonis, 1979, also recog-
nised ). The inspectors sit in on all meetings of provincial planning commissions within the area allotted to them and perceive their role as that of socialising the planning fraternity into the national policy (the upshot of *his being that they rarely, if ever, use their statutory powers of control). In FaIudi ( 1987 ) we elaborated on the implications of this case. Dutch national planning policy seemed to provide an instance of successful problem definition, of the formulation of an overall ideology for the planning profession to adhere to. The effect is similar to that of a scientific discipline having found a paradigm. Problems were identified, and directions indicated for their solution. It is in response to this that the notion of planning doctrine was proposed for the first time. Planning doctrine indeed helps in interpreting the success of Dutch growth management. But it is ironic that this doctrine only began to be ef%ctive in the early 1980s when people had already started questioning it. The result is the siruation described at the beginning of this section, i.e. a grudging completion of schemes in places where prevailing wisdom says they should not have occurred in the first place. So it seems that, as with the final acceptance of planning doctrine in the mid- 197Os, changing it is a slow process, too. Whether the doctrine will eventually be abandoned altogether is an interesting question. The last section extrapolates present trends into the future. It seems likely that growth management, including a policy of directing growth not only to new towns and expanded towns but possiLIly to whole regions earmarked for enforced urbanisation, is within the realm of the possible. RULE AND ORDER In the Dutch case, planning doctrine reflects a predilection for rule and order, and to this extent popular explanations of the success of Dutch planning are to the point. Here we trace
the expression of these sentiments culminating in the successes of the mid-1970s described above. We indicate also why the present is a period of uncertainty concerning doctrine. “Rule and order” are wonderfuliy ambiguous terms, the reader will no doubt observe. They are nouns and verbs at the same time. So, the two terms refer to desired outcome as well as to conduct. The terms stand for the neatness of the results in terms of physical appearance, but also for an orderly way of doing things. The former is reflected in the principle of spatial organisation on which doctrine draws, the latter in the planning principles contained herein. “Rule and order”, we claim, is a major forze behind the development of Dutch planning doctrine, receiving new interpretations, as new challenges arise. It is to this development that we now turn. We distinguish four periods in the development of Dutch planning doctrine. In each of them, the search for “rule and order” found a particular expression. Also, the development of Dutch national planning doctrine is cumulative. By this we mean that each period builds upon the solutions found in the previous one. The four periods are: (a) early beginnings in the late nineteenth century, when perception of planning problems and their solutions was limited to a handful of the larger cities, Amsterdam in particular; (b) in the period from the 1920s to the :95Os, planning was increasingly seen to have a regional dimension in response to the scale of urbanisation and mass transport, but the response was still to concentrate development in and around the major towns and cities; (c) from the 1950s to the recent past when a policy of concentrated deconcentration (an oxymoronic term denoting the policy, the cornerstone of Dutch growth management, of providing for family homes, preferably with gardens, but concentrating them in specific areas) was king. This policy was closely related to the Randstad/Green Heart complex of ideas; (d) at the present time this policy is
being abandoned in favor of, yet again, concentrating development in and around the major urban centers, and this creates the uncertainty, indicated above, concerning Although policy shifted from concentrating development to controlled dispersal and back again to concentration, there were certain constants. Such constants form the hard core (for the use of the Lakatosian notion of a hard core see Bast et al. i990; for slightly difierent uses see De Ruijter, 1987; Mastop, 1987) of the principle of spatial organisation of the Dutch national territory. They are clear expressions of the rule and order ideal. (a) The intention to prevent disorderly development such as intermunicipal bad neighbor problems (external effects ) , poor coordination between public and private investments, threats to less profitable but necessary forms of land use and inequitable distribution of costs and benefits of development. (b) In finding responses to the threat of disorder, the intention to evaluate carefully the planning concepts which the international planning movement (a strong force, especially in the early decades of this century) propagated. As regards planning principles, there is a firm conviction that national government is responsible for the evolving pattern of urbanisation but that, preferably, it should not resort to compulsion to get its views accepted. Plans are indicative, and national planning is primarily the generator of ideas. Reserve powers of issuing national directives are used with great circumspection. Dutch planning culled many of the elements of the principle of spatial organisation from elsewhere (see Van der Heiden, 1988 ), but its planning doctrine is clearly Duti : in a twofold sense. First, the synthesis of planning concepts is a response to the morphology and popu’lation distribution of the Netherlands with all its attendant problems, i.e. Dutch national government, influenced by the conscious efforts of generations of planning professionals, perceives the Dutch national territory as having a
distinct shape requiring a unique response. Second, the planning principles reflect the nature of the Dutch governmental system described as a decentralised unitary state in wki& ultimate authority is vested in national govPmment, but national government is bound to Listen to regional and local government and to leave these lower tiers considerable room for maneuver. Admittedly, the geographic scale of the country is such that it is relatively easy to perceive the jurisdiction as a whole. Other countries, whose system of government is more centralised than the Dutch, have greater difficulties in coming to grips with the shape of the territory as a whole. Ce that as it may, the preconditions for national planning doctrine in the Netherlands are f!llilled. In this, the Netherlands distinguishes herself from many if not most other countries. RULE AND ORDER AND THE TWO FACES OF DUTCH GROWTH MANAGEMENT Together with the previous section, this section forms the cornerstone of this article. In it, we flesh out the concrete form which maintaining rule and order took during the four periods distinguished above and show how, during the course of time, the two faces of growth control developed until a carefully established balance between them was achieved. We then demonstrate that the implementation of strategies conceived by national planners hinged as much on the appeal of the underlying doctrine (in particular the metaphors on which the principle of spatial organisation draws) as on the quality of the spatial plans. Systematic
tow
extension
In describing nineteenth century beginnings of the idea of well-ordered development, we draw on Van der Valk ( 1989). He showed that the Housing Act of 190 1, wrotgly perceived by
many as a break \vith the past. merely gated
promul-
ides
of good currency amongst late centup professionals. hc describes this set ot‘ideas with an umbrella term. systematic town extension. This suggestive notion signifies the intention of doing away with the chaotic consequences of private developers pursuing their own interests. Systematic town extension is a synthesis of the best ideas farmulated by architects, engineers, medical experts and housing reformers (many of them coming from foreign sources, with German town pianners having had a particular influence on the Dutch). Systematic town extension relates to the shape which development ought to take. as well as to the manner in which an orderly pattern couid be achieved. Systematic town extension rests on two prerequisites which no doubt made it seem welcome to its proponents. They are the availability and use of professional expertise in analysing and handling problems arising, and a strong role for government in land assembly and development. In other words, systematic towt: e-:tension was not devoid of features which WL right term technocratic.
nineteenth
Systematic town extension was pursued as an ideal by a loose federation of professionals, even after the Housing Act had been passed. These pioneers of the Dutch planning movement talked about ‘our Act’ and carefully monitored its implementation ( De Ruijter, 1987 ). The early twentieth century saw an expansion in the area of concern. Not only did the growth at the fringes of towns command attention, but also the way in which the growth impinged upon neighboring communities. Particularly prominent was the concern for the suburban flight of well-to-do people, the free rider problem which this generated and the threat to areas of outstanding natural beauty. After a spate of interest in the establishment
of garden cities in the lashion of Letchworth and Welwyn Garden City, the firm professional opinion was that urbanisation should take the form of concentric growth around existing built-up areas, with such faciliries (including open space ) provided as modern town planning required. The alternative was ribbon development but this was seen as the epitome of the disorder which Dutch planners detested. The General Extension PM of Amsterdam of 1935 represents th:s new consensus (see Faludi and De Ruijter, 1985, pp. 42-43 ). It reflects the conviction that concentric development would be satisfactory as iong as Amsterdam did not grow beyond the 1 million mark, an idea which everybody abhorred. (Fortunately. surveys had shown that this was unlikely to happen, at least until the end of the century. ) Concentrated decoucentration
By the middle of the century the strategy of concentric expansion was abandoned. This happened under the circumstances of the postwar situation when, as we know, an ever-expanding population had to be housed, but both expenditure on housing, as well as its location, needed to be coordinated with the pursuit of industrial growth, then the mainstay of Dutch policy. The vario?;s government commissions and agencies concerned were influenced, once again, by British policies, especially with respect to the new towns. There were two limitations to the British model. First, the scale of the Netherlands was seen to be too smail for new towns proper. The exceptions were two new towns, Lelystad and Almere, built on reclaimed land which, until not long ago, was not incorporated. Second, development corporations, like those in Britain which received funding directly from central government and were endowed with considerable statutory powers, were considered unsuitable for the Dutch context. Satellite towns were thought to be a feasible
d by choosingsuitable
I
seemed. to be an ideal way to de ment rsresjure away from t towards the outer rim oft satellite towns were to be created by designating specific existing communities to receive a substantial influx of newcomers. (In the British situation, there is a close analogy, not so much with new towns, but with expanded tawns.) This policy was based on the newly formed insight that the preservation of the Green Heart and also of the independence of existing towns and cities by designating buffer zones, were essential for the purpose of achieving an orderly pattern of development. This is described above as the Randstad/Green Heart complex of ideas and forms the central metaphor around which the Dutch principle of spatial organisation has evolved ever since. With the emergence of this complex of ideas, the notion of systematic town extension has taken a new shape, one that is adapted to the circumstances of the second half of this century. We call it systematic urbanisation, thus signifying that the scope of planning goes far beyond the extension of individual towns and to include the overall pattern of growth. Since then systematic urbanisation has been the leitmotif of Dutch planning, especially on the national level. Systematic urbanisation as a theme is clearly evident in a succession of government pclicy documents. It was in pursuit of these policies that growth management took shape. Again, the role of professionals and their ideas in propelling these developments along was only too evident. Thus, the development of Dutch planning doctrine is a fine example of what Dunleavy ( 198 1) describes as ideological corporatism. The compact city
Recently, two forces have combined against the type of growth management practised previously, concentrating as it does on restricting new development to designated areas away
from the donor cities. First, the Bghilosophy of no growth arising at the beginning ofthe 1380s made the whole idea of growth centers and growth towns I the literal translations from the Dutch ‘groeikernen’ and ‘grGeisteden’ ) seem suspxt, even though its manifest aim was to deflect growth from other, more sensitive areas. Second, there was a growing fear in the donor cities that they would be deprived of their most active population and left with people making excessive demands on social services, etc. Both sentiments coalesced with new design fashions emphasising urbanity. Thus, a new consensus emerged, epitomised by the slogan of the compact city, i.e. the idea of. yet again, concentrating development in and around existing towns and cities. This is still the dominant philosophy (a!though there is doubt- as to whether it will be sustained in the light of the persistent failure of the large towns and cities to provide adequate housing). THE FUTURE OF DUTCH GROWTH MANAGEMENT
What does the future hold for Dutch growth management? In particular, how is it going to be affected by the future integration of the Common Market? The first thing to note is that integration is primariiy seen as a challenge to the economy, and not likely to affect growth management. The perception of new challenges adds to the view, popular these days, that the industrial countries are going through a period of readjustment requiring a loosening of controls so as to create more favorable conditions for industry and private enterprise generally. Rightly or wrongly, this feeling that government interference stifles economic performance also affects the perception of growth management. As an added handicap, growth management is being associated with the welfare state. This is understandable in view of the role which massive housing subsidies have played in making its cornerstone, the development of new towns
.:.F;- *.
<.::T?$wooaiand 2x -.
<4-?
_.
-.
Fringe
area
Greenhouses
Transport
Rap-d trJmllne
Central O’f’O
t4otorwoy
Landmcrk
Exlstang New
settlement
node
water
development
Fig. 2. Plan for a park city in south Holland. Source: Province of South Holland ( 1989 ), report on the intermediate city betwtun court and port?
and expanded towns. into the glaring success which it was. The Fourth National Physical Planning Report currently under discussion has a marked tendency to distance itself from housing policy, and hence from an important aspect of growth management. The Report focuses on new issues, such as telecommunications, environmental pollution, major reconstruction projects, transport. etc., instead. Above all, the Fourth Report seeks to assert a central role for national physical planning in the reinvigoration of the Dutch economy to get it into shape for European and worldwide competition. As a part of this. any pretense of equalising opportunities between regions has been abandoned. The western Netherlands are seen, once again, as the economic engine on which the develop-
area: a park-
ment of the Dutch economy hinges. Other regions must fend for themselves (which some of them, especially in the south and scutheast, do with such success that the centre of gravity may actually shift, once the Common h4arket takes effect and their locational advantage becomes more evident ). But it is a moot point whether disengagement from positive growth management is a wise policy. The figure announced in the Fourth Report of 1 million additional homes needed between now and the year 20 15 in the Randstad afone is frightening, but the figure itself may be arguable. There can be no dispute about the continuing need to develop housing. The physical fabric of the Netherlands is far from near-completion, contrary to the common feeling at the beginning of the 1?8Os. At
It seems a fair guess that. where 1 million need to be built in an already very densely developed area such as the western Netherlands (and where, in the good Dutch ‘ling, this is required to be done on) growth management, both in the sense of growth control, as well as in the sense of the government taking overall responsibility for the provision of housing, services etc. (including their location and timing) will remain a necessity. The task for the near future is, then, to combine this with the current concerns for preparing for economic competition. This, rather than sacrificing growth management as we know it in the Netherlands. seems to be the way ahead. arm
engagementof national
govern
al p~a~~~~gin panic&r will be fealong run. Two considerations seem relevant. First, development in ‘.he Randstad will meet physical and environmental conis suggests more rather than less government involvement. Second, demand for gcvemment involvement may come from unexpected comers: employers in the western Netherlands may voice concern about the difficulties of recruiting quali;ied labor; there may be deteriorating conditions, amongst others, for housing top management; there may also be COfiStiZiiltS Oii their OpiXZtiOiiS
._.I__ Owrug to eiivi-
ronmental concerns. The distributional effects of housing shortages in the western Netherlands, with concomitant rises in property values which may make housing prohibitively expensive for Karters, may cause political problems, too. The present author is of the opinion that the traditional concern of Dutch planning for rule and order in development, crystallised in the idea of systematically channeling urbanisation following well thought out patterns, will reassert itself. So th,:re may come a time when renewed emphasis is given to positive growth management, perhaps even of a comprehensive kind. We may see the earmarking of whole regions for growth. This will allow others to be safeguarded from too much growth, as is the tradition in the Netherlands. Thus, we may find Dutch planners in future talking in terms of growth regions , rather than merely of growth towns and cities. An example is the area between The Hague, Zoetermeer (itself a growth center) and Rotterdam, where a park city (see Fig. 2) with 60 000-70 000 new housing units is under discussion.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This paper is based on a study conducted jointly with Dr. A. van der Valk of the Institute of Planning and Demography of the arriversity of Amsterdam. The study was commissioned by the association of growth centers and has been published (in Dutch ) under the title “Groeikernen als hoekstenen van de Nedplanningdoctrine” erlandse ruimtelij ke (“Growth centres as the cornerstones of Dutch planning doctrine”). This paper was completed before publication of the revised Fourth National Physical Planning Report “Extra” (Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning tind Environment, 199 1). In that report the new government puts extra emphasis on environmental concerns. REFERENCES Alexander, E.R. and Faludi, A.. 1990. Planning doctrine: its uses and applications. Working papers of the Instiiute of Planning and Demography. University of Amsterdam. no. 120, Bast, P., Goedman. J. and Zonneveld, W., 1990. Randstad: concept of naam? Planologische Discussiedagen, Delftse Uitzevers Maatschappij. Planologische Discussiedagen, Delft, pp. 87-9.5.
LOO Chlnktz. R.. IYW Growth management: good for the to\\n. had for the nation. J. .Am. Plaml. Assoc.. 56: 3-8. t>p Ktlljtcr. P.. 1’478. DC Verstrdelijkingsnota in hct licht xan dc Stratcplschc hcuscbenndcr~rrg. In: .A. Faludl and P. dc Ruqtcr (Editors). Plariwng als beslurtkorming: theone. ondcr\\lJs en ~ViiktlJh. Samson. l>l> Ru~jtr‘r. P.. 19s’. \‘oor wll\shuis\,cstmg cn stedebow: \ oorgcschredcnls. oprichting en programma van hct Nederlands lnstltuut vow Volkshuis\r%ting en Stedebouw 1820-19~0. Llltgeverij Matrijs. Utrecht. Dunleavy. P., 198 1. Professions and poliq chauge: notes towards a model of ideological corporatism. Publ. .4dmin. Bull .,a.. ‘5. 3-8 . Faludi. .4.. 1987. A Decision-centred View of Environmental Planning. Pergamon. Oxford. Faludi. .A.. 1989. Perspectives on planning doctrine. In: .4. Faludi (Editor). Keeping the Netherlands m Shape. Built Environ.. 15: 57-64. Faludi. A. and De Ruijter. P.. 1985. No match for the present crisis? The theoretical and institutional framework for Dutch planning. In: .4.K. Dutt and F.J. Cosla. Public Planning in the Netherlands. Oxford Unixcersity Press. Oxford. pp. 35-Q. Fudge. C. and Barrett. S.. I9S I. Reconstructing the field of analysis. In: S. Barrett and C. Fudge (Editors ), Policy and Action: Essays on the implementation of Public Policy. Methuen. London. pp. 249-278. Glasbergen. P. and Simonis, J.B.D.. 1979. Ruimtelijk beltid in de verzorgingsstaat. Uitgeverij &bra. Amsterdam. Mastop. J.M.. 1987. Besluitvotming, hsndelen en normeren: een methodologische studie naar aanleiding van het streekplnnwerk. Planologische Studies 4. Planologisch en Demografisch Instituut. Universiteit van .4msterdam. Ministry of Housing and Physical Planning. I99 I. Fourth re-
4 FU_t_:DS
port (ESTR.: ) on ph) sic4 planning m the Netherlands. The Haguc. hlmrstn of Housmg. Ph\s~cal Planning and Environment. 1988. On the road to 1015: comprehensive summan of the fourth report on physical planning in the Netherlands (polq mtentlon ). The Hague. Mlmstc of Housing. Physical Planning and Ensironmenr. undated. Space b> dxgn: ph) swal plannmg m the Netherlands: English summary of a pubhcatlon which was issued to mark the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the .i\dvisory Council on Physical Planning (R.4RO). The Hague. Needham, B., 1988. The Netherlands. In: G. Hallett {Editors ), Land and Housing Policies in Europe and the USA. Routledge and Kegan Paul. London, pp. 49-75. Needham. B. and Dekker, A., 1983. The fourth repor. on physical planning in the Netherlands. Neth. J. Housing Environ. Res.. 3: 335-344. Needham. B.. Kruijt, B. and Lambooy. J.. 1989. An economic analysis of the land development process in the Netherlands. Annual Meeting of the American Real Estate Society. Washington DC. I I- I4 April. Van der Heiden. C.N.. 1988. Foreign influence on Dutch planning doctrine. Werkstukken van het Planologisch en Demografisch Instituut, Univeniteit van Amsierdam, no. 104. Van der Valk, A., 1989. Amsterdam in aanleg: planvorming en dagelijks handelen ISjO- 1900. Planologische Studies 8. Planologisch en Demografisch Instituut, Universiteit van Amsterdam. Wijers. L., 1975. The “Randstad Holland” conurbation. Publ. 75-2 E, National Physical Planning Agency, Government Printing Office, The Hague.
the two faces of success. Landscape [‘&an Ham.. 22: 93- 106.
Growth management has two faces: preventing grou;th where it should not occur, and providing for commensurate growth elsewhere. Dutch planning has been successful in doing both. Government control over land has contributed to its success. In addition. the Dutch coordinate policies to make development fall into a weil thought out pattern by invoking an agreed planning doctrine reflecting a predilection for rule and order. But the ability to sustam this will be severely tested by the requirement for an additional 1 million housing units to be built in the most densely populated part of the western Netherlands, the Randstad.
INTItODUCTION The edges of most Dutch towns and cities are clearly marked by canals, rows of trees, open space, and the like. These edges signal the will to maintain the distinction between town and -’ rntry. Above all, they bear witness to the intenlion and the ability of the Dutch to keep development at bay. Order is the rule, and Dutch rulers are called upon to maintain order. This is the key to understanding Dutch growth management which has been a remarkable success since the mid-l 970s. Growth management concerns the location, intensity and timing of development. (In the USA, it also involves developers in the financing of infrastructure; see Chinitz, 1990, p. 6.) Successful growth management has two faces. First, the prevention of growth where (as seen from some overall point of view) growth should not occur; this particularly concerns Correspondence to: A. Faludi, Institute of Planning and Demography, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130, 1018 VZ, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
areas of outstanding scenic beauty, first class agricultural land, fragile environments and areas where there are hazards ( such as on flood plains or near major polluters). Second, the provision for commensurate growth (with all facilities included) in other, more suitable areas. The need to make provisions for growth is based on the assumption that there are real needs which must be met. Housing an expanding population according to prevailing standards (such as was the policy of successive Dutch post-war governments) does mean essential growth. Of course, we might argue on two grounds that such growth is not essential: (a) The standards themselves might not be commensurate with the need to preserve resources. Therefore they might be in need of review. (b) Growth might not have to occur in the jurisdiction under consideration, but elsewhere (what in British parlance is called NIMBY: Not In My Back Yard ). Neither argument holds water, and each for
0 1992 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved 0169-2046/92/$05.00
good reason.
First,
.
1x ftxsible
to
lower
s of open space. access. Rather, the future seems to lie in ~~~i~t~i~i~~ and even increasing the sul$jeclive ~~~0~~~~~~ of environmental quality, whilst at the same time making growth more sustainable, as current wisdom has it. Second, local growth management may have non-local ramifications (Chinitz, 1990, p. 3 ). For the purposes of housing policy , larger areas are more or less closed systems; the population cannot be moved elsewhere. This is especially so with nation states. Clearly. it would not be feasible for a nation state not to cater to housing needs for reasons of growth cDntro1. Pressure for growth may be irresistible, therefore. Where this pressure occurs in a situation of limited resourcc”s, we can expect grovr;th management. Now since it concerns a bounded territory, growth management carfies within it the idea of some form of overall plan indicating where and when growth is permissible and which land uses should be preserved. Consideration will first be given to the nature of Dutch housing needs. The Dutch response, (since the mid-l 97Os, anyway} in terms of successful growth management, will be introduced in the two sections that follow. Next we shall point out that such success is in need of explanation. Drawing on previous work, we shall suggest that the secret of Dutch success in this field lies in the existence of an agreed national planning doctrine. This doctrine will then be shown to reflect a Dutch predilection for the rule and order which has been the leitmotif of successive generations of planners, guiding the way in which they formulate and use concepts, and their planning concepts and conduct as a whole. The two sections after that flesh out the idea of rule and order as reflected in Dutch national planning doctrine and the two faces of Dutch growth management. We end with speculations as to the future of Dutch growth management. Contrary to what is being said elsewhere, we think that Dutch
radically
the stsndii
growth control will co~t~~~e to be a cornerstone of Dutch national planning doctrine.
etc. in the short term.
The Dutch population expanded rapidly after Would War II. In the early 196bs it seemed that, by the year 2000, there would be 20 mille living in the Netherlands, compared :k”ith approximately 12 million at that time. 9?1BTdamage had led to an acute housing shortage. This shortage was regarded as public enem) :: umber one, and the challenge to house the miiirons still to be born was considered a worth~.iriIe task to be approached with traditional t’:utch industriousness and eff%acy. So. by any standards, urban growth was (and still is, see beiow ) an essential ingredient of the Dutch situation; the more so since, in theory if not in practice, the Dutch government had been committed to safeguarding adequate housing for all, ever since the 1920s (De Ruijter. 1987 ). This commitment has become so intense since then that the right to adequate housing is now enshrined in the newly revised constitution. Besides, rising aspirations leading to a more suburban lifestyle in the 1960s and 1970s me.ant that space requirements per capita were also on the increase. Even when it became clear that the population would stabilise at around 15 million some time during the twenty first century, the task of meeting their aspirations continued to seem daunting. More recently, another source of housing need, dear to the hearts of progressives, has gained public recognition. Traditionally, the Dutch have been family-centered with rather strict mores. In the 1960s and 197Os, they began to embrace more liberal lifestyles with a vengeance. Young people now leave their parental households early, laying claim to independent housing. They compete with the growing number of divorcees. As a result, even though population growth is modest these days, household formation continues at a rapid rate, fueling a continuing housing need, albeit of a
arming Report alder disay mean adding 1 rn~l~io~ houses to the existing fabric of the western Netherlands or Randstad etween now and the Year 2015 (Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and Environment, 1988; Needham and Dekker, I 988 ).
DUTCH RESPONSE Considering the sheer density of existing development, meeting Dutch housing needs has presented major challenges in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Questions in need of a coherent answer, reflecting the exigencies of the situation including the morphology and sheer boundedness of Du?ch space, remain the same. (a) Where should the requisite growth go? (b ) Which areas should remain unspoiled? (c) How can this be achieved? After initial failures, the Dutch government, in conjunction with the provinces and the major towns and cities most immediately affected by the housing shortage, has been remarkably successful in channeling growth since the mid 1970s. This involved the two-pronged attack on the problem which has been identified above as typical of growth management. First, Dutch national planning imposed effective limits to the growth of rural settlements within commuting distance of major population centers (as most rural settlements are anyway in the Netherlands). They were not allowed to entice outsiders into wanting to settle there. Growth was pegged to the needs of the indigenous population. This was achieved by inducing Provinces to attend to such matters in their autonomous task of approving local planning schemes. Local communities had to prove that there was indigenous demand for the provisions which their plans made, otherwise approval was not given. Second, the massive subsidies which the national government provides in pursuance of its
policy of housing for all were targeted in such a way as to pro dozen deliberately chosen new towns and expanding towns (called growth centers and growth towns, depending on the extent of the intended growth and their relation to the donors). In addition, these communities were given priority treatment for many other related grants and projects. In the early 198Ck, at the crest of the wave of this policy (coinciding, it must be said, with a slump in private home construction which is inherently less susceptible to government control), close to one quarter of all new housing went to the few communities earmarked for growth. To put this in perspective, there were more than 700 municipalities at the time, so for the few growth centers and growth towns to have an almost 25?43share of all housebtiilding is impressive. So successful was the government policy of encouraging growth that most of the designated new towns and expanded towns actually exceeded their growth targets. Also, there are now more than half a million witnesses to the success of this policy; these are the people who have migrated to where successive govemment documents said they ought to go. Half a million out of a population of 15 million moving within a time span of less than two decades is the equivalent of approximately 9 million American citizens going to new towns located on public transport routes, with all facilities provided for them. Initially, it must be said, the policy had been anything but a success. The principles had been enunciated as early as the late 195Os, and SUCcessive policy documents had elaborated upon them. These principles were the following: (a) recognition of the western Netherlands as the core of the country; the source of economic dynamism but beset by the problems of overcrowding and environmental deterioration; (b) the concomitant perception of the remainder of the country as relatively empty with the response shifting from regarding the pe-
Vh
riphery as in need of development to seeing it as blessed with a more healthy environment; (c) as regards the western Netherlands, the recognition of the uniqueness of the existing pattern of urban development which formed a ring of towns and cities, none of them very dominant compared with all the others, and arranged around an area of open space (with the intention, so far, to keep it that way; see Wijers, 1975 ). This Randstad/Green Heart complex of ideas is one of the most characteristic features of Dutch national planning doctrine and the central metaphor to which it owes its later successes (see Fig. I ). Noteworthy amongst the succession of government documents is the so-called Seconc’ Report on Physical Planning, which came the closest of all the national planning documents to being a national plan. (Needham and Dekker. 1988, p. 336. ) In pursuance of the Green Heart policy, it had stilaulated in the mid- 1960s
4
F4LL’DI
that the smallest settlements must cater only for their indigenous housing needs. Up to the mid-197Os, however, it was exactly these settlements which enjoyed the fastest growth. Glasbergen and Simonis ( 1979) have determined the forces responsible in two components. (a) The overwhelming desire of middle- to high-income families to move to homes with gardens, a desire which the availability of the motorcar in the 1960s had made possible. (b) The equally strong desire of local politicians to provide housing and other facilities in line with what they considered to be modem requirements. This desire could only be met by means of larger schemes for suburbanites, as well as for the indigenous population. There are several reasons for this. First, government subsidies, especially for low-cost housing, required larger schemes in order to achieve economies of scale and thus remain below the
Fig. 1. Randstad showing the three most important elements for planning. (i ) Bounded urban zones plus central open area; (ii) agglomerations as independent elements plus buffer zones; (iii) outward expansion. From Wijers ( 1975 ), p. 9.
and the building industry were promoting industrialised building techniques which also favored larger schemes. Fourth, it is common for Dutch low-cost development to be subsidised by development designed for people with middle and high incomes. This is facilitated through iand pricing. The price charged for low-income housing is substantially less, with the balance being distributed over the other income levels. This, again, requires new development to come in sizable increments, with each scheme representing as near a cross-section of the population in terms of income distribution as is feasible. Fifth, the government was committed to fulfilling the annual housing program drawn up to combat the housing shortage. This commitment was such that the Minister of Physical Planning (who happens also to be responsiile for housing) could not afford to let planning considerations stand in the way of this goal. In this way, local imperatives and those of national housing policy combined to undermine planning policies concerning the Green Heart. Government housing officials even went as far as to encourage municipalities to hold back from submitting their plans for approval until later in the year, at which time the annual figures for housing starts would be debated in parliament, thus the Minister was put under pressure to approve schemes, even where they contravened planning policy. Glasbergen and Simonis’ case studies gave them cause for much reflection upon the nature of state intervention, the distribution of powers between central and local government, etc. But by the time their study was published, the situation had changed, because among other reasons, one of the conditions for success which they had identified on the basis of their research had been fulfilled: a positive policy providing alternatives to suburban growth At
that
time,
into
its mvn.
alanced growth management came
the gove~me~t
This section discusses the period during growth policy was successful. In it the policy was one of ‘concentrated deconcentration’, a term which we shall explain below when dealing with the ideas behind Dutch planning doctrine. It is important to note that now, even though ideas are changing, this policy continues, albeit in reduced form. This is because investments in infrastructure, municipal services, etc., in the new towns and expanded towns need to be safeguarded. Go,although the government began to have its doubts about the wisdom of concentrated deconcentration as early as the mid- 198Os, implementation of this policy continued. Such are the dictates of committed costs. The milestones in the development of Dutch growth management were: (a) a 1972 housing policy statement providing subsidies and other forms of special considerations extended to designated communities willing to expand by a minimum of 6000 housing units over a loyear period; (b) part 2 of the Third Report on Physical Planning (the so-called Urbanisation Report) giving coherent expression to this policy against the broader issues of the day such as the growing concern for the ‘limits of growth’ and the wasteful aspects of suburban development (with energy consumption being at the front of everybody’s mind). As emphasised previously, this policy has been successfully implemented. How could this be? The question is the more urgent since the Urbanisation Report (as indicated, the most comprehensive statement of this policy) does not measure up to the standards which one applies to a policy document. In Faludi ( 1987, pp. 129) we indicated why. For the Urbanisation Report to operate as an effective guide to action, it would have had to include more spewhich
4.
3s
cilia guidance POthose in the field. But it did
no\ do so. In particular% there were no contingency plans. Indeed, lip service to uncertainty apar,. the Urhanisaticn Report lacked any form Of meaningful provision for uncertainty management (De Ruijter. 1978 B.Not even the financial implications of the policy have been properly anaiysed: a key aspect, one would think. of a policy mostly concerned with the allocation ofgovernment funds. WH.4T SOURCES OF SUCCESS? The remarkable feat of Dutch growth management is in need of explanation for yet another reason, The literature &ounds with analyses of implementation failure but offers little in the way of analysing success. Folklore has it that the perennial struggle against the sea has made the Dutch a highly disciplined people, well-used to accepting common responsibility and public control. The degree of public control over land is indeed extraordinary. Approximately 80% of all land coming into development goes through the hands of the municipality concerned. This cuts out most of the land speculation which is the bzne of planning in other countries. Land is a neutral input and land policy ‘<...in the service of, and an instrument for, housing and town planning policy...“, Needham ( 1988, p. 49; a student of Dutch land policy coming, like the present author, from abroad) observes with amazement. Add to this the fact that the national government is a major source of funds where housing development is concerned. In the early 1980s when private investors shied away ?;om housing, most development received some kind of government subsidy. Now, the policy is to reduce the proportion of subsidised housing to a ‘mere’ 50%, still staggeringly high to foreign eyes. ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune’, as the saying goes. The success of Dutch growth management may seem less of a mystery, therefore, than it does at first sight. Coupled with the land policy de-
F4LLlDI1
scribed above, government funding of housing creates the preconditions for successful growth management. Government funding and land policy were two preconditions. indeed. Without them the success of Dutch growth management would have been difficult to achieve. But they do not explain why this success came in the 1970s and 1980s and not before. After all, both preconditions existed before then. (a ) Public land acquisition using powers of eminent domain has been standard procedure since the beginning of this century. Compensation was somewhat more than existing-use value. but less than what the land would have fetched on the free market, if indeed such a thing as a free market in land for development existed in the Netherlands (see Needham et al., 1989). (b) Housing subsidies, too, were introduced a long time ago, to be exact in 1901 when the first Housing Act was passed. After World War II, grants took on massive proportions, yet without growth management becoming an immediate issue, let alone the success which it has been since the mid- 1970s. So what explains Dutch success in coordinating the use of these (and other) instruments to make new development fall into a well thought out pattern? We think this can be explained by one key factor: the consensus which, by that time, had been formed about the doctrine to be followed. This is what we turn to next. PLANNING DOCTRINE To explain Dutch planning success we need to look at the ideas underlying Dutch growth management. They concern the organisation of space and the role of government in it. In the Dutch case, these ideas form a coherent whole. This body of thought commands considerable support, both from the professional community (which formulated the ideas, propagated them and is now administering the policies
YY
parts.For dhis the
vari-
ety of actors invslv ent as a ~la~~~ng doctrine. Elsewhere ( Faludi. 1989, pp. 60-6 1: see also Alexander and Faludi, 1990) we descri planning doctrine as a coherent body of tho sustained ever a period of time relating to (a) spatial arrangements within an area of jurisdiction, (b ) the development of that area and (c) the way both are to be handled. Using the London conurbation and, indeed, the Dutch Randstad/Green Heart complex of ideas as examples, we claimed that a fully developed doctrine integrates views about spatial arrangements and development into an overall principle of spatial organisation for ;he plan area. As regards the way govemment handles development, we claimed that this reflected planning principles addressing two related issues. First, the preparation of plans based on, albeit implicit, notions about the relationship between knowledge and action, and the nature of democratic governance. Second, the form and use of plans is based on legal theory, amongst other things. Although many of its elements may come from elsewhere, such planning doctrine .is specific to the area and the planning subject concerned. The reverse side of the coin is that, without a planning subject with jurisdiction over its territory, we would not expect to find planning doctrine. But not all planning subjects with jurisdiction over their territory formulate a planning doctrine. For this to happen, a further condition needs to be met, i.e. the subject must perceive its jurisdiction as having a distinct shape requiring a coordinated response. Otherwise it would not grope towards identifying the most suitable principle of spatial organisation. We can also say that the planning subject must see its territory as forming a coherent whole. This is partly a matter of perception, in particular of interdependences among its constituent
UQXEX, there must be relevant knowledge based on research available. Ultirflatek Qf course, the acceptance of interdependence requiring a policy response is a matter of political choice. Dutch growth management se3xs to provide an object lesson in the development and working of planning doctrine. It is to an elaboration of this lesson tha; we n :w turn. lt was the articulation of Dutch planning doctrine, or rather of the planning policies therein, which made the Urbanisation Report into the effective instrument of planning policy which it was. The underlying doctrine substituted for the lack of guidance given by the policy statements as such. Planning doctrine may shape the assumptive world ( Fudge and Barrett, 19t Y pp. 265-266) of planners. In intemalising ctc-trine, the many actors invo!ved pltrsue simi!ar ends and draw on similar imagery. This accounts in no small way for the achievements which we have reported on. As an aside, the doctrine was so successfully articulated that the key concepts denoting the principle of spatial organisation, such as Randstad, Green Heart and growth center have become household words in the Dutch language. The proverbial man in the street knows them, they are being invoked as rallying cries, as a way of designating regions, and Randstad is even the chosen name for a new and growing business enterprise. There can hardly be a more evident indicator of success of planning concepts than this! The articulation of doctrine apart, there were other factors responsible for its success. The National Physical Planning Agency made a good job of publicising the policy in both the popular press and planning journals alike. Many meetings were held to discuss the strategy, quite apart from the consultation which is a regular feature of Dutch planning procedures. Not the least important had been the emissaries of the national agency, five (now four) planning inspectors (something which Glasbergen and Simonis, 1979, also recog-
nised ). The inspectors sit in on all meetings of provincial planning commissions within the area allotted to them and perceive their role as that of socialising the planning fraternity into the national policy (the upshot of *his being that they rarely, if ever, use their statutory powers of control). In FaIudi ( 1987 ) we elaborated on the implications of this case. Dutch national planning policy seemed to provide an instance of successful problem definition, of the formulation of an overall ideology for the planning profession to adhere to. The effect is similar to that of a scientific discipline having found a paradigm. Problems were identified, and directions indicated for their solution. It is in response to this that the notion of planning doctrine was proposed for the first time. Planning doctrine indeed helps in interpreting the success of Dutch growth management. But it is ironic that this doctrine only began to be ef%ctive in the early 1980s when people had already started questioning it. The result is the siruation described at the beginning of this section, i.e. a grudging completion of schemes in places where prevailing wisdom says they should not have occurred in the first place. So it seems that, as with the final acceptance of planning doctrine in the mid- 197Os, changing it is a slow process, too. Whether the doctrine will eventually be abandoned altogether is an interesting question. The last section extrapolates present trends into the future. It seems likely that growth management, including a policy of directing growth not only to new towns and expanded towns but possiLIly to whole regions earmarked for enforced urbanisation, is within the realm of the possible. RULE AND ORDER In the Dutch case, planning doctrine reflects a predilection for rule and order, and to this extent popular explanations of the success of Dutch planning are to the point. Here we trace
the expression of these sentiments culminating in the successes of the mid-1970s described above. We indicate also why the present is a period of uncertainty concerning doctrine. “Rule and order” are wonderfuliy ambiguous terms, the reader will no doubt observe. They are nouns and verbs at the same time. So, the two terms refer to desired outcome as well as to conduct. The terms stand for the neatness of the results in terms of physical appearance, but also for an orderly way of doing things. The former is reflected in the principle of spatial organisation on which doctrine draws, the latter in the planning principles contained herein. “Rule and order”, we claim, is a major forze behind the development of Dutch planning doctrine, receiving new interpretations, as new challenges arise. It is to this development that we now turn. We distinguish four periods in the development of Dutch planning doctrine. In each of them, the search for “rule and order” found a particular expression. Also, the development of Dutch national planning doctrine is cumulative. By this we mean that each period builds upon the solutions found in the previous one. The four periods are: (a) early beginnings in the late nineteenth century, when perception of planning problems and their solutions was limited to a handful of the larger cities, Amsterdam in particular; (b) in the period from the 1920s to the :95Os, planning was increasingly seen to have a regional dimension in response to the scale of urbanisation and mass transport, but the response was still to concentrate development in and around the major towns and cities; (c) from the 1950s to the recent past when a policy of concentrated deconcentration (an oxymoronic term denoting the policy, the cornerstone of Dutch growth management, of providing for family homes, preferably with gardens, but concentrating them in specific areas) was king. This policy was closely related to the Randstad/Green Heart complex of ideas; (d) at the present time this policy is
being abandoned in favor of, yet again, concentrating development in and around the major urban centers, and this creates the uncertainty, indicated above, concerning Although policy shifted from concentrating development to controlled dispersal and back again to concentration, there were certain constants. Such constants form the hard core (for the use of the Lakatosian notion of a hard core see Bast et al. i990; for slightly difierent uses see De Ruijter, 1987; Mastop, 1987) of the principle of spatial organisation of the Dutch national territory. They are clear expressions of the rule and order ideal. (a) The intention to prevent disorderly development such as intermunicipal bad neighbor problems (external effects ) , poor coordination between public and private investments, threats to less profitable but necessary forms of land use and inequitable distribution of costs and benefits of development. (b) In finding responses to the threat of disorder, the intention to evaluate carefully the planning concepts which the international planning movement (a strong force, especially in the early decades of this century) propagated. As regards planning principles, there is a firm conviction that national government is responsible for the evolving pattern of urbanisation but that, preferably, it should not resort to compulsion to get its views accepted. Plans are indicative, and national planning is primarily the generator of ideas. Reserve powers of issuing national directives are used with great circumspection. Dutch planning culled many of the elements of the principle of spatial organisation from elsewhere (see Van der Heiden, 1988 ), but its planning doctrine is clearly Duti : in a twofold sense. First, the synthesis of planning concepts is a response to the morphology and popu’lation distribution of the Netherlands with all its attendant problems, i.e. Dutch national government, influenced by the conscious efforts of generations of planning professionals, perceives the Dutch national territory as having a
distinct shape requiring a unique response. Second, the planning principles reflect the nature of the Dutch governmental system described as a decentralised unitary state in wki& ultimate authority is vested in national govPmment, but national government is bound to Listen to regional and local government and to leave these lower tiers considerable room for maneuver. Admittedly, the geographic scale of the country is such that it is relatively easy to perceive the jurisdiction as a whole. Other countries, whose system of government is more centralised than the Dutch, have greater difficulties in coming to grips with the shape of the territory as a whole. Ce that as it may, the preconditions for national planning doctrine in the Netherlands are f!llilled. In this, the Netherlands distinguishes herself from many if not most other countries. RULE AND ORDER AND THE TWO FACES OF DUTCH GROWTH MANAGEMENT Together with the previous section, this section forms the cornerstone of this article. In it, we flesh out the concrete form which maintaining rule and order took during the four periods distinguished above and show how, during the course of time, the two faces of growth control developed until a carefully established balance between them was achieved. We then demonstrate that the implementation of strategies conceived by national planners hinged as much on the appeal of the underlying doctrine (in particular the metaphors on which the principle of spatial organisation draws) as on the quality of the spatial plans. Systematic
tow
extension
In describing nineteenth century beginnings of the idea of well-ordered development, we draw on Van der Valk ( 1989). He showed that the Housing Act of 190 1, wrotgly perceived by
many as a break \vith the past. merely gated
promul-
ides
of good currency amongst late centup professionals. hc describes this set ot‘ideas with an umbrella term. systematic town extension. This suggestive notion signifies the intention of doing away with the chaotic consequences of private developers pursuing their own interests. Systematic town extension is a synthesis of the best ideas farmulated by architects, engineers, medical experts and housing reformers (many of them coming from foreign sources, with German town pianners having had a particular influence on the Dutch). Systematic town extension relates to the shape which development ought to take. as well as to the manner in which an orderly pattern couid be achieved. Systematic town extension rests on two prerequisites which no doubt made it seem welcome to its proponents. They are the availability and use of professional expertise in analysing and handling problems arising, and a strong role for government in land assembly and development. In other words, systematic towt: e-:tension was not devoid of features which WL right term technocratic.
nineteenth
Systematic town extension was pursued as an ideal by a loose federation of professionals, even after the Housing Act had been passed. These pioneers of the Dutch planning movement talked about ‘our Act’ and carefully monitored its implementation ( De Ruijter, 1987 ). The early twentieth century saw an expansion in the area of concern. Not only did the growth at the fringes of towns command attention, but also the way in which the growth impinged upon neighboring communities. Particularly prominent was the concern for the suburban flight of well-to-do people, the free rider problem which this generated and the threat to areas of outstanding natural beauty. After a spate of interest in the establishment
of garden cities in the lashion of Letchworth and Welwyn Garden City, the firm professional opinion was that urbanisation should take the form of concentric growth around existing built-up areas, with such faciliries (including open space ) provided as modern town planning required. The alternative was ribbon development but this was seen as the epitome of the disorder which Dutch planners detested. The General Extension PM of Amsterdam of 1935 represents th:s new consensus (see Faludi and De Ruijter, 1985, pp. 42-43 ). It reflects the conviction that concentric development would be satisfactory as iong as Amsterdam did not grow beyond the 1 million mark, an idea which everybody abhorred. (Fortunately. surveys had shown that this was unlikely to happen, at least until the end of the century. ) Concentrated decoucentration
By the middle of the century the strategy of concentric expansion was abandoned. This happened under the circumstances of the postwar situation when, as we know, an ever-expanding population had to be housed, but both expenditure on housing, as well as its location, needed to be coordinated with the pursuit of industrial growth, then the mainstay of Dutch policy. The vario?;s government commissions and agencies concerned were influenced, once again, by British policies, especially with respect to the new towns. There were two limitations to the British model. First, the scale of the Netherlands was seen to be too smail for new towns proper. The exceptions were two new towns, Lelystad and Almere, built on reclaimed land which, until not long ago, was not incorporated. Second, development corporations, like those in Britain which received funding directly from central government and were endowed with considerable statutory powers, were considered unsuitable for the Dutch context. Satellite towns were thought to be a feasible
d by choosingsuitable
I
seemed. to be an ideal way to de ment rsresjure away from t towards the outer rim oft satellite towns were to be created by designating specific existing communities to receive a substantial influx of newcomers. (In the British situation, there is a close analogy, not so much with new towns, but with expanded tawns.) This policy was based on the newly formed insight that the preservation of the Green Heart and also of the independence of existing towns and cities by designating buffer zones, were essential for the purpose of achieving an orderly pattern of development. This is described above as the Randstad/Green Heart complex of ideas and forms the central metaphor around which the Dutch principle of spatial organisation has evolved ever since. With the emergence of this complex of ideas, the notion of systematic town extension has taken a new shape, one that is adapted to the circumstances of the second half of this century. We call it systematic urbanisation, thus signifying that the scope of planning goes far beyond the extension of individual towns and to include the overall pattern of growth. Since then systematic urbanisation has been the leitmotif of Dutch planning, especially on the national level. Systematic urbanisation as a theme is clearly evident in a succession of government pclicy documents. It was in pursuit of these policies that growth management took shape. Again, the role of professionals and their ideas in propelling these developments along was only too evident. Thus, the development of Dutch planning doctrine is a fine example of what Dunleavy ( 198 1) describes as ideological corporatism. The compact city
Recently, two forces have combined against the type of growth management practised previously, concentrating as it does on restricting new development to designated areas away
from the donor cities. First, the Bghilosophy of no growth arising at the beginning ofthe 1380s made the whole idea of growth centers and growth towns I the literal translations from the Dutch ‘groeikernen’ and ‘grGeisteden’ ) seem suspxt, even though its manifest aim was to deflect growth from other, more sensitive areas. Second, there was a growing fear in the donor cities that they would be deprived of their most active population and left with people making excessive demands on social services, etc. Both sentiments coalesced with new design fashions emphasising urbanity. Thus, a new consensus emerged, epitomised by the slogan of the compact city, i.e. the idea of. yet again, concentrating development in and around existing towns and cities. This is still the dominant philosophy (a!though there is doubt- as to whether it will be sustained in the light of the persistent failure of the large towns and cities to provide adequate housing). THE FUTURE OF DUTCH GROWTH MANAGEMENT
What does the future hold for Dutch growth management? In particular, how is it going to be affected by the future integration of the Common Market? The first thing to note is that integration is primariiy seen as a challenge to the economy, and not likely to affect growth management. The perception of new challenges adds to the view, popular these days, that the industrial countries are going through a period of readjustment requiring a loosening of controls so as to create more favorable conditions for industry and private enterprise generally. Rightly or wrongly, this feeling that government interference stifles economic performance also affects the perception of growth management. As an added handicap, growth management is being associated with the welfare state. This is understandable in view of the role which massive housing subsidies have played in making its cornerstone, the development of new towns
.:.F;- *.
<.::T?$wooaiand 2x -.
<4-?
_.
-.
Fringe
area
Greenhouses
Transport
Rap-d trJmllne
Central O’f’O
t4otorwoy
Landmcrk
Exlstang New
settlement
node
water
development
Fig. 2. Plan for a park city in south Holland. Source: Province of South Holland ( 1989 ), report on the intermediate city betwtun court and port?
and expanded towns. into the glaring success which it was. The Fourth National Physical Planning Report currently under discussion has a marked tendency to distance itself from housing policy, and hence from an important aspect of growth management. The Report focuses on new issues, such as telecommunications, environmental pollution, major reconstruction projects, transport. etc., instead. Above all, the Fourth Report seeks to assert a central role for national physical planning in the reinvigoration of the Dutch economy to get it into shape for European and worldwide competition. As a part of this. any pretense of equalising opportunities between regions has been abandoned. The western Netherlands are seen, once again, as the economic engine on which the develop-
area: a park-
ment of the Dutch economy hinges. Other regions must fend for themselves (which some of them, especially in the south and scutheast, do with such success that the centre of gravity may actually shift, once the Common h4arket takes effect and their locational advantage becomes more evident ). But it is a moot point whether disengagement from positive growth management is a wise policy. The figure announced in the Fourth Report of 1 million additional homes needed between now and the year 20 15 in the Randstad afone is frightening, but the figure itself may be arguable. There can be no dispute about the continuing need to develop housing. The physical fabric of the Netherlands is far from near-completion, contrary to the common feeling at the beginning of the 1?8Os. At
It seems a fair guess that. where 1 million need to be built in an already very densely developed area such as the western Netherlands (and where, in the good Dutch ‘ling, this is required to be done on) growth management, both in the sense of growth control, as well as in the sense of the government taking overall responsibility for the provision of housing, services etc. (including their location and timing) will remain a necessity. The task for the near future is, then, to combine this with the current concerns for preparing for economic competition. This, rather than sacrificing growth management as we know it in the Netherlands. seems to be the way ahead. arm
engagementof national
govern
al p~a~~~~gin panic&r will be fealong run. Two considerations seem relevant. First, development in ‘.he Randstad will meet physical and environmental conis suggests more rather than less government involvement. Second, demand for gcvemment involvement may come from unexpected comers: employers in the western Netherlands may voice concern about the difficulties of recruiting quali;ied labor; there may be deteriorating conditions, amongst others, for housing top management; there may also be COfiStiZiiltS Oii their OpiXZtiOiiS
._.I__ Owrug to eiivi-
ronmental concerns. The distributional effects of housing shortages in the western Netherlands, with concomitant rises in property values which may make housing prohibitively expensive for Karters, may cause political problems, too. The present author is of the opinion that the traditional concern of Dutch planning for rule and order in development, crystallised in the idea of systematically channeling urbanisation following well thought out patterns, will reassert itself. So th,:re may come a time when renewed emphasis is given to positive growth management, perhaps even of a comprehensive kind. We may see the earmarking of whole regions for growth. This will allow others to be safeguarded from too much growth, as is the tradition in the Netherlands. Thus, we may find Dutch planners in future talking in terms of growth regions , rather than merely of growth towns and cities. An example is the area between The Hague, Zoetermeer (itself a growth center) and Rotterdam, where a park city (see Fig. 2) with 60 000-70 000 new housing units is under discussion.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This paper is based on a study conducted jointly with Dr. A. van der Valk of the Institute of Planning and Demography of the arriversity of Amsterdam. The study was commissioned by the association of growth centers and has been published (in Dutch ) under the title “Groeikernen als hoekstenen van de Nedplanningdoctrine” erlandse ruimtelij ke (“Growth centres as the cornerstones of Dutch planning doctrine”). This paper was completed before publication of the revised Fourth National Physical Planning Report “Extra” (Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning tind Environment, 199 1). In that report the new government puts extra emphasis on environmental concerns. REFERENCES Alexander, E.R. and Faludi, A.. 1990. Planning doctrine: its uses and applications. Working papers of the Instiiute of Planning and Demography. University of Amsterdam. no. 120, Bast, P., Goedman. J. and Zonneveld, W., 1990. Randstad: concept of naam? Planologische Discussiedagen, Delftse Uitzevers Maatschappij. Planologische Discussiedagen, Delft, pp. 87-9.5.
LOO Chlnktz. R.. IYW Growth management: good for the to\\n. had for the nation. J. .Am. Plaml. Assoc.. 56: 3-8. t>p Ktlljtcr. P.. 1’478. DC Verstrdelijkingsnota in hct licht xan dc Stratcplschc hcuscbenndcr~rrg. In: .A. Faludl and P. dc Ruqtcr (Editors). Plariwng als beslurtkorming: theone. ondcr\\lJs en ~ViiktlJh. Samson. l>l> Ru~jtr‘r. P.. 19s’. \‘oor wll\shuis\,cstmg cn stedebow: \ oorgcschredcnls. oprichting en programma van hct Nederlands lnstltuut vow Volkshuis\r%ting en Stedebouw 1820-19~0. Llltgeverij Matrijs. Utrecht. Dunleavy. P., 198 1. Professions and poliq chauge: notes towards a model of ideological corporatism. Publ. .4dmin. Bull .,a.. ‘5. 3-8 . Faludi. .4.. 1987. A Decision-centred View of Environmental Planning. Pergamon. Oxford. Faludi. .A.. 1989. Perspectives on planning doctrine. In: .4. Faludi (Editor). Keeping the Netherlands m Shape. Built Environ.. 15: 57-64. Faludi. A. and De Ruijter. P.. 1985. No match for the present crisis? The theoretical and institutional framework for Dutch planning. In: .4.K. Dutt and F.J. Cosla. Public Planning in the Netherlands. Oxford Unixcersity Press. Oxford. pp. 35-Q. Fudge. C. and Barrett. S.. I9S I. Reconstructing the field of analysis. In: S. Barrett and C. Fudge (Editors ), Policy and Action: Essays on the implementation of Public Policy. Methuen. London. pp. 249-278. Glasbergen. P. and Simonis, J.B.D.. 1979. Ruimtelijk beltid in de verzorgingsstaat. Uitgeverij &bra. Amsterdam. Mastop. J.M.. 1987. Besluitvotming, hsndelen en normeren: een methodologische studie naar aanleiding van het streekplnnwerk. Planologische Studies 4. Planologisch en Demografisch Instituut. Universiteit van .4msterdam. Ministry of Housing and Physical Planning. I99 I. Fourth re-
4 FU_t_:DS
port (ESTR.: ) on ph) sic4 planning m the Netherlands. The Haguc. hlmrstn of Housmg. Ph\s~cal Planning and Environment. 1988. On the road to 1015: comprehensive summan of the fourth report on physical planning in the Netherlands (polq mtentlon ). The Hague. Mlmstc of Housing. Physical Planning and Ensironmenr. undated. Space b> dxgn: ph) swal plannmg m the Netherlands: English summary of a pubhcatlon which was issued to mark the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the .i\dvisory Council on Physical Planning (R.4RO). The Hague. Needham, B., 1988. The Netherlands. In: G. Hallett {Editors ), Land and Housing Policies in Europe and the USA. Routledge and Kegan Paul. London, pp. 49-75. Needham. B. and Dekker, A., 1983. The fourth repor. on physical planning in the Netherlands. Neth. J. Housing Environ. Res.. 3: 335-344. Needham. B.. Kruijt, B. and Lambooy. J.. 1989. An economic analysis of the land development process in the Netherlands. Annual Meeting of the American Real Estate Society. Washington DC. I I- I4 April. Van der Heiden. C.N.. 1988. Foreign influence on Dutch planning doctrine. Werkstukken van het Planologisch en Demografisch Instituut, Univeniteit van Amsierdam, no. 104. Van der Valk, A., 1989. Amsterdam in aanleg: planvorming en dagelijks handelen ISjO- 1900. Planologische Studies 8. Planologisch en Demografisch Instituut, Universiteit van Amsterdam. Wijers. L., 1975. The “Randstad Holland” conurbation. Publ. 75-2 E, National Physical Planning Agency, Government Printing Office, The Hague.