Metropolitan Greens

Involving the landscape of Midden Delfland, The Netherlands, within metropolitan life

Edoardo Saba, Università Roma Tre, Italy

Foreword
This paper is a contribution to the research proposal Metropolitan Greens, carried out in 2009 by
professor René van der Velde (Delft University of Technology) as an academic participation in the planning
vision for the municipality of Midden Delfland (NL). It is meant to serve as a theoretical framework to orient the
future of Midden Delfland’s territory, situated within the metropolitan area of Zuidvleugel. As it constitutes one
component of a network of green in-between areas, this paper posits that the area, if it were adequately integrated
with the metropolitan system, could play an important role within Zuidvleugel. Therefore a strong relationship
between the urban areas and green in-between areas should be fostered. Specifying the nature of this relationship
is the aim of this paper. In order to do that, two reflections are presented that elaborate on the way new activities
could be introduced to these areas. First, the results of a previous study named Tussen Ruimte about in-between
areas at the scale of the Zuidvleugel are used as the starting point to define the most suitable categories of
activities that the areas could include.1 Second, a theoretical perspective is offered as a qualitative criterion to
interweave activities on Midden Delfland’s territory and on areas of the same kind.

Future challenges of Midden Delfland

Midden Delfland is situated within the metropolitan area named Zuidvleugel, which has a population of
3.5 million. Zuidvleugel’s area contains 24 municipalities of various sizes. Rotterdam, The Hague, Leiden and
Dordrecht are the biggest in terms of population. Zuidvleugel is in turn the southern section of the Randstad
metropolitan region, which has a population of 7 million and a population density of 850 per km2. Over the past
thirty years Zuidvleugel has gained 500,000 new inhabitants and has transformed into a cohesive metropolitan
area.2 Cities and small towns within this area constitute a complex cluster connected through material and
immaterial networks. In terms of morphology, several green in-between areas are embedded in this cluster.
Scattered throughout the Zuidvleugel, and potentially accessible from several infrastructural networks, these areas
occupy more that 60% of Zuidvleugel’s total area. Due to their interstitial character these areas could play a large
role in terms of increasing the spatial quality of nearby urban areas.
However, most of these green in-between areas are currently ignored by metropolitan life, and are often
kept toward the outskirts of urban neighborhoods.3 They work mainly as buffer zones between different towns.
This study posits that green in-between areas will not be used unless they are incorporated in lived networks. The
municipality of Midden Delfland territory represents one of these green in-between areas, with an extension of
5,000 hectares, a population of 18,000 and a density of 388 per km2. It represents a broad green space in the
immediate vicinity of Delft, Schiedam and Rotterdam.
This paper postulates that Midden Delfland’s territory could be involved with Zuidvleugel’s
metropolitan life by incorporating activities that are related to its green character. The relevance of the
involvement of green in-between areas has already been pointed out by many scholars. However in the Dutch
context the claim for the involvement of green in-between areas within metropolitan life usually is related to the
demand of new spaces for leisure activities and high-stardard living settings. These two categories need areas with
a strong green character, a condition that traditional urban contexts cannot entirely offer due to their limited
supply of open space.4 Some authors pointed out how some people act every day on multiple stages, that belong
to different scales, are distant in space and are linked together by their trajectories5. With regards to metropolitan
contexts, some types of city dwellers seek for additional stages with a bucolic scenery in the immediate vicinity of
the city, where they can live while commuting to their jobs in the city. Therefore Midden Delfland’s future might
arguably be related to the satisfaction of those demands, by the promotion of its green character, as a vehicle to
involve the area within metropolitan life. However, this paper adds two additional reflections that can contribute
to the ongoing debate over the future of Midden Delfland’s territory.
First, the future transformation of Midden Delfland’s green in-between areas should stem from an
assessment of the whole system of green in-between areas of the Zuidvleugel. This is because green in-between

1
areas should be treated as a system whereby components are complementary both in function and ecology. In this
respect the Tussen Ruimte study, which provides an inventory of all green areas within the Zuidvleugel, will be
utilized as a starting point.
Second, in order for Midden Delfland’s involvement with metropolitan life to be successful, the
development should promote a wide variety of usages in order to make this area part of the urban experience of
different people. In particular, this paper points out that these areas should not be simply exploited in terms of
their potential to satisfy the market demand of a specific market category (e.g. yuppies) to be fully integrated into
the metropolis. On the contrary, rural inhabitants and their lifestyles should also be taken into account, as real
integration will be achieved if the landscape is treated as a foundation for cultural diversity and interaction.
In the following sections, the aforementioned two points will be developed as a desirable starting point
in relation of Midden Delfland’s future plans and strategies.
The relevance of the Tussen Ruimte report
The Tussen Ruimte report was concluded in 2007 by the Atelier Zuidvleugel, which represents an
autonomous institution within the province of Zuid-Holland and is aimed at promoting planning cohesiveness
within the Zuidvleugle metropolitan area. This task entails taking into account the landscape’s significance as a
vehicle of identity and instigating the involvement of green in-between spaces within the metropolitan area.
The Tussen Ruimte report (literally, ‘in-between space’ in Dutch) makes an inventory of all green in-
between areas of Zuidvleugel and identifies three categories as the main components of a unique green system:
the Metropolitan Landscapes, The Metropolitan Parks and The Metropolitan Urban Parks. This paper will focus
on the category of Metropolitan Parks, which Midden Delfland’s territory belongs to. Metropolitan Parks are
meant to be large green areas that are highly accessible from the whole metropolitan area and that can
incorporate a mix of funtions, from recreational to agricultural, for both the metropolitan area and its immediate
surroundings. The study considers all Zuidvleugel’s green in-between areas at once and examines them from
eight different development perspectives, the so-called building blocks.6 To make a sound analysis of the region as
a whole, each of the building blocks that play a role in it were examined separately. The building blocks are water,
infrastructure, agriculture, urbanization, recreation, ecology, economy and cultural history. The report then
proposes to combine these building blocks whenever they overlap, forecasting multiple developments for the same
area and instigating synergies between different development possibilities.7 Subsequently it selects particular
synergies that are capable of triggering economic development by means of a particular spatial-functional
combination of activities, the so-called typologies.8 Some examples of typologies are leisure hubs, agro-heritage
parks, agro-enterprise parks, agro-gateways, village extensions, recreational natural areas and pristine landscapes.
Finally, the report suggests framing the green in-between areas in one landscape system defined as a spatial
structure, which is composed by the aforementioned Metropolitan Landscapes, Metropolitan Parks and
Metropolitan Urban Parks.9 The new uses and activities defined in the typologies list are spatially bounded within
a unique spatial structure with the objective of preventing the occurrence of a fragmented configuration. The
report dedicates separate chapters to each of these passages and analyzes Zuidvleugel each time with a different
emphasis.
The relevance of the study is that its conclusions come from an integral approach to the planning
discipline, which attempts to bridge sectors and to involve multiple categories of users. The most innovative
aspect is that it tries to arrange coherent ‘worlds’ as networks that materialize through the landscape and promote
their interaction in specific significant places (typologies). Furthermore, the choices and selection of potentials for
development are based on a balance sheet applied to the whole territory of Zuidvleugel. A comprehensive strategy
of this type, focusing on the role and value of the landscape in relation to economic development, cohesion and
identity, had been almost entirely absent until the study was conducted.
This paper thus posits that the Tussen Ruimte report could helpfully be used as a framework to elaborate
on Midden Delfland’s future, which is one of the green in-between areas that are classified as possible
Metropolitan Parks. In particular the two concepts of typologies and spatial structure would represent the base to
select the most suitable combination of activities for Midden Delfland and bound them within a landscape
framework.
Spaces of activities and green in-between areas
While the Tussen Ruimte report is used to define the types of activity that Midden Delfland’s territory
should include, this paper posits that that another qualitative criterion should be taken into account in order to

2
promote the integration of green in-between areas into the metropolital system. Shifting the focus from the
activities to the people, this additional criterion recommends that multi-scalar uses of the same area should be
promoted, as green in-between areas should be treated as lived-in spaces for different publics. If different publics
are encouraged to live in and move through the landscape, their interaction can literally provide a ground for
cultural diversity. With that in mind, a range of networks, from local to global, should be properly organized, as
their sense of place develops through the interaction of different networked cultures. This additional criterion is
particularly relevant with regard to the design phase, as it pertains to the way in which different activities are
interwoven. Undoubtedly the way spaces are arranged is a powerful means to promote or limit the
aforementioned interactions.
This principle is extracted from the debate about public space in peri-urban territories and about how
people can develop a sense of place in complex habitats that strongly differ from traditional urban environments.
In particular it is worth mentioning contemporary reflections about the concept of place in the context of the
network society, first introduced by Manuel Castells. While some thinkers like Castells assert that places cannot
exist anymore because they have vaporized in the space of flows,10 others like Doreen Massey and Pat Jess state
that the concept of place still exists, but that its meaning has been transformed; they state that in the network
society our everyday life trajectories and positions determine our space of activity.11 The concept of place can be
reconstructed, according to these thinkers, in the areas where many spaces of activity overlap, intersect and
perhaps interact with one another. These authors speak of a global sense of place, meaning that the nature of
place is primarily social but that it still has materiality. Since intersections between spaces of activity are always
different, places are still unique: this uniqueness rests on its particular involvement within the geography of
networks. Where there are intersections and interactions, there is also an accumulation of meanings. With
specific regard to urban landscape, other authors assert that the global is localized in countless ways, which affirm
local culture while accessing the global and metropolitan scales.12
Consequently, one of the leading criteria for the design proposal of a Metropolitan Park, which is the
land use proposed for Midden Delfland, is that it is recommendable to instigate multiple uses of the same area.
In addition, it is important to arrange a spatial layout that overlaps spaces of activity of different social groups
and on different scales. In the words of Rem Koolhaas:
“If there is to be a "new urbanism" [...] it will no longer be concerned with the arrangement of more or less
permanent objects but with the irrigation of territories with potential; it will no longer aim for stable
configurations but for the creation of enabling fields that accommodate processes that refuse to be crystallized
into definitive form; it will no longer be about meticulous definition, the imposition of limits, but about
expanding notions, denying boundaries, not about separating and identifying entities, but about discovering
unnameable hybrids”.13
This criterion seems to be met in the case of public space in campact cities, as public space between
buildings constitutes the ground on which diffeent people meet and interact.14 However, in the case of Midden
Delfland the spatial context is a peri-urban area. Conceiving the landscape as “the” public space of dispersed
peripheral contexts could place the discussion on the right track. In the compact city, urban-designers are busy
with the arrangement of squares and street networks. Similarly, these large green in-between areas can be treated
as a dilation of traditional public space, that needs to be arranged as a Metropolitan Landscape and partially
designed as a Metropolitan Park.
A clear reference to the idea that different networked worlds can interact through landscape and that
multiple categories of users can experience green in-between areas on different scales is mentioned in the Insights
of the Tussen Ruimte report:
“The landscape makes it possible to connect and embody identities on all spatial levels. Without a collective
sense of belonging, however, the landscape will not be collectively understood and addressed.”
“A new approach is needed, one that considers cities and green space as forming an interrelated whole. The
network approach is the most appropriate: it works with multiple scales at once and takes account of their
interaction.”15
As a result, green in-between areas might succeed in being integrated within metropolitan systems, if
their programme includes a broad range of users, and their spatial layout fosters the interaction of different
publics and increases cultural diversity.
Some citizens feel the desire to return to the landscape and spend their leisure hours in seemingly natural

3
settings. Others decide to live in these hybrid peri-urban environments in order to combine the benefits of the
countryside with the proximity to the city. However, especially in the Dutch context, local life is enormously
threatened as small towns gradually become commuter suburbs of bigger cities.
Thus the effort to involve green in-between areas in metropolitan life and promote cultural diversity goes
hand-in-hand with the acknowledgement and promotion of local life styles as well. As a consequence, new social
and economic models may arise from the proximity of green in-between areas and cities. In this respect some
goverments are trying to foster the local economy of green in-between areas. In the Netherlands, for example,
local farmers are encouraged to maintain the landscape by means of specific deals with the public authorities (e.g
pay lower taxes on selling their products, as long as they maintain the green areas). Some authors like Pierre
Donadieu affirm that public institutions should promote these kinds of transactions massively in their policies
regarding green in-between areas. If policies go steadily in that direction, states Pierre Donadieu, then the
transformation of green in-between areas into metropolitan landscapes and parks will be an occasion for
supporting a new kind of society, the so-called Landscape Society.16 This paper proposes thus to reverse the
original query of how to integrate green in-between areas into metropolitan life, and introduces the following
question: do transformations of green in-between areas modify the metropolitan life? A possible answer could be
that they do, and that moreover they contribute to transform metropolitan society into a post-metropolitan
society.
In the case of Midden Delfland, solutions such as the aforementioned ones seem to respond coherently
to the challenges that the municipality faces. Encouraging the persistence of local users by converting the local
economy is in line with the idea of providing a wide variety of spaces of activity.
Conclusion
This paper posits that Midden Delfland’s green in-between areas, due to their interstitial nature and
their value in terms of landscape, could be fully integrated into metropolitan life. However, with regard to the
types of activity that the area should include, this paper supports the list of typologies presented in the Tussen
Ruimte report, which select combinations of activities based on a balance sheet applied to the whole Zuidvleugel.
These typologies compromise the demand of development with the landscape character of these areas. Moreover,
an additional criterion is introduced, namely that these areas should be part of the everyday experience of
different publics. As such, cultural diversity should be achieved by promoting the overlapping of different spaces
of activity that pertain to different scales, from local to global. Within peri-urban contexts a sense of place can
still exist when an accumulation of meanings is allowed. Ultimately, the inclusion of green in-between areas
within the metropolitan system entails the promotion of new social and economic models, which are based on
the conservation of the cultural landscape and the preservation of the environment.

References

1
Atelier Zuidvleugel, 2007. Tussen Ruimte. Den Haag.
2
Atelier Zuidvleugel, p. 8.
3
Atelier Zuidvleugel, p. 11.
4
Thompson, Catharine Ward and Travlou, Penny, 2007. Open space. People space. New York Routledge.
5
Goffman, Erving, 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.
6
Atelier Zuidvleugel, 2007. Tussen Ruimte. Den Haag. p. 103.
7
Atelier Zuidvleugel, p. 106.
8
Atelier Zuidvleugel, p. 137.
9
Atelier Zuidvleugel, p. 165.
10
Castells, Manuel., 1989.The Informational City. Oxford, Basil Blackwell.
11
Massey, Doreen and Jess, Pat, 1995. A Place in the World? Places, Cultures and Globalization. Oxford, The Open University.
12
Read, Stephen, 2007. “Deep Landscapes: Constructing Urban Landscapes for Inhabitation”. In Proceedings:
6thInternational Space Syntax Symposium. Istanbul, Cenkler.
13
Koolhaas, Rem and Mau, Bruce, 1994. S,M,L,XL. New York, The Monicelli Press.
14
Gehl, Jan, 1987. Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. Washington- Covelo-London, Insland Press.
15
Atelier Zuidvleugel, 2007. Tussen Ruimte. Den Haag.
16
Donadieu, Pierre, 1998. Campagnes Urbaines. Versailles-Marseille, Ecole Nationale Supérieure du Paysage.