GeoJournal 43.4: 351–358.

 1997 (December) Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Planning doctrine and post-industrial urban

development: the Amsterdam experience
Cortie, Cees; Department of Human Geography, University of Amsterdam,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Received 20 March 1997; accepted 16 July 1997

Abstract: Urban planners have to develop a planning doctrine (Faludi and Van der Valk
1990). This concept stands for a body of thoughts concerning (a) spatial arrangements within
an area, (b) the development of that area; and (c) the way both should be handled. To be
successful, they need a planning community (planners, top officials and sub-national estab-
lishments for political support) that nurtures it. The planners of the Amsterdam General
Extension Plan (1935) developed a doctrine that covers three levels of functions and activ-
ities: (1) Amsterdam is a regional centre, a closed functional system, an orthogenetic city.
(2) a monocentric urban form and (3) homogeneous neighbourhood communities around a
common neighbourhood centre (church, school, medical services, shops). Since the early
1970s Amsterdam has become (1) an international centre, a heterogenetic city, part of a
network city system, (2) has developed into a polycentric urban region, and (3) has been
acquiring ethnically mixed quarters, divided communities losing their basic function as
common neighbourhood centres and even as ‘control areas’ or ‘domains’ (Hägerstrand 1970).
So in Amsterdam the planning-doctrine was not particularly successful.

Key words: activities, functions, planning doctrine

The ideas and ideals of planners regarding the city
form part of their total vision of society. From such
a scientific or ideologically based vision, the city is
given (1) a place within a larger unit, for example a
region, state or within a network of cities. This is
necessary because the development of a city is depen-
dent upon the economic, political, cultural and
recreational functions it fulfills within this larger unit.
On the lowest spatial level such a vision is used
in order to research which functions the existing
areas of a city fulfil at present and what spatial
requirements future functions will necessitate. It is
therefore necessary to delineate (2)the spatial struc-
ture of the city and (3) the daily life (working, living,
recreation, communication and movement) of the
inhabitants both at present and in several decades to
come.
This requirement of predictability makes high,
perhaps impossible demands, for planners have only
limited possibilities for broadening and deepening
their vision through theoretical and empirical
research. Their budget is limited and those who
commission their work have a vested interest in the
design and results of their research. This leads to
uncertainty amongst the researchers, and having to
consult and negotiate with the people who commis-
sion the work can affect the method of research
followed, and also, therefore, the results of that
research.
The General Extension Plan of Amsterdam
(Algemeen Uitbreidingsplan (AUP), 1935) is well
known in town planning circles for being the first
large spatial plan, founded upon scientific knowl-
edge, which has also been put into effect. There is a
good case for calling the vision of the planners of the
AUP a planning doctrine. The term ‘planning
doctrine’ fits a particular concept of spatial planning.
In order to clarify both concepts recent work by
Faludi and Swyngedouw is interesting.
Swyngedouw (1994) gives a description of what
he calls the ‘quasi generally accepted vision of
“spatial planning” ’. It is interpreted as an activity
imposed from above (usually the government) in
order to realise a number of more or less well-defined
aims for the future, with an emphasis on the improve-
ment of the existing situation. The term ‘spatial
planning’ does suggest that without the practice of
spatial planning, social life (in spatial terms) would
352
become chaotic (which is undesirable) and that
‘spatial planning’ by definition is a task of the
government, or the state, which allows it to regulate
and order the maze and complexity of fragmented
and individualised dealings ‘for the good of the
public’.
Faludi defines spatial planning doctrine as being
composed of coherent and durable ideas concerning
the planning subject with regard to (a) the spatial
order in an area; (b) the spatial development of this
area and (c) how both tasks are to be carried out
(Faludi and Van der Valk 1990). In addition to this,
he expects great benefit to arise from: ‘a group of
likeminded people (mainly professional followers of
the subject) who advocate the necessity for a certain
type of policy and who endeavour to bring about a
political and social point of connection’ (Faludi 1994,
p. 78).
Swyngedouw accentuates that in addition to the
government, there are all sorts of other organisations
which try to exercise their influence on the use of
space. Aims must be formulated through planning by
the government, via democratic decision making at
the regional level, and the spatial planning must then
lead to an improvement of the situation for the
ordinary inhabitant and his living environment. In
short, Faludi propagates the top-down system of
planning as used by the AUP team and Swyngedouw
a bottom-up system of planning.
Confronting the planning doctrine of the AUP
and the development of Amsterdam, three levels of
analysis can be discerned. Use is made of recent
research in Geuzenveld-Slotermeer, one of the areas
built under the AUP (Cortie and Dekker 1995). The
article concludes with a discussion of the different
concepts of planning.
1. The functions of Amsterdam in a larger
3. whole
The planners of the AUP showed little interest in the
economic, political or cultural functions fulfilled by
Amsterdam within the Netherlands or in the outside
world. They merely stated that the city was the centre
of a region. This conforms, more or less, to the ideas
of Christaller (1933). They did not undertake any
research into the position of Amsterdam in a larger
context, or into its external relations, but limited it to
a stock-taking of the industrial activities in and around
the edge of the city according to type of business,
number of workers and the extent of the local market
and beyond. This choice was motivated by the
argument that the industry and the harbour exercise
more influence on the town planning structure of the
city than other activities do and that this structure
must offer as much support as possible to the existing
economic activities. In this, they underestimated the
possibility that the means of communication and
C. Cortie
transport which already existed (aeroplane, car, tele-
phone), might also come into mass use throughout
the Netherlands as was the case in the USA.
The idea that it can be useful to take cognizance
of the developments in a country more advanced than
their own obviously did not have many supporters.
In short, the planners of the AUP had a very localised
vision of the function of a city. They regarded
Amsterdam as an orthogenetic city, that is a city
originating from itself and aimed towards itself. This
type of city elaborates and reinforces the prevailing
regional culture. To the contrary a network citys well-
being depends on the integration of unlike things and
places. ‘Instead of being orthogenetic it is heteroge-
netic introducing alien cultures and values, and
developing a specific urban hybrid that can conflict
sharply with the norms of its region. The heteroge-
netic capital is a place of exception, a source of
novelty, a threat to the local culture. At one and the
same time its international status is uncontested while
its national pre-eminence is resisted’ (De Vries 1988,
pp. 33–34).
2. The spatial structure of the city
The choice made for the future town planning struc-
ture of Amsterdam is understandable, in view of the
lack of interest given to the national and inter-
national functions of the city. The planners consid-
ered two concepts: a monocentric (compact) city
within the existing municipal borders, and a decen-
tralised city.
The most important argument for the concept of
the compact city was that the economic activity in
Amsterdam could suffer if the city should develop
into a dispersed. ‘The structure of trade and industry
in Amsterdam shows the very first, single, large
coherent group of industries, namely the wholesale
trade, banking and insurance, the harbour industry,
the shipping-companies, all of which can only be
carried out in a central location and which are already
sufficient for the formation of a sizeable agglomer-
ation. The best location for the greater part of the
primary industries is in and around the city, and apart
from these, there are many industries which are still
real agglomeration industries, and which regard the
city both as a reservoir of workers and as an outlet
for marketing’.
They pointed out that certain activities (harbour
industries, radio) are deconcentrated and tertiary
activities in particular are concentrated. The causes
of this spatial relocation were, however, given
scarcely any attention. They considered the dominant
position of the city centre of Amsterdam within the
city and the region as unassailable.
Entirely in harmony with their local (orthogenic)
vision they gave a dominant place to the prognosis
of the size of the population. On the basis of an
Planning doctrine and post-industrial urban development
accurate analysis of birth and death figures and of a
global estimate of migration (De Gans 1995) they
arrived at a maximum and minimum variant, and then
in predicting the number of inhabitants in the year
2000 they chose the average, which was 960.000
(770.000 in 1935). They stated that the principal of
basing this increase upon the development of the
means of subsistence would have been better, but saw
no possibility of researching either this or the future
age distribution and the structure of the income and
occupations of the population. Therefore, they began
by using practically consistent characteristic features
of the population, postulating merely a slight decline
in the average family size, namely from 3.74 in 1930
to 3.37 in 2000.
As a result of this presupposition, it was thought
that there was enough room within the municipal
territory in order for the necessary residential areas
to be developed. The residential areas could and
should be located within a short distance of the
centres of job opportunity and the core city, because
close proximity was essential for businesses.
Communication was taken over by face-to-face
contacts and the postal system in place of the tele-
phone. People walked, cycled or used public trans-
port, but rarely went by car or aeroplane. Goods went
by water or rail, rarely by lorry or aeroplane. The
fixed-rail transport system was perfect for the hier-
archical monocentric urban structure. Despite the
existence of technologies such as the telephone and
car, their mass use was not expected.
It is noteworthy that the planners gave such little
attention to developments on the regional level, in
view of the research that had already been undertaken
by members of the group and the extensive interna-
tional literature in this field. Members of the Chicago
school already spoke about ‘the metropolitan district
of the city of Chicago which extends to a radius of
50 miles’ (Burgess 1925).
Were the planners ill-informed of this American
literature or did the people commissioning the work,
in this case the municipality of Amsterdam, play a
decisive role in the choice of a compact city within
the territory of Amsterdam? Whatever the answer to
this question, what is certain, is that the choice of
spatial planning doctrine dominated the thoughts of
the planning apparatus and the municipality of
Amsterdam for more than half a century.
3. The daily life of the inhabitants:
3. the residential area
The vision of the AUP regarding the construction of
residential areas corresponds with that of reformers
such as Ebenezer Howard (1985, first print 1898).
They regarded the large industrial cities as being the
source of all misery and believed that a partial return
to the countryside, in the hybrid form of garden
353
cities, would be a cure for the poor living conditions.
Their ideal of having a mixed population with regard
to income was also adopted by the planners of the
AUP.
However, the Garden City Commission, estab-
lished by the town council, did not lead to indepen-
dent garden cities, but garden villages located within
the municipality. The Social Democratic Workers
Party (SDAP) believed that the garden villages were
a compromise, that finally made it possible for the
workers in Amsterdam to live in the country. The
Socialists were advocates of social separation by
area: kind by kind, to be achieved by differences in
the density of development and type of housing (high
rise and low rise). That is, classification by level of
income. The stage of the development of the family
and type of household played a role, but racial or
ethnic characteristics did not. This starting point is
understandable. The family with children formed the
uncontroversial corner stone of the community, and
apart from a large group of Jews (a small ten percent
of the population) and a handful of Chinese,
Amsterdam was ethnically and racially homogenous.
The liberals repeatedly criticise the Social
Democratic taxation policy, which, in their eyes, led
to the suburbanisation of well-to-do families. The
AUP would not put a stop to this selective exodus,
because a luxurious suburban environment was not
developed.
The residential areas were to be separated from
each other by areas of recreation and green zones. ‘In
this way a centralised form of expansion could be
found, whereby the principal advantages of the
garden city, namely the more independent character,
the greater openness and the application of the one-
family-house, could be realised and the disadvantages
of an economic and practical nature linked with a
remote and isolated situation were avoided’
(Algemeen Uitbreidingsplan, p. 33).
Within the structure of the city, the residential
areas were seen as functional and social local com-
munities. All consumer activities (shops, schools,
health provision, recreation etc) should take place
within the neighbourhood. The same should apply
to social relations, for example in the form of mutual
house visits, the communal undertaking of activities
and helping each other with problems.
The application of the notion of the garden village
in the new areas had to offer its inhabitants the
possibility of pleasant housing, walking, picnicking
but also active relaxation in the form of gardening
and sport. The green zones were left to penetrate the
city like lobes.
‘The importance of such deep penetrative parks or
green areas for the future city cannot be emphasised
enough. The feeling of openness, the connection
between country and city is necessary both from the
physical as well as from the health point of view, in
order to promote the habitability of the city, which
354
Figure 1. The magnets. Source: Howard 1985, p. 9.
otherwise would grow into an endless sea of houses’
(Algemeen Uitbreidingsplan 1935, p. 106).
Therefore, inspired by Ebenezer Howard (1985),
there was a desire to improve life in the residential
areas of the town by bringing in rural green and
thereby combining the quality of the city and country.
To what extent has the AUP vision been realised
and to what extent has the spatial planning doctrine
originating from it been useful? The answer to these
questions is shown mainly by the development of one
of the AUP-areas: Geuzenveld-Slotermeer.
4. From regional centre to node in a network
From the end of the sixties in particular, social
changes (economic, cultural, political) have com-
pletely defeated a vision of Amsterdam as being a
regional, inwardly directed city. In addition to
deindustrialization and the transition to the service
industry, the enlargement of the structure and scale
of industries and institutions (internationalisation) is
also important. A division of labour has developed
on the national and international scale, together with
a redistribution of wealth and an increase in migra-
tion.
The most extensive research into the division of
economic functions in urban areas in Western Europe
concludes that the Amsterdam region has a strong
international profile (Brunet 1989). Amsterdam
belongs to a small group which is strong mainly in
international relations and communication (charac-
terised by: head offices, airport and harbour, exhibi-
tion and congress centres) and scores above average
in the economic field (including finance, high tech).
C. Cortie
Internationalisation is, generally speaking, coupled
with a high level of prosperity (Cortie and Dignum
1991). In short, Amsterdam has become a post-indus-
trial city.
As regards culture, Amsterdam is also certainly no
longer a peripheral city within Western Europe. This
has become apparent since the sixties, from the way,
for example, it has caught up in the areas of rela-
tionships and education (De Feijter 1991) and its
leading the way in the formation of a youth culture
(Mamadouh 1992). This cultural progress was
coupled with a strong decline in the birth rate and
an increase in the proportion of households composed
of young people, both single and those living
together. The prominent international position and the
heterogenic culture of Amsterdam are evident from
observations by foreign social scientists who stayed
several months in Amsterdam (Deben et al. 1993).
In the political field, Amsterdam appears to be
losing its grip in the area of spatial planning. This is
increasingly being taken over by authorities on a
higher level, whilst the surrounding municipalities
have also gained influence. This is shown, for
example, by the fact that after the great annexations
of 1921 (Watergraafsmeer, Sloten, Ouder-Amstel),
Amsterdam had to fight against the government to be
able to incorporate the Bijlmermeer at first tem-
porarily and then permanently. This annexation
would probably not have succeeded had the area not
been practically uninhabited. After that, the annexa-
tion of adjoining towns was not down for discussion.
Even the formation of a regional council, regarded
by many as an attempt by Amsterdam to dominate
regional politics, failed.
A city such as Amsterdam has even less influence
on large investments of an infrastructural nature
(TGV, Schiphol, glass fibre, the IJ-bank project,
North-South metro), cultural nature (universities,
museums) or consumptive nature; that is, things
expected to be of great importance for the future of
the city. The political decision-making concerning the
conditions under which a city functions, takes place
increasingly within (inter)national organisations. In
short, the vision of Amsterdam as a regional, ortho-
genic city was possible back in the thirties, but is
untenable on the basis of recent research. Amsterdam
is now a heterogenic node and link in an international
urban network.
5. From monocentric city to polycentric urban
5. field
According to the AUP, Amsterdam should have 112
square kilometres of urban space by the year 2000,
in which 960,000 people would be able to live, work,
relax and move. In 1990, Amsterdam already had 153
square kilometres of urban space, enough for 700,000
people in which to live, but certainly not enough for
Planning doctrine and post-industrial urban development
Figure 2. The proposed Amsterdam region (ROA). Source: Cortie and Dekker 1995, p. 34.
their other activities. The city centre still retains the
largest concentration of job opportunities within the
municipality, but new specialised centres have arisen
both within (Zuidoost, Zuid, Sloterdijk, Amsterdam
Arena) and on the edge of the municipality
(Amstelveen, Haarlemmermeer, Schiphol, Diemen,
Beverwijk). Places further away, both older and
newer, (say from Haarlem to Hilversum, and from
Purmerend to Almere) today form an entity which is
difficult to define and categorise. For it is no longer
only concerned with productive functions, but also
with consumptive and social functions and relation-
ships. The monocentric city is changing into a poly-
centric urban field (Droogh et al. 1991).
6. From neighbourhood to urban region
Against the background of the above-mentioned
social changes, what has now happened to the content
of the ideas regarding the garden city and the neigh-
bourhood?
In 1952, the first inhabitants moved to Geuzenveld-
Slotermeer. The development of the population in
this area of the city is broken up into three periods.
The first is characterised by a massive supply of
housing and an increase in the population of up to
56,000 inhabitants, composed of young families. The
following 25 years are characterised by a continual
355
decline in the population, down to 34,000 in the
middle of the eighties. Despite this, however, the
housing stock still increased slightly. In addition to
people moving out due to an increase in income or
change of job, children left the parental house and
many also left this area of the city. The ‘empty nest
phase’ begins. The third period begins half way
through the eighties. Houses gradually became free
because the original inhabitants had moved to old
peoples’ homes or had died. The population slowly
increased to about 36,000.
What is notable in the second period is that house-
holds became much smaller. If the average occupa-
tion of housing in 1992 had been like that in 1962,
then instead of having a mere 36,000 inhabitants,
Geuzenveld-Slotermeer would have had about
64,000. Had the size of the family conformed to the
expectations of the planners, then the number of
inhabitants in 1992 would have been about 55,000.
In short, the size of the population of an area of the
city depends, to a great extent, upon the phase of the
life cycle which the households have reached.
The planners of the AUP did not foresee the
development of new phases of the life cycle (young
single people and couples living together without
children and the empty nest phase), the growth in
wealth and the increasing consumption of space
arising from this.
The same applies to the influx of immigrants from
356
Figure 3. Population size, housing stock and average
occupation of dwellings in Geuzenveld-Slotermeer
(1953–1995). Source: Gemeente Amsterdam, O+S, 1996.
underdeveloped countries. Since the middle of the
sixties, inhabitants mainly of Suriname and countries
around the Mediterranean sea moved to the then
industrial regions of the Netherlands. In the begin-
ning, they settled in the cheap neglected urban areas
in the ‘zone in transition’ close to the CBD, in accor-
dance with the Burgess model (1925). In Amsterdam,
that was the prewar workers quarters located on the
border of the city centre (Cortie and Van Engelsdorp
Gastelaars 1985). Immigrants of Surinamese origin
were the first ethnic minority group to move to
Geuzenveld-Slotermeer. They lived in Amsterdam
longer than other immigrants, spoke good Dutch,
learnt the housing regulation system quickly and
were prepared to spend more money on rent than
other ethnic groups. Therefore, they were the first
group of immigrants to move to better housing. Over
the years, the opportunities within the social housing
market of Amsterdam, eighty percent of the
Amsterdam housing stock, increased for other ethnic
groups. Once their wife and children had also moved
to Amsterdam, they satisfied the requirements
regarding the size of the family which were placed
on candidates for larger houses.
Table 1. The Geuzenveld-Slotermeer population by Nationality/Nation of birth
1982 1988
The Netherlands 91.3 82.8
Suriname 3.1 4.2
The Antilles 0.3 0.5
Turkey 2.0 3.7
Morocco 2.3 6.2
The rest 2.1 2.7
Total (100%) 36423 34270
Source: Janssen and Wintershoven 1995.
C. Cortie
As a result of their low incomes, they remained
within the applicable income boundary and could
therefore move from the old to the post war areas.
Mainly Moroccans, but also Turks, moved in a short
space of time, in the third phase discerned above, to
Geuzenveld-Slotermeer. In 1982, 91 percent of the
population was Dutch; in 1995, 55 percent (Table
1); in 2005 possibly only 40%.
As usual, the influx is very age-specific, whereby
the old Dutch population is replenished with young
ethnic families. In addition to differences in values
and norms based on cultural background, there are
also differences based on the needs and experiences
of the different generations.
Obviously, the phase of development of the family
in cities dominated by social housing like Amsterdam
does play a principal role in the emergence of a
growing concentration of immigrants in many neigh-
bourhoods. The crucial point is that in order to move
to a high quality dwelling or to a middle class area
it is necessary to buy or rent a dwelling in the private
sector. There is a poor chance of finding one in
Amsterdam, so you have to move to the surrounding
municipalities.
The social-economic development of Geuzenveld-
Slotermeer is also in keeping with what can be
expected on the basis of the filtering-down theory. In
1971, when the first inhabitants – skilled workers –
are well-established, the area scored considerably
above the average of Amsterdam and also above the
average of the surrounding municipalities. In 1982,
after the start of the young people moving to the area
and the influx of immigrants, the average worker in
the area earned somewhat more than those in
Amsterdam, but remained ten per cent behind the
workers in the surrounding areas. After 1982, in com-
parison with the city, the area declines. With regard
to the surrounding municipalities, the decline is even
bigger. Workers from Geuzenveld-Slotermeer earn
more than fifteen percent less than those in the sur-
rounding municipalities (Table 2).
The aim of making an garden village which
conforms to the ideas of the garden city, in which a
cross-section of the urban population should live,
seems idle, after only one generation.
1993 1993 1995 2005
71.0 58.5 54.7 39.8
6.9 6.8 7.6 10.0
0.7 0.8 0.9 1.8
7.5 8.0 9.2 14.0
9.2 10.6 11.9 16.4
4.8 15.3 15.7 17.6
36594 36594 37378 39831
Planning doctrine and post-industrial urban development
The functional and social contacts of the inhabi-
tants seem to take place in a much larger area than
Geuzenveld-Sloterdijk.1 This is especially the case
for social contacts, but also for shopping, amusement
and recreation in the open air. Daily life takes place
within a much larger area. Part of the explanation is
that provisions of a higher level are provided outside
Geuzenveld-Sloterdijk, which the media, telephone
and car have made well known and easily accessible.
Another cause is that provisions within the area
which used to be important, such as churches, have
only a limited meaning in present day society. In
addition to this, children, other relatives, and friends,
often live outside the area and even outside
Amsterdam, so social contacts are often maintained
in other areas or municipalities. In short, daily rela-
tions now take place, to a large extent, outside
Geuzenveld-Sloterdijk.
The appreciation of Geuzenveld-Sloterdijk by the
older inhabitants has also strongly declined. The most
important negative point mentioned is the change in
the composition of the population, especially the
influx of ethnic minority groups. Many place a direct
link between immigrants and increasing criminality
and pollution.
The decline of the area is not seen primarily as a
result of poor town planning, or the quality of the
housinging. Older inhabitants find that the area is no
longer under their control, instead, specific parts are
dominated by the young and by foreigners. So the
quality of the domain in terms of accessibility, safety
and respectability (authority constraint) is going
down. Therefore, the area is losing its function as
domain (Hägerstrand 1970). Under these conditions
the disadvantages of the town planning design
(separation of functions), originating from a period
in which the population was still homogenous, seem
to appear all at once.
Important latent relationships with neighbours,
which are beneficial in times of need, are also dis-
appearing as a result of strong mixing on the
street/building level.
In view of the expected strong increase in the
number of young immigrant households in
Amsterdam, their limited social mobility and the
offer of new dwellings to buy outside the city the
continuance of the filtering-down cannot but be
expected.
The appreciation of the garden village character
Table 2. Yearly income per household (ROA = 100)
1982 1989
ROA except Amsterdam 111 111
Amsterdam 094 092
Geuzenveld/Slotermeer 099 094
Source: Gemeente Amsterdam 1987; CBS 1993.
357
of the area by the present-day inhabitants is ambiva-
lent. On the one hand, there is much appreciation of
the green areas and much criticism of the way in
which new buildings have affected them. On the
other hand, there is great discontent about the upkeep
of the green areas, and the parks especially are
regarded as being very unsafe. Contentment regard-
ing the green zones in the area does not lead to a
greater attachment to the area (Cortie and Dekker
1995). The introduction of the countryside into the
city has therefore not been as successful as was
expected. There are two reasons for this. The first is
that although it is true that the presence of green
areas in the city has been experienced by many
inhabitants as being positive, it appears from the
large suburbanisation that it is not a substitute for
living outside the city. This is partly a result of the
fact that the notion of the garden city was not carried
out well (Van Heusden 1995).
The developments in Geuzenveld-Slotermeer
make it clear that the planning doctrine on the lowest
level, namely the neighbourhood idea and the garden
village, will not be considered as an option for the
future.
Conclusion
The AUP has developed on the basis of a planning
doctrine. It can be argued, however, that it has not
been very successful, despite the internationally
renowned quality of its planners. Already after one
generation the ‘coherent and durable ideas’ (the
regional city with its monocentric structure and
neighbourhoods and garden villages as worlds in
which to live), seem to have aged. The result can only
be fossilisation, and in Amsterdam this was certainly
the case. Political parties and the bureaucracy have
maintained their planning doctrine because they
regard this as the condition of their existence. The
planning department, for instance, objected research
concluding the end of the monocentric city (Droogh
et al. 1991) and decided to stop the project.
This causes policy to be formulated on the basis
of social circumstances which do not, or no longer,
exist, whereby ‘realisation in the future with an
emphasis on the improvement of the existing situa-
tion’ is counteracted.
The question which this raises is whether bottom-
up planning, the drawing-up of aims to improve the
situation of the normal inhabitant via democratic
decision-making on a regional level, is less likely to
have the disadvantage of the quick ageing of its aims.
The answer to this question may put at risk the pos-
sibility of any scientific foundation for spatial
planning. In addition, without overestimating the pos-
sibilities of science as a source of knowledge about
present-day and future society, it can be concludeded
that too limited use has been made of scientific
358
knowledge. First of all, at the design stage, because
of the composition of the group, insufficient cog-
nizance was taken of the developments of its ‘pre-
decessor’, the United States. Secondly, municipal
politics and bureaucracy have been so ‘indoctrinated’
that they have not been sufficiently open to discus-
sion with the scientific community.
The question is whether bottom-up planning is
more open for discussion and contains less rigid
planning. Local decision-making, if predominant,
perhaps leads to a strongly held policy based on cher-
ished ideas about the future. This may lead to conflict
with officials who act at a higher level, because of
the launching of an orthogenetic ‘not-in-my-
backyard’ view. However, is that not the essence of
democratic handling of claims concerning arrange-
ment and the use of space? Is that not the time for
the government to intervene ‘for the general good’?
Note
1. The field work in Geuzenveld-Slotermeer took place in the
spring of 1994, using 583 fifty and sixty year olds. The reason
for choosing older people was that they have experienced the
changes in the area.
Literature
Algemeen Uitbreidingsplan: Grondslagen voor de stede-
bouwkundige ontwikkeling van Amsterdam. Deel 1: Nota van
toelichting, deel 2: Bijlagen 1935.
Brunet, R. (ed.): Les villes ‘européennes’. Rapport pour la
DATAR. La Documentation Francaise/Groupement d’Intérêt
Public RECLUS, Paris 1989.
Burgess, E. W.: The growth of the city: an introduction to a
research project. In: Park, R. E.; Burgess E. W. (eds.), The
City, pp. 47–62. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
1925.
CBS: Inkomen in wijken van grote steden. In: Sociaal
economische maandstatistiek 93/12, 1993.
Christaller, W.: Die Zentralen Orte in Süddeutschland. Gustav
Fisher, Jena 1933.
C. Cortie
Cortie, C., Dekker, S.: Duurzaam onder dak in de wijk. Siswo,
Amsterdam, 391, 1995.
Cortie, C.; Dignum, K: Stedelijke welvaart en economische
functies. Geografisch Tijdschrift XXV(5), 442–452 (1991).
Cortie, C., Van Engelsdorp Gastelaars, R.: Amsterdam: decaying
city, gentrifying inner city? In: White, P.; Van der Knaap, B.
(eds.), Contemporary Studies of Migration, pp. 129–142. Geo
books, Norwich 1985.
De Feijter, H.: Voorlopers bij demografische verandering. NIDI,
Den Haag 1991.
De Gans, Henk A. de: De kijk van een statisticus ten tijde van
het Interbellum op de bevolkingsprognostiek: Mr dr J.H. van
Zanten (1874–1944). UvA/ O+S, Amsterdam 1994.
De Vries, J.: Power and the capital city. In: Deben, L. et al. (eds.),
Capital cities as achievement, pp. 30–37. Centre for
Metropolitan Research of the University of Amsterdam,
Amsterdam 1988.
Droogh, D. J. A.; Buys, A.; Cortie, C.: Op overbrugbare afstand?
wonen en weken in een polycentrisch stadsgewest. Universiteit
van Amsterdam- Gemeente Amsterdam, Meppel 1991.
Faludi, A.; Van der Valk, A.: De groeikernen als hoekstenen van
de Nederlandse ruimtelijke planningdoctrine. Van Gorcum,
Assen/Maastricht 1990.
Faludi, A.: Naar een Europese planningdoctrine. In: Zonneveld,
W.; D’Hondt, F. (red.), Europese ruimtelijke ordening,
impressies en visies vanuit Vlaanderen en Nederland.
VPF/NIROV ,Gent/Den Haag 1994.
Gemeente Amsterdam; Afdeling O+S, het Amsterdamse Bureau
voor Onderzoek en Statistiek (rapporteur C. Taanman):
Inkomensverdeling 1982, Amsterdam 1987.
Gemeente Amsterdam; O+S, het Amsterdamse Bureau voor
Onderzoek en Statistiek: Diadam 1995.
Hägerstrand, T.: What about people in regional science? Paper,
Ninth European Congress of the Regional Science Association,
1970.
Howard, E.: Garden Cities of To-morrow. New edn.: Attic Books,
Eastbourne 1985.
Janssen, M.; Wintershoven, L.: Amsterdam, bevolkingsprojekties
tot 2015, deel 10, Etnische groepen. O+S, het Amsterdamse
Bureau voor Onderzoek en Statistiek, Amsterdam 1995.
Mamadouh, V.: De stad in eigen hand. SUA, Amsterdam 1992.
Van Heusden, T.: Tuinstad van de 21e eeuw. Stan Ackermans
Instituut, Eindhoven 1995.
Swyngedouw, E.: De produktie van de Europese maatschappelijke
ruimte. In: Zonneveld, W.; D’Hondt, F. (red.), Europese
ruimtelijke ordening, impressies en visies vanuit Vlaanderen
en Nederland, pp. 47–58. VPF/NIROV ,Gent/Den Haag 1994.