The Redevelopment of Rotterdam Since 1945

Planning Perspectives
ISSN: 0266-5433 (Print) 1466-4518 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rppe20
The redevelopment of Rotterdam since 1945
John Mccarthy
To cite this article: John Mccarthy (1999) The redevelopment of Rotterdam since 1945,
Planning Perspectives, 14:3, 291-309, DOI: 10.1080/026654399364247
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/026654399364247
Published online: 02 Dec 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1051
View related articles
Citing articles: 2 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rppe20
Planning Perspectives, 14 (1999) 291–309
The redevelopment of Rotterdam since 1945

JOHN MC CARTHY
School of Town and Regional Planning, University of Dundee, Dundee DD2 1DN, UK
The development of the south bank of the central waterfront area of Rotterdam may be seen as the
culmination of a process of reconstruction and redevelopment in the city that has been taking place over
a considerable period, in particular since the destruction of a large part of the city’s central area in the
Second World War. This process has involved an evolution in the approaches to spatial planning in the
city, as illustrated for instance by the development of high-prole and innovative architectural projects
in recent years, as well as the development of cultural projects and the consequent adoption of a new
cultural identity. Such projects have served to aid a re-denition of the city’s image both within the
Netherlands and at the international level. These achievements may be explained with reference to the
wider urban policy context in Europe since the Second World War, the approach to urban policy in the
Netherlands, and the approach to land use planning and regeneration adopted by the municipality of
Rotterdam.
Introduction
The process of reconstruction in Rotterdam since 1945 may be seen as the culmination of
several broad phases, each of which represents an adaptation to specic circumstances as
well as a part of a continuing evolution in policy development and application [1]. This
article seeks to explain this process by examining the chronology of Rotterdam’s
reconstruction in the light of a broader context. The article is structured as follows: rst,
the context of planning and development in western Europe since the Second World War is
considered; second, the national policy context within the Netherlands is set out; third, the
experience of the city of Rotterdam in terms of spatial planning and development is
examined; and fourth, this experience is analysed in terms of the assumptions underpinning
policy objectives and the factors that have affected the implementation of these objectives.
Policy context
Urban policy in the Netherlands since 1945 may be set within the context of such policy
throughout most of western Europe, particularly in the context of port areas, and Van der
John McCarthy has worked as a practitioner in the elds of planning and urban regeneration in inner London,
and he is currently Lecturer in the School of Town and Regional Planning at the University of Dundee. His
research interests include urban regeneration policy and practice, and international comparative planning.
# 1999 E & FN Spon 0266-5433

292 McCarthy
Knaap and Pinder suggest four policy phases that can be distinguished on this basis [2].
These phases comprise: clearance and reconstruction from 1950 to 1970, rehabilitation and
renovation from 1970 to 1980, urban management from 1980 to 1986, and city
management and marketing from 1986 onwards. The operation of these phases may be
seen in terms of a response to broader economic factors affecting port cities in western
Europe during the post-war period. Hence the period of clearance and reconstruction was
in part a response to the ageing of port areas in terms of their economic function and
technological infrastructure; the subsequent period of rehabilitation and renovation resulted
from the perceived need for the social and environmental regeneration of declining port
areas; the increasing severity of social and economic problems, partly as a result of the
global restructuring of industry and port activities in particular, led to the phase of urban
management with an emphasis on the provision of local employment; and the period of city
marketing was a response to the rise of entrepreneurialism in urban policy and the
increasing importance of city competition for investment and development [3].
In addition, however, a series of relevant factors affecting the formulation and
application of urban policy in port areas is specic to the Netherlands. In this context,
land use planning operates within the wider culture of administration of spatial planning
policy whereby central government provides indicative guidance, provincial governments
adopt regional plans, and municipal governments adopt structure plans and local plans [4].
This may seem to involve a rigid process, but in practice it provides a considerable degree
of exibility that derives from the complex process of negotiation between the levels. The
wider social and political context in the Netherlands is also of relevance, since Dutch
society is characterized by what may be called neo-corporatism and consensus-democracy
[5]. The former refers to the presence of a series of interest groups that have privileged
access to the state, and the latter is demonstrated for instance by the dominance of large
coalition cabinets at national government level and the nature of the multi-party and
proportional electoral systems. These contextual factors encourage and facilitate the
development of co-operation, compromise and consensus, which clearly impacts on spatial
policy and the processes of land use planning and development [6]. Partly for these reasons,
the spatial planning system of the Netherlands is regarded internationally as being relatively
sophisticated in its operation [7].
The approach to land use policy in the Netherlands has proceeded through an extensive
evolution in recent decades. While this evolution has reected broad phases operating
throughout western Europe as indicated above, it has also reected changing political and
economic priorities within the Netherlands and consequent changes in national spatial
planning objectives. For instance, the approach in the 1970s involved the designation of new
‘growth centres’ within which new development was to be concentrated, away from existing
urban towns and cities. However, this approach was superseded in 1985 by the government’s
‘compact city’ policy, which aimed to bring about the concentration of new development in
existing urban centres [8]. A further shift in priorities was reected in the government’s 1990
Fourth Report for Planning (Extra), which sought to enhance the country’s competitive
advantage, for instance in terms of the key economic function of the port of Rotterdam, as
well as to bring about an increase in overall environmental quality [9]. This new approach
was underpinned by the assumed need for a greater emphasis on ‘city marketing’ as a result
of increasing competition between cities for private investment [10], which was intensied by
The redevelopment of Rotterdam since 1945 293
the emergence in 1992 of the Single European Market. In terms of policy application, the
compact city policy was applied for instance by means of the designation of ‘key projects’
involving national subsidies for urban development schemes considered to contribute to the
national interest. As well as forming part of an overall policy of urban reconcentration, these
projects were intended to act as models for the integration of mixed land uses within urban
areas and the application of public–private partnership [11]. ‘Key projects’ were designated
in cities considered to be nationally-signicant ‘urban intersections’, namely cities which
possessed key advantages in terms of facilities and location, such as Maastricht, Amsterdam,
Rotterdam, Den Haag and Groningen [12]. The city of Rotterdam was seen to play a
particularly important role in this context because of its historical importance as a point of
access and its competitive location for international business uses [13].
While these factors illustrate an evolution in the approach to policy at the national level
in the Netherlands, it is also important to acknowledge the role of Dutch municipalities in
the application of policy at the local level. Of particular importance in this context is the
role of municipalities as providers of much of the land available for development, since this
has meant that they have been able to use their powers of land ownership to facilitate plan
implementation, supported where necessary by government subsidies for development
schemes in the national interest [14]. However, in recent years municipalities have become
more reliant on private sector development funding, encouraged for instance by means of
public–private partnership schemes such as the ‘key projects’ [15].
Redevelopment and reconstruction in Rotterdam
While this article concentrates on the period since the Second World War, there were forces
in operation before then that had an impact on the need for regeneration and
reconstruction in Rotterdam. In particular, the retreat of the port from the central area
of the city was becoming evident in the late nineteenth century, and factors such as
technological change resulting in containerization, as well as the increase in the scale of
port working, meant that port uses moved gradually westwards away from the city centre
[16], though the port function has remained signicantly important throughout the post-
war period, as indicated below. Several broad phases may be identied in the history of
planning and development in Rotterdam during this period, in accord with wider
contextual factors affecting development in Europe, national government priorities for
spatial planning and development in the Netherlands, and local factors within the city of
Rotterdam. For instance, in the 1940s and 1950s the national priority given to economic
reconstruction in the Netherlands led to the prioritization of reconstruction of the port. In
the 1950s and 1960s the increasing population of the Netherlands led to an expansion of
the city’s housing stock. In the 1970s the decay of inner city residential districts led to their
improvement, and in the 1980s and 1990s the need for the ‘re-imaging’ of the city, together
with the need for diversication of the city’s economy, has led to the development of new
cultural and recreation uses and the extension of city centre functions across the river to the
south [17]. The proposed broad phases of reconstruction in Rotterdam since the Second
World War are set out in more detail below.
294 McCarthy
1940s: THE ‘BASIC PLAN’
Before the Second World War, there were many examples of development in Rotterdam
that illustrated the use of the city as a showcase for the Modern Movement in architecture,
including housing projects designed by the architect J.J.P. Oud and the Van Nelle Factory
designed by Van der Vlugt [18]. While such examples included a degree of urban
redevelopment, the bombardment of much of Rotterdam’s central area on 14 May 1940
was a signicant watershed since it led to the comprehensive reconstruction of a large part
of the city [19]. Some 260 ha were destroyed as a result of the bombardment, including
much of the historic docks, leading to the loss of 24 700 homes, 6100 commercial
buildings, 1450 restaurants, 62 schools, 13 hospitals, 24 churches and 14 cinemas and
theatres [20]. Consequently, the city council instructed W.G. Witteveen, the director of the
municipal development department, to prepare a plan for reconstruction, and this plan was
completed in December 1941 (Fig. 1).
Figure 1. Excerpt from the 1946 Basic Plan (source: Rotterdam City Information Centre,
Reconstruction 1940–1990. Rotterdam: Rotterdam City Information Centre, 1997).
However, implementation of the plan was difcult to achieve because of shortages of

building materials, labour and fuel arising from military priorities. The opportunity to
make signicant progress in terms of reconstruction did not therefore come until after the
war, and in May 1946 the ‘Basic Plan’ for the city’s reconstruction was approved by the
city council. This plan departed from both Witteveen’s proposals and those of many other
European cities at this time, in that it did not attempt to restore what existed previously;
instead, it envisaged new city centre functions and a considerably expanded road network
in accordance with an overall strategically-planned system designed to enable smooth trafc
ow across the city. Both these elements were designed to provide for the city’s long-term
needs, and they were also in line with the emergence of the Modern Movement in
architecture into the arena of town planning. Consequently, the Basic Plan was an
important step towards the reconstruction of the city largely in accordance with the
principles of the Congrès Internationale d’Architecture Moderne (CIAM) [21].
The ambitious approach of the Basic Plan was made possible by the decision of the city
council shortly after the bombardment to expropriate all the affected land in the city centre,
as well as the availability of Allied funds after the war, including the Marshall Plan (1948 –
52). However, the Basic Plan did not apply a ‘blueprint’ approach, concentrating instead on
broad groupings of similar uses. For instance, a banking sector was proposed for the
Blaak–Westblaak east–west boulevard, a series of new shopping centres was planned along
the Coolsingel to strengthen its function as a central spine, and cultural uses, including a
theatre and a concert hall, were grouped around the Schouwburgplein (Fig. 2). However,
the Plan restricted the number of homes in the inner city to 10 000, even though 20 000
homes had existed in this area before the war, since it was assumed that people would
prefer to live in the suburbs [22]. Again, however, implementation of the plan was delayed
because of the priority given to restoration of the port, which was of crucial economic
importance to the country as a whole [23], and even this took around ve years to achieve
because of shortages of building materials and skilled workers [24].
1950s AND 1960s: ECONOMIC EXPANSION
It was therefore only after 1950 that signicant attention could be redirected to the
reconstruction of the city centre. In addition to other problems, construction costs had risen
signicantly after the war; consequently, only the banks were able to develop large new
projects in the centre even though property owners had received compensation from the
city council following the expropriation of destroyed property. However, from around 1950
until the 1970s there was a general boom in construction activity which had a signicant
impact on the central area of Rotterdam. For instance, the Lijnbaan shopping centre was
completed in 1953, and this scheme, designed by leading architects Bakema and Van
Eesteren, came to be seen as an international example of the city of the future [25]. Large-
scale expansion projects were also completed in the port area during this period,
encouraged by the development of much larger vessels, such as the new oil tankers.
However, an acute shortage of housing in the city also became evident in the 1950s. This
was the result of several factors: for instance, the housing destroyed in the Second World
War, amounting to some 27 500 homes, had largely been unreplaced, there had been a
boom in population since the war, and the government’s industrialization policy had
296 McCarthy
Figure 2. Projects under way (numbers 1– 15) or planned (numbers 16 –43) in 1996. Projects referred
to in the text: 6, Entrepot area of Koop van Zuid; 7, Erasmus Bridge; 10, Lijnbaan (façade
renovation); 11, Schouwburgplein (redesigning of square); 12, Wilhelminapier (cruise terminal); 15,
Zalmhaven (housing); 30, Oudehaven=Verlengde Willemsbrug (mixed-use scheme) (source: Rotter-
dam City Information Centre, The 1993–2000 Inner City Plan: halfway there. Rotterdam:
Rotterdam City Information Centre, 1996).
brought an inux of migrants to Rotterdam. To address the resulting housing shortage, the
municipality made use of new technological advances in system building that speeded
construction to develop new housing projects in the districts of Kralingen and Overschie
(Fig. 3). The creation of many of the city’s new housing areas also incorporated new city
planning concepts, with extensions to the city at Hoogvliet, Pendrecht, Zuidwijk,
Lombardijen and Groot Ijsselmonde, for instance, being sited away from built-up areas
in order to create the Zuiderpark green belt. These housing areas also incorporated new
concepts of districts, neighbourhoods and pedestrian areas and, as a result of such efforts,
some 30 000 new homes had been built by 1955 [26]. The city continued to experience
economic expansion into the 1960s, with consequent development pressure, though this led
to controversy over the future of the central area. In particular, plans in 1969 for an
extension to the central business district involving the replacement of 30 000 homes
prompted widespread local opposition [27], and similar opposition to the consolidation of
business expansion schemes became evident in many other areas of the city in the 1970s.
1970s: INNER CITY REGENERATION
The approach to planning in Rotterdam in the early 1970s was underpinned by the
assumption at national level of the need for urban expansion in ‘growth centres’ away from
Figure 3. The city of Rotterdam, showing location of Kop van Zuid area (source: Informatiecentrum
Kop van Zuid, Rotterdam).
298 McCarthy
major cities. However, it became clear in the mid-1970s that such an approach was creating
problems such as congestion resulting from trafc movements between the city centre and
the new ‘growth centres’. Moreover, in spite of the construction boom, a ring of older
residential districts around the city centre had continued to decline, though they had been
identied in the 1946 Basic Plan as areas for future expansion and new roads had been
built through them. Such areas became the focus of concern for a series of residents’
organizations who lobbied the city council to upgrade their areas while maintaining their
residential use.
In fact, Hajer [28] suggests that a major shift in spatial planning in Rotterdam arose in
the mid-1970s, with a move away from a ‘functionalist’ approach emphasizing business
uses in the central area to a ‘participatory’ approach stressing the need for mixed uses in
the inner city. This shift was partly the result of widespread community opposition to the
approach of clearance and demolition in order to make way for new buildings, which had
been central to the Basic Plan. In addition, local elections in 1974 had resulted in the
election of a number of Social Democratic politicians who wanted to see a move from a
business-orientated approach to development to mixed-use approach that promoted urban
neighbourhoods and urban culture [29]. This added to existing community pressures for a
shift in emphasis to the inner city, and in 1974 an urban renewal organization was set up
to revive this area. This organization set up a project group involving local residents in each
district affected, and the intention was to ensure the creation of affordable housing to
maintain a broad social mix, with nance provided by the government. The resulting
‘renewal areas’ grew to encompass 22 old districts in the city, and by the end of the 1980s
more than 25 000 homes had been renovated, and many new houses built, by the renewal
organization.
The strategic planning context during much of this period was set by the city’s structure
plan which was drawn up in 1974 and nalized in 1978. This plan concentrated on
housing as its main focus, with the specic intention of retaining and improving housing
within the inner city, and it therefore proposed the wider application of the policy of
neighbourhood renewal as implemented in the renewal areas referred to above [30]. In
addition, the structure plan incorporated the need for economic development, though it
increased restriction on ofce development in much of the city centre, with new ofce
oorspace being directed to one zone in the east. This plan was therefore based on an
approach to city regeneration based on gradual renewal rather than large-scale clearance
and reconstruction [31]. Community involvement in the planning and renewal process was
also highlighted during this period, with the result that one source suggested that the city
had ‘what is probably the most carefully thought out policy of urban renewal participation
that exists in the world’ [32].
In addition, increasing car ownership during this period exacerbated problems of trafc
congestion in Rotterdam, though the road structure created as a result of the 1946 Basic
Plan helped to avoid serious problems. This structure incorporated a diamond-shaped
motorway ring constructed around the city in the 1960s, including river-crossings at the
Van Brienenoordbrug in the east and the Beneluxtunnel in the west, and this ring was
connected to the international motorway network. Public transport in the city was also
improved during this period, and in 1968 the metro system was extended by the
completion of a connection under the river, between Central Station and Zuidplein.
Subsequent extensions were also made to Hoogvliet and Spijkenisse, bringing the total
length of the system up to 21 km, and in the 1980s a second, east– west, metro line was
completed [33].
1980s: CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
The reconcentration process initiated in the 1970s continued in the 1980s, with the
additional element of the development of cultural and recreation facilities in order to
encourage people to live in the inner city, and to enhance the city’s appeal to commercial
investors [34]. The context of this emphasis on cultural development was set by a range of
policies developed at the national level. For instance, the government had been
implementing a policy of ‘cultuur verspreiding’ (cultural dissemination) since the war; this
policy addressed the need to disseminate cultural facilities throughout the Netherlands
rather than allowing them to be concentrated within the Amsterdam area, so this policy
had clear benets for Rotterdam. In addition, the 1990 national Fourth Report for
Planning (Extra) emphasized the need to increase the country’s competitiveness by
improving the range and quality of cultural facilities in the cities in order to enhance the
image of these cities at the international level. Cultural development was also seen as a
means of economic development that could provide valuable employment and increase
overall levels of innovation and entrepreneurialism, as well as increasing local spending
[35]. Consequently, the National Physical Planning Agency’s report 1988 Spatial
Reconnaissances – Chapter One [36] suggested that each Dutch city should emphasize
its competitive advantages in terms of potential cultural development. It also indicated that
Rotterdam’s dynamic, modern image, resulting in part from extensive reconstruction,
offered a distinct contrast with Amsterdam, and that the potential for urban regeneration in
Rotterdam, together with the city’s acceptance of innovative new projects, implied further
opportunities for innovation in cultural development.
The national emphasis on cultural development during this period was reected in the
1985 Inner City Plan for Rotterdam [37]. Consequently, a new library was located close to
the Oude Haven, together with a new building accommodating an IMAX cinema theatre,
the ‘Ethnocentre’, and an information centre. Other cultural developments were
concentrated in the ‘Museum Triangle’ area, which included new projects such as the
extension of the Boymans– van Beuningen Museum, the National Architecture Museum,
the Museum of Natural History and a new art gallery that formed the southern edge of the
museum park, which was itself improved to provide links between the various facilities
[38]. In addition, the development of the ‘Waterstad’ area provided a further opportunity to
enhance the city’s image; while this area, created between 1600 and 1620, had been
proposed for commercial uses in the 1946 Plan, the 1985 Plan built on the area’s maritime
legacy by providing a series of new uses clustered around new maritime tourism facilities.
Associated developments followed, including a new maritime museum on the Leuvenhaven
basin, an adjacent outdoor museum along the Schiedamsedijk quay [39], and new cultural
and entertainment uses on the Schouwburgplein. These developments were supplemented
by greater attention to the quality of public spaces, and the appointment in 1986 of ex-
landscape architect H. E. Bakker as director of the city’s department of planning and
300 McCarthy
development led to an increased emphasis on the need for more attractive squares, avenues
and boulevards.
In terms of other spatial planning objectives applied in this period, the 1985 Plan
targeted the city centre for new housing, in contrast to previous plans which had sought to
separate housing and city centre functions. Consequently, an overall housing programme of
500 houses per annum was proposed at this time [40], and dwellings were built along the
Weena, the Zalmhaven, the Bulgersteyn and the old piers of the Leuvehaven. Moreover, the
Oude Haven was developed as a showpiece scheme incorporating highly innovative
housing together with new tourism and recreation uses. In addition, the 1985 Plan assumed
the need for 20–30 000 m2 of new ofce oorspace per annum because of increasing
demands from companies wanting to locate in the city, as well as companies whose existing
buildings were unsatisfactory. The 1985 Plan therefore relaxed previous controls on ofce
development in the central area, and the resulting creation of new properties released
existing space for new small shops and restaurants [41]. The Plan also stipulated specic
areas where tall ofce buildings could be built, such as along the Weena, the Coolsingel,
and the Wilhelminapier on the Kop van Zuid, and a row of large buildings for new
residential and commercial uses was developed on the riverfront to dene the southern edge
of the ‘Waterstad’ area. Furthermore, the 1985 Plan aimed to integrate functions more
effectively in the city’s central area, and it therefore proposed four themed areas where sets
of uses were to be grouped, comprising the following: the Central Square for shops, ofces
and public buildings; the ‘Museum Triangle’ for culture and recreation; the Waterstad area
for maritime recreation and tourism uses; and the Kop van Zuid area south of the river (see
Fig. 3) as a new business district [42].
1990s: THE KOP VAN ZUID ‘KEY PROJECT’
The 1993–2000 Inner City Plan extended the aim of more intensive use of the city, and by
1996 the municipality aimed to complete 250 new houses per annum in the inner city area
[43]. The 1993 –2000 Plan also proposed a series of transport infrastructure improvements
including an increase from two to four tracks on a number of railway connections, an
improved tramway system and new cycle lanes and pedestrian areas [44]. As with many
other of the city’s regeneration projects, these proposals were to be partly nanced by the
municipality. However, perhaps the most signicant project identied in the plan was the
expansion of city centre uses to the Kop van Zuid area. The need for such an area of
expansion had become evident in the 1980s, when development of the last vacant sites in
the central area had been completed, and an opportunity was presented by the underused
Kop van Zuid area directly south of the river from the city’s central area. This area had
been used for port-related uses that had recently become obsolete, as in similar areas in
port cities worldwide, and parts of it had been rebuilt in the 1970s; consequently, it seemed
appropriate to use this area to provide new space for expansion [45]. This proposal also
contributed to the city’s aim of providing a functional link between the two sides of the
river, since the south bank area as a whole had been marginalized [46]. Consequently, the
Kop van Zuid scheme was designed to provide a mix of uses including 60 000 m2 of new
ofce space, together with 5500 dwelling units, 60 000 m2 of retail space, hotels and a
convention centre [47]. It was designated as a ‘key project’ as a result of its national
signicance, and it applied the government’s ‘compact city’ policy by encouraging people to
live in the central area [48]. An early agship scheme within the overall project was
provided by the Erasmus Bridge between the north and south banks, opened in September
1995. While this scheme was the subject of heated local controversy and a signicant
degree of local opposition, the architect Ben van Berkel’s design, incorporating a 139 m
high pylon, was well received at the international level [49].
Part of the municipality’s role in the Kop van Zuid project involved the production of
‘quality books’ intended to safeguard the quality of specic aspects of the scheme [50]. In
addition, the municipality prioritized accessibility and the provision of appropriate
infrastructure; consequently, in addition to the Erasmus Bridge (Fig. 4), a new metro
station was provided, a link to the international rail network was planned, and new roads
were proposed to connect the area to surrounding residential neighbourhoods as well as to
the city’s ring road [51]. The priority given to these infrastructure elements is shown by the
guarantees of nance for them from national and municipal governments. Moreover, like
other ‘key projects’, the Kop van Zuid project is also aimed to provide social benets for
the residents of surrounding districts, and this is supported by the municipality’s ‘social
renewal’ approach to regeneration [52]. Consequently, two centres to train local
unemployed people have been established in Feijenoord and Afrikaanderwijk, in order to
enable local people to obtain the jobs created by the project [53]. Furthermore, since the
economy of the surrounding area is fragile, depending greatly on a few large companies,
the municipality has created an organization called ‘Wederzijds Projt’, which aims to bring
about the economic development and thereby create additional jobs in the area [54].
It is anticipated that the Kop van Zuid project as a whole will take 15 years to be
implemented. Early completion of essential transport infrastructure was seen as critical to
the project’s success, and the remaining development is to be completed in phases.
Construction of the Entrepot and Wilhelminahof areas started in February 1994 [55], and
Figure 4. The Erasmus Bridge.

302 McCarthy
Figure 5. Development around the Oude Haven.
by 1997 housing had been completed in the Entrepot, Landtong and Parkzicht districts
[56]. In addition, there were complementary proposals for the city centre, including a new
185 m high hotel for the Weena, on which construction started in 1996 with completion
planned for 2000. While the hotel will accommodate 185 bedrooms, the building will
include conference and meeting rooms, a restaurant, and 16 000 m2 of luxury ofce
oorspace [57]; moreover, the building has been exibly constructed so that the hotel
oorspace can be converted to business uses if necessary.
Key factors
It is now possible to identify some of the key factors that have played a role in the
experience of the city of Rotterdam in terms of land use planning and regeneration since
the Second World War; these are set out below.
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT ROLE
The above review shows that the national government in the Netherlands has played an
important role in the redevelopment and regeneration of Rotterdam. In particular, the
government’s emphasis on a marketing orientation to land-use planning, linked to the
‘compact city’ policy and the encouragement of image enhancement to attract tourism and
service uses [58] would seem to have had a particular impact on the city. This approach
arose because of the need for the city to ‘upgrade’ its ‘blue-collar’ image in order to attract
international investors [59], particularly white-collar ‘sunrise’ industries to compensate for
a downturn in port-related activity [60]. The resulting priority given to image enhancement
led to the city’s encouragement of cultural developments and public art, as well as high
prole, ‘prestige’ developments such as the Waterstad and the Kop van Zuid. An impetus to
the ‘city marketing’ approach was provided by evidence of population loss in the city after
the 1960s, exacerbated to an extent by the government’s overspill policy in the 1960s [61];
moreover, the selective nature of such population loss meant that those remaining had
lower average purchasing power, compounding the threat to the viability of existing
businesses such as retailing [62].
However, concern has been expressed that the ‘city marketing’ phase of policy
development at the national level represented a response to immediate political
circumstances rather than a considered shift based on analysis [63]. This suggests that
the evolution of spatial planning policy in Rotterdam may not have been as grounded in
rationality as might be suggested from an examination of the city’s development history.
Moreover, such an approach may be criticized as so-called ‘boosterism’, whereby
fragmented development schemes can result in the increased marginalization of local
people [64]. This may be seen to have occurred for instance in the 1980s in the UK, where
the creation of separate agencies such as Urban Development Corporations led to a
relatively incoherent, fragmented approach resulting in a lack of accountability and
subsequent conict [65]. Nevertheless, the importance of ensuring community benets from
urban regeneration would seem to have been recognized to a greater extent during the same
period in the Netherlands. For instance, the national government in the Netherlands
responded to increased unemployment in the 1980s by means of a policy of ‘sociale
verniewing’ (social renewal), aimed particularly at reducing the effects of social deprivation
and isolation brought by long-term unemployment, as well as reducing the massive
expenditure on social welfare payments for the unemployed. In fact, this policy was
initiated in the city of Rotterdam, since the municipality in 1988 requested a report which
looked at innovation in the approach to social welfare, accepting that unemployed people
had not necessarily benetted from the regeneration initiatives that had previously taken
place. Consequently, the municipality attempted to link the economic and social benets of
redevelopment projects [66], and this helped to ensure widespread support for regeneration
initiatives, thereby avoiding criticisms of the exclusiveness of such benets that have been
made with respect to contexts such as the London Docklands [67]. Partly as a result of the
perceived success of this policy in Rotterdam, it was adopted by the national government at
the end of 1989.
ARCHITECTURAL INNOVATION
As indicated above, the impact of the Modernist approaches in architecture had been
evident in Rotterdam since before the city’s bombardment in the Second World War, though
the latter provided the impetus and opportunity for large-scale reconstruction along
Modernist lines. Moreover, within the context of increasing competition between cities for
investment, the emphasis given in Rotterdam to architectural innovation would seem to
have contributed signicantly to the city’s success in enhancing its image at an international
level [68]. For instance, the functionalist, modernist approach of the 1950s was carried
forward as a result of the inuence of Social Democratic politicians in the 1970s who
commissioned renowned architects, such as Piet Blom, to design high-prole projects in the
304 McCarthy
city centre [69]. Moreover, in addition to ‘grand gestures’ such as the Erasmus Bridge, the
municipality sought to ensure quality in development details, as illustrated for instance by
the use of lighting and water jets, and galvanized steel, wood and rubber paving as part of
the ‘Theatre Square’ (Schouwburgplein). In addition, the municipality has developed a
unique sculpture collection, and it has applied a policy of placing high-quality works of art
in public places since the 1970s. Furthermore, the 1995 Inner City Plan provides the
framework for the further enhancement of open spaces within which the visual arts are to
continue to form an important element [70]. Consequently, Hajer [71] highlights the role of
the municipality in creating a high quality ‘public domain’.
Nevertheless, it is clear that a commitment to design quality and innovation was also
made in other Dutch cities such as Groningen, Den Haag, and Maastricht. Moreover, high-
prole projects in Rotterdam, such as the Erasmus Bridge and the Theatre Square, were the
subject of heated debate and controversy as expressed by comments in the city’s media;
clearly, therefore, there was not comprehensive endorsement of these projects by the city’s
residents. More generally, Van der Knaap and Pinder [72] suggest that an emphasis on
architectural innovation can hinder the integration of city centres with surrounding areas,
and Hajer [73] suggests that more recent business-orientated developments in Rotterdam’s
central area have reduced the city’s overall architectural quality. The emphasis on
architectural innovation has therefore involved costs as well as benets.
CULTURAL REGENERATION
The visual aspects of ‘re-imaging’ are linked to the wider use of culture as a means of
achieving regeneration outcomes, an approach which has been followed with apparent
success in many cities [74]. The need for such an approach in Rotterdam arose from the
city’s lack of an attractive historical and cultural identity, as compared for instance with
Amsterdam [75], and one result of this was the creation of a series of high-prole cultural
regeneration projects in the 1980s, for instance within the ‘Museum Park’ area [76]. A
model for the city in this context would seem to have been Barcelona which, like
Rotterdam, was a ‘second city’ with a relatively poor image. The city successfully renewed
and repositioned this image by means of the creation of high-prole building projects, often
related to culture [77]. However, in addition to such prestige cultural projects, the
municipality in Rotterdam encouraged clusters of smaller cultural facilities, as for instance
along the Witte de Withstraat, a street containing the Netherlands Institute of Photography
as well as a series of art galleries and art shops, with even the local police station
incorporating an exhibition space [78]. Furthermore, the municipality has also pursued
cultural development on a wider basis by means of the promotion of festivals and other
cultural events [79].
Again, however, many observers suggest that there is an implicit danger of this approach
veering towards ‘boosterism’ [80], and thereby benetting mainly higher-income groups
with benets failing to ‘trickle-down’ to other groups [81]. Moreover, such a process may
have resulted in the displacement of lower-value uses, thereby disadvantaging those groups
in most need [82]. Nevertheless, Pinder and Rosing [83] suggest that the approach of the
municipality in Rotterdam has largely avoided problems arising from the displacement of
existing populations, whilst exploiting the potential for new uses, such as maritime leisure.
ROLE OF MUNICIPALITY
While the national government has played an important role in the reconstruction of
Rotterdam, the above analysis suggests that the role of the local authority has also been a
crucial factor. For instance, the municipality’s relatively pragmatic approach, explained in
part by the strong economic relationship between the city and the port, has resulted in an
enthusiasm for public–private partnership arrangements for development. Hence the
municipality has worked closely with business interests, often acting as a catalyst for
development [84], and it has also worked in close collaboration with the port authorities
on development initiatives such as the Waalhaven [85]. In particular, the landownership
role of the municipality has been crucial in this context since, for instance, the municipality
took responsibility for land which had been subject to bombing in the Second World War,
as well as land made available later as a result of retreat of the port function. The
individual personalities within the municipality also played an important part; thus, a new
planning director appointed from private practice in the 1980s promoted a bold approach
to the development of the Kop van Zuid project [86]. In addition, the emphasis placed by
the municipality on community involvement has also been acknowledged by many
observers [87].
However, observers such as Hajer [88] suggests that the municipality’s promotion of
recent developments such as the Kop van Zuid project has not addressed the needs of the
structurally unemployed. Indeed, unemployment continued to increase in the 1980s, and in
1994 the rate of unemployment in the city was 14.6%, compared to 9.1% for the wider
region [89]. Nevertheless, the municipality has made efforts to enable local people to access
the jobs created as a result of initiatives such as the Kop van Zuid Project, and the
municipality would seem to be unusual in global terms in providing support for formerly
port-dependent communities [90]. This is illustrated by the priority given by the
municipality to the provision of social housing, while the national trend has been towards
the provision of private housing [91].
POLICY TRANSFER
Many aspects of the approach to redevelopment and regeneration in Rotterdam,

particularly in terms of those areas that have become available as a result of port retreat,
would seem to be directly comparable to experience in other contexts. For instance, the use
of public–private partnerships, which is a signicant feature of Dutch ‘key projects’ such as
the Kop van Zuid scheme, was pioneered in the USA in the 1950s, where ‘pro-growth’
coalitions were developed that included a range of public and private interests. While the
interests of the members of such coalitions in the USA were mainly interpreted as nancial
or land-based, the use of public–private partnership has been applied in contexts such as
the UK and the Netherlands in order to satisfy a range of social, environmental and
economic regeneration objectives. Moreover, the physical composition of the developments
resulting from many public–private partnership schemes in the USA and Europe appear to
show similarities. For instance, in the Inner Harbour area of Baltimore, an area of
obsolescent dockland was redeveloped for a range of uses including a ‘festival marketplace’,
a science museum, an aquarium and several hotels, and within Europe, parts of London
306 McCarthy
Docklands in the UK, as well as European cities such as Rotterdam, have developed similar
schemes. In Rotterdam for instance, projects for the Oude Haven (Fig. 5) and the Kop van
Zuid have applied the objective of creating mixed-use areas, incorporating service
employment uses and tourist attractions, as well as housing.
It may therefore be suggested that the perceived success of US regeneration schemes such
as Baltimore’s Inner Harbour has led to a degree of policy transfer between the USA and
Europe. However, many such schemes throughout Europe have been criticized for the
inappropriate transfer of perceived policy paradigms. Nevertheless, factors such as the
active role of the municipality in Rotterdam in providing appropriate infrastructure at an
early stage, and the application of a strategic land-use planning context that sets clear
objectives in terms of the mix of uses, would seem to have avoided many of the criticisms
applied to areas such as the London Docklands, where these factors have been less evident.
Conclusions
The approach to spatial planning of both the national government in the Netherlands and
the municipality of Rotterdam has evolved signicantly since the Second World War,
reecting the renement of spatial policy and its application as a response to experience as
well as changing circumstances. In addition, Rotterdam’s experience of regeneration and
redevelopment appears to illustrate several aspects of continuity during this period,
including an emphasis of pragmatism, partnership, a pro-active approach on the part of the
municipality and the integration of social objectives with those for physical planning.
However, many aspects of this approach, including the use of a ‘city marketing’ approach
that has prioritized the development of prestige projects, and the explicitly ‘modernist’
approach to architectural style, have involved negative as well as positive effects; these
aspects of the city’s reconstruction remain the focus of local controversy.
Notes and references
1. See I. Colquhoun, Urban Regeneration. London: B T Batsford Ltd, 1995.

2. B. Van der Knaap and D.A. Pinder, Revitalising the European waterfront: policy evolution and
planning issues, in B.S. Hoyle and D. Pinder (eds) European Port Cities in Transition. London:
Belhaven Press, 1992, pp. 155–75.
3. W.J.M. Kickert and F.A. van Vught, Public Policy and Administration Sciences in the
Netherlands. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall=Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1995; J. Jauhiainen,
Waterfront redevelopment and urban policy: the case of Barcelona, Cardiff and Genoa. European
Planning Studies 3 (1995) 3–23.
4. B. Needham and J. Van de Ven, Amsterdam, in J. Berry and S. McGreal (eds) European Cities,
Planning Systems and Property Markets, London: E and FN Spon, 1995, pp. 50 –63; B.
Needham, P. Koenders and B. Kruijt, European Urban Land and Property Markets in the
Netherlands. London: UCL Press, 1993.
5. W.J.M. Kickert and F.A. van Vught, op. cit. [3].
6. B. Needham, A plan with a purpose: the regional plan for the province of Friesland, 1994, in P.
Healey, A. Khakee, A. Motte and B. Needham (eds) Making Strategic Spatial Plans: innovation in
Europe. London: UCL Press, 1997, pp. 173–90.
7. H.W.E. Davies, The control of development in The Netherlands. Town Planning Review 59
(1988) 207–25; H. Priemus, Physical planning policy and public expenditure in the Netherlands.
Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 11 (1996) 151–72.
8. B. Needham, P. Koenders and B. Kruijt, op. cit. [4].
9. M. Spaans, Contemporary Dutch urban planning; the case of the ‘key project’ for the Hague New
Centre. Conference paper presented to the 9th AESOP Congress, ‘The Regeneration of Peripheral
Regions’, August 16 –19, 1995.
10. Ibid.; B. Van der Knaap and D.A. Pinder, op. cit. [2].
11. P. Kohnstamm, Urban renewal and public–private partnership in the Netherlands, in J. Berry, S.
McGreal and B. Deddis (eds) Urban Regeneration, Property Investment and Development.
London: E and FN Spon, 1993, pp. 220–9; M. Spaans, op. cit. [9]; B. Van der Knaap and D.A.
Pinder, op. cit. [2].
12. B. Needham, P. Koenders and B. Kruijt, op. cit. [4]; H. Priemus, op. cit. [7].
13. M. Spaans, op. cit. [9].
14. B. Needham, P. Koenders and B. Kruijt, op. cit. [4]; B. Needham and J. Van de Ven, op. cit. [4].
15. P. Kohnstamm, op. cit. [11].
16. J. Charlier, The regeneration of old port areas for new port uses, in B. Hoyle and D.A. Pinder (eds)
European Port Cities in Transition. London: Belhaven Press, 1992, pp. 137–54; D.A. Pinder and
K.E. Rosing, Public policy and planning of the Rotterdam waterfront: a tale of two cities, in B.S.
Hoyle, D.A. Pinder and M.S. Husain (eds) Revitalising the Waterfront: international dimensions of
docklands redevelopment. Chichester: John Wiley, 1994, pp. 114–28.
17. Rotterdam City Information Centre, Reconstruction 1940 –1990. Rotterdam: Rotterdam City
Information Centre, 1997.
18. M.J. Vroom and J.H.A. Meeus, Learning from Rotterdam: investigating the process of urban
park design. London: Mansell Publishing, 1990.
19. Ibid.
20. Rotterdam City Information Centre, op. cit. [17].
21. M.J. Vroom and J.H.A. Meeus, op. cit. [18].
22. A. Harding, Amsterdam and Rotterdam, in A. Harding, J. Dawson, R. Evans and P. Parkinson
(eds) European Cities Towards 2000. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994, pp. 18 –44.
23. Ibid.
25. M.A. Hajer, Rotterdam: re-designing the public domain, in F. Bianchini and M. Parkinson (eds)
Cultural Policy and Urban Regeneration: The west European experience. Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 1993, pp. 48 –72.
27. M.A. Hajer, op. cit. [25].
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid.
31. M.J. Vroom and J.H.A. Meeus, op. cit. [18].
32. Ibid., p.17.
34. Rotterdam City Information Centre, The 1993–2000 Inner City Plan: halfway there. Rotterdam:
Rotterdam City Information Centre, 1996.
35. National Physical Planning Agency, Spatial Reconnaissances 1988; Chapter 1: cities and culture.
The Hague: Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and the Environment, 1989.
308 McCarthy
36. Ibid.
39. D.A. Pinder and K.E. Rosing, op. cit. [16].
41. Ibid.
44. Ibid.
46. D.A. Pinder and K.E. Rosing, op. cit. [16]; I. Colquhoun, op. cit. [1].
47. I. Colquhoun, op. cit. [1].
48. J. McCarthy, Waterfront regeneration in the Netherlands: the cases of Rotterdam and Maastricht.
European Planning Studies 4 (1996) 545–60.
49. Rotterdam City Development Corporation, North and South: united at last, in Rotterdam City
Development Corporation, Rotterdam A1. Rotterdam: Rotterdam City Development Corpora-
tion, 1 September 1996, 18–21.
50. J. McCarthy, op. cit. [48].
51. Informatiecentrum Kop van Zuid, Kop van Zuid: city of tomorrow. Rotterdam: Informatiecen-
trum Kop van Zuid, 1995.
52. M.A. Hajer, op. cit. [25]; D.A. Pinder and K.E. Rosing, op. cit. [16].
53. Informatiecentrum Kop van Zuid, op. cit. [51].
54. Wederzijds Prot, Kop van Zuid: setting to work together. Rotterdam: Wederzijds Prot, 1997.
55. Informatiecentrum Kop van Zuid, op. cit. [51].
56. Rotterdam City Development Corporation, Expanding the city centre, in Rotterdam City
Development Corporation, Rotterdam A1. Rotterdam: Rotterdam City Development Corpora-
tion, 2 March 1997, pp. 8– 9.
57. Rotterdam City Development Corporation, Weena Tower Hotel, in Rotterdam City Development
Corporation, Rotterdam A1. Rotterdam: Rotterdam City Development Corporation, 1 September
1996, p. 7.
58. G.J. Ashworth and H. Voogd, Selling the City: marketing approaches in public sector urban
planning. London: Belhaven Press, 1990.
59. A. Harding, op. cit. [22].
61. Ibid.
63. A. Faludi and A. Korthals, Marketing planning and its dangers. Town Planning Review 67
(1996) 183–202.
64. H. Smyth, Marketing the City: the role of agship developments in urban regeneration. London:
E and FN Spon, 1994; J. Tunbridge and G. Ashworth, Leisure resource development in cityport
revitalisation: the tourist–historic dimension, in B.S. Hoyle and D.A. Pinder (eds) European Port
Cities in Transition. London: Belhaven Press, 1992, pp. 176–200.
65. G.J. Ashworth and H. Voogd, op. cit. [58]; R. Imrie and H. Thomas, British Urban Policy and
the Urban Development Corporations. London: Paul Chapman Publishing, 1993.
67. J. Charlier, op. cit. [16]; A. Thornley, Urban Planning Under Thatcherism: the challenge of the
market. London: Routledge, 1991; C.M. Law, Urban revitalisation, public policy and the
redevelopment of redundant port zones: lessons from Baltimore and Manchester, in B.S. Hoyle,
D.A. Pinder and M.S. Husain (eds) Revitalising the Waterfront: international dimensions of
dockland redevelopment. Chichester: John Wiley, 1994, pp. 146–66.
68. R. Moore, Modern Dutch Masters. Daily Telegraph, 1 February 1997.
70. J. Boute and J. Van Rosmalen, dS‡V. Rotterdam: City of Rotterdam Municipal Department of
Urban Planning and Housing, 1997.
72. B. Van der Knaap and D.A. Pinder, op. cit. [2].
74. F. Bianchini, Culture, conict and cities: issues and prospects for the 1990s, in F. Bianchini and
M. Parkinson (eds) Cultural Policy and Urban Regeneration: the west European experience.
Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993, pp. 199–213; R. Ebert, F. Gnad and K.
Kunzmann, The Creative City. Stroud: Comedia, 1994; R. Evans and J. Dawson, Liveable Towns
and Cities. London: Civic Trust, 1994; S. Zukin, The Cultures of Cities. Oxford: Blackwell,
1995.
75. R. Moore, op. cit. [68].
76. M.A. Hajer, op. cit. [25]; P. Kohnstamm, op. cit. [11].
77. R. Moore, op. cit. [68].
78. Rotterdam City Development Corporation, Witte de Withstraat: gateway to culture, in
Rotterdam City Development Corporation, Rotterdam A1. Rotterdam: Rotterdam City
Development Corporation, 1 September 1996, p. 11.
80. Ibid.
81. F. Bianchini, op. cit. [74]; P. Booth and R. Boyle, See Glasgow, See Culture, in F. Bianchini and
M. Parkinson (eds) Cultural Policy and Urban Regeneration: the west European experience.
Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993, pp. 21 –47; J. Tunbridge and G. Ashworth, op.
cit. [64]; H. Smyth, op. cit. [64].
82. D. Harvey, From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation in urban governance in
late capitalism. Geographiska Annaler 71B (1989) 3–17; R. Evans and J. Dawson, op. cit. [74].
85. J. Charlier, op. cit. [16].
87. Community Forum, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Birmingham: a tale of three cities. London:
Community Forum, 1987.
89. Council of Europe, The Status of Major Cities and their Peripheries. Strasbourg: Council of
Europe Publishing, 1996.
90. D.A. Pinder, B. Hoyle and S. Husain, Retreat, redundancy and revitalisation: forces, trends and a
research agenda, in B.S. Hoyle, D.A. Pinder and M.S. Husain (eds) Revitalising the Waterfront:
international dimensions of docklands redevelopment. Chichester: John Wiley, 1994, pp. 247–60.
91. H. Priemus, op. cit. [7].

The Redevelopment of Rotterdam Since 1945

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Redevelopment of Rotterdam Since 1945

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Planning Perspectives

ISSN: 0266-5433 (Print) 1466-4518 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rppe20

The redevelopment of Rotterdam since 1945

Published online: 02 Dec 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1051

View related articles

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

The redevelopment of Rotterdam since 1945

# 1999 E & FN Spon 0266-5433

Redevelopment and reconstruction in Rotterdam

1940s: THE ‘BASIC PLAN’

However, implementation of the plan was difcult to achieve because of shortages of

1950s AND 1960s: ECONOMIC EXPANSION

1970s: INNER CITY REGENERATION

1980s: CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

1990s: THE KOP VAN ZUID ‘KEY PROJECT’

Figure 4. The Erasmus Bridge.

Figure 5. Development around the Oude Haven.

NATIONAL GOVERNMENT ROLE

Many aspects of the approach to redevelopment and regeneration in Rotterdam,

Notes and references

1. See I. Colquhoun, Urban Regeneration. London: B T Batsford Ltd, 1995.

You might also like

However, implementation of the plan was difcult to achieve because of shortages of