TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE SUBURB LESSONS FROM THE NETHERLANDS by ANNIE ...

62 Pages·2007·7.42 MB·English

TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE SUBURB
LESSONS FROM THE NETHERLANDS

by

ANNIE FORBES LUX

A Masters Project submitted to the faculty
of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Master of Regional Planning
in the Department of City and Regional Planning.

Chapel Hill

2007

Approved by:

_________________________ ______________________
READER (optional) ADVISOR
Towards a Sustainable Suburb
Lessons from the Netherlands

By

Annie Forbes Lux

A Masters Project submitted to the faculty
of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Master of Regional Planning
in the Department of City and Regional Planning.
Towards a Sustainable Suburb:
Lessons from the Netherlands

TABLE OF CONTENTS
........................................................................................1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.............................................................................................3
TABLE OF FIGURES
..................................................................................................4
INTRODUCTION
HOUSING POLICY IN THE EU...................................................................................................................................5
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE EU.....................................................................................................................................7
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE NETHERLANDS..................................................................................................................9
Policy Incentives................................................................................................................................................10
Economic Incentives..........................................................................................................................................10
Taxes and Laws..................................................................................................................................................11
Guidance............................................................................................................................................................11
..................................................12
THE DUTCH HOUSING ENVIRONMENT
DEVELOPMENT HISTORY: 1851-1990.....................................................................................................................13
DUTCH MARKET RESEARCH..................................................................................................................................19
.....................................................................................................................21
VINEX
HISTORY.................................................................................................................................................................21
REVISION................................................................................................................................................................22
VINEX TYPOLOGY.................................................................................................................................................22
IMPLEMENTATION..................................................................................................................................................24
CRITICISM...............................................................................................................................................................25
....................................................................................................26
CASE STUDIES
LEIDSCHE RIJN........................................................................................................................................................26
Location..............................................................................................................................................................26
Site Design.........................................................................................................................................................26
Transportation...................................................................................................................................................27
Neighborhoods....................................................................................................................................................28
Differentiators – Sustainability.........................................................................................................................30
The Site Today...................................................................................................................................................31
NESSELANDE..........................................................................................................................................................33
Location..............................................................................................................................................................33
Transportation...................................................................................................................................................33
Neighborhoods....................................................................................................................................................34
Parks..................................................................................................................................................................36
The Site Today...................................................................................................................................................37
Lessons...............................................................................................................................................................37
YPENBURG..............................................................................................................................................................38
Location..............................................................................................................................................................38
Transportation...................................................................................................................................................38
Site Design.........................................................................................................................................................38
Neighborhoods....................................................................................................................................................39
The Site Today...................................................................................................................................................40

1
Towards a Sustainable Suburb:
Lessons from the Netherlands

........................................................41
LOOKING BACK: DID VINEX WORK?
COMPROMISES........................................................................................................................................................41
MARKET CONDITIONS............................................................................................................................................42
WHY THE SHORTAGE?............................................................................................................................................42
The economic environment................................................................................................................................42
Regulations........................................................................................................................................................43
Costs...................................................................................................................................................................43
...........................................................................44
LOOKING TO THE FUTURE
...................................................................46
WHAT CAN THE US EMULATE?

2
Towards a Sustainable Suburb:
Lessons from the Netherlands

TABLE OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - ENERGY CERTIFICATE (EU) 9
FIGURE 2 - AREA BELOW SEA LEVEL (NETHERLANDS MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS) 9
FIGURE 3 – NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING (RUIMTEXMILEAU.NL) 12
FIGURE 4 – RANDSTAD AND THE GREEN HEART (WWW.GROENE-HART.NL) 13
FIGURE 5 - AMSTERDAM PLAN 1930'S (NAI) 14
FIGURE 6 – ROTTERDAM CENTRUM (ROTTERDAM IN DE TWEEDED WERELDOORLOG) 15
FIGURE 7 – CONCENTRATED DECONCENTRATION (FALUDI) 16
FIGURE 8 – SKETCH OF COMPACT DEVELOPMENT (3RD NOTA) 17
FIGURE 9 – VINEX LOCATIONS, BY UNITS (RUIMTELIJK PLANBUREAU) 21
FIGURE 10 – SKETCH OF A, B, C LOCATIONS (4TH NOTA) 23
FIGURE 11 – GROUND FLOOR OF TYPICAL DWELLING 23
FIGURE 12 – SITE PLAN (CONSTRUCTION BROCHURE) 26
FIGURE 13 – BRIDGE OVER A2 (MAXWAN) 27
FIGURE 14 - PLAN ELEMENTS (MAXWAN) 27
FIGURE 15 - PARKWIJK (NEIGHBORHOOD WEBSITE) 28
FIGURE 16 - VELDHUIZEN (NEIGHBORHOOD WEBSITE) 29
FIGURE 17 – NEW CENTRUM (MAXWAN) 30
FIGURE 18 - WADI (NEIGHBORHOOD WEBSITE) 30
FIGURE 19 - LEIDSCHE RIJN DIG (FECTIO) 31
FIGURE 20 - DEMONSTRATION HOUSE (ABA-I) 31
FIGURE 21 - TEMPORARY GROCERY 32
FIGURE 22 - SITE 33
FIGURE 23 - ROTTERDAM METRO MAP 33
FIGURE 24 - BIKE CONNECTIONS (HTTP://WWW.NESSELANDE.ROTTERDAM.NL) 34
FIGURE 25 - SITE SKETCH (HTTP://WWW.NESSELANDE.ROTTERDAM.NL/) 34
FIGURE 26 - HOF VAN NESSELANDE RENDERING
(HTTP://WWW.NESSELANDE.ROTTERDAM.NL/) 35
FIGURE 27 - NESSELGARDE RENDERING (HTTP://WWW.NESSELANDE.ROTTERDAM.NL/) 35
FIGURE 28 - AMPHIBIOUS HOUSES (HTTP://WWW.NESSELANDE.ROTTERDAM.NL) 36
FIGURE 29 - SITE DRAWING (HTTP://WWW.NESSELANDE.ROTTERDAM.NL) 36
FIGURE 30 - RIETVELD PARK DRAWING (HTTP://WWW.NESSELANDE.ROTTERDAM.NL) 36
FIGURE 31 - SITE PLAN (HTTP://WWW.YPENBURG.NL) 38
FIGURE 32 - SUBDIVISION 10 (LEGOLAND?) (NAI) 40
FIGURE 33 - YPENBURG STREETSCAPE 40
FIGURE 34 - YPENBURG ART LIGHTING 41
FIGURE 35 - HOUSING MARKET (STAGNATION IN DUTCH HOUSING PRODUCTION) 44

3
Towards a Sustainable Suburb:
Lessons from the Netherlands

Introduction miles (about the size of Massachusetts,
Connecticut, and Rhode Island 1 ), the
Although America is concerned
Dutch are terrified of running out of space.
about sprawl, most regions are not in
The population density of the Netherlands
danger of running out of land. As long as
is greater than that of New Jersey, but
there is land that developers can build on,
unlike New Jersey, which acts as a
and as long as people will buy homes in
bedroom community for New York and
new neighborhoods, development
Philadelphia, the Netherlands contain all
patterns in the United States are not likely
commercial, industrial, and residential
to change. What would happen if we had
uses. Thus, Dutch planners realize that
a land shortage (or if we decided to
strong land use policy is imperative to
preserve the open space we have)? How
ensuring that Netherlands remain an
would we house growing families and
attractive place to live and do business.
immigrants? Europeans are used to
Approximately every ten years, the
dealing with limited land. Culturally,
Rumtelijk Plan Bureau (national planning
they accept compact cities from the days
authority) issues a report on physical
of city walls. Today, the Swiss still live in
planning that guides national, regional,
compact cities and villages while striving
and local planning policy. In 1991, the
to preserve farmland for their beloved
Vierde Nota Extra (the “fifth note extra”,
cows. The Dutch created much of the
better known as VINEX) identified that
open space they have by reclaiming
835,000 housing units must be constructed
swampland through engineering. They
between 1995 and 2005 to accommodate
face a legitimate shortage of developable
growth and shifting demographics.
land.
VINEX set forth an explicit building
With a population of over sixteen program to ensure that the Netherlands
million living on thirteen thousand square could absorb a rate of construction equal

4
Towards a Sustainable Suburb:
Lessons from the Netherlands

to some regions of the United States, but Housing policy in the EU
on much less available land. Learning
Countries within the European
from VINEX’s housing program can help
Union regularly look to each other to
the United States better house its
benchmark their policies and to create
occupants sustainably on less land to
new strategies. Therefore, it is instructive
contain sprawl and preserve more open
to understand policies relating to housing
space for the future.
from around the EU before discussing
Netherlands-specific policies. The New
To identify successful housing
Amsterdam Development Corporation
strategies, this paper will first explain the
benchmarked itself by completing a study
general European and Dutch housing
of housing planning in eighteen European
markets and policy environments. Second,
cities. Table 1 shows the cities studied.
it will detail the history of Dutch planning
and development. Third, it will delve
Table 1
Amsterdam Oslo Birmingham Lyon
specifically into the VINEX policy. Finally,
Berlin Stockholm Vienna Nantes
it will present three case studies to Frankfurt Barcelona Bologna Paris
Helsinki Seville Florence Strasbourg
examine the successes and shortcomings
Copenhagen Porto
of VINEX and identify design and policy All cities have qualitative goals for
lessons that can be applied to future providing housing. Some of these goals
construction and policies in the United include building new types of homes to
States. Throughout, this paper will meet diverse needs, keeping cities for all
highlight specific strategies for promoting people – particularly middle class families
sustainability in neighborhood with children, preventing suburban
construction as addressing climate change migration, handling population growth,
is becoming a global imperative. creating social cohesion and sustainable
communities, meeting aspirations for

5
Towards a Sustainable Suburb:
Lessons from the Netherlands

homeownership, providing affordable municipal power to designate privately
housing for low-income residents and owned land for housing development. In
workers, fighting real estate inflation, Bologna, Italy, the municipality follows a
compensating for decreasing number of policy called “Perequation,” or balancing
occupants per dwelling, and dealing with out and cross-suburbanization. Bologna’s
aging housing stock. PSC, or strategic plan, categorizes the
urban area by places with common
Further, some cities set quantitative
characteristics and gives each of these
goals for housing production. For
places the same development rights as its
example, Amsterdam planned construc-
peers. Property owners then get financial
tion of 16,000 dwellings between 2002 and
compensation and the municipality
2006, and 20,000 more between 2006 and
imposes land use regulations to control
2010. Copenhagen devised the “5X5
growth and development. Perequation is
Plan,” which sought to provide 5,000
a cousin of zoning, but adds transfer of
dwellings with monthly rent less than
development rights to separate
5,000 kroner. Stockholm planned 5,000
development right from land ownership.
dwellings per year for four years. Other
cities generally planned 3,000 to 6,000 In France, the government
dwellings per year. delineates areas for development by using
a tool called the ZAC Instrument (Zone
To meet these qualitative and
d’Amenagement Concerte). The French
quantitative goals, cities have various
created the ZAC policy in 1967 and
programs to incentivize development.
modified it in 2000. The government must
Amsterdam, Helsinki, and Stockholm use
create the ZAC and it must be in an urban
a ground lease system to lower land prices.
area. Beyond that requirement, the area
Most of Amsterdam is built on leasehold
can be used for housing, industry, etc, as
land, owned by the city.2 Other cities use

6
Towards a Sustainable Suburb:
Lessons from the Netherlands

long as it is developed. Municipalities market price at the investment value of
launch the ZAC by using a “droit de the planned development minus
preemption” (right of first purchase on a construction costs and expenses.
property in a zone when it is Developers can renegotiate the land price
available…can be lower than market throughout the approvals process.
value), or “droit d’expropriation” (when Conversely, the city can ask the developer
seizing property is necessary in the public for more money if the number of dwelling
interest). These two programs are units increases. Since land price can
analogous to the right of first refusal and change frequently (each time the
the Kelo vs. New London version of developer changes project specifics), the
eminent domain. After launch, a public or process is inefficient. In 2004, Amsterdam
private entity can take control of the ZAC launched the “Big Simplification,” which
and the transfer includes impact fees to included the “Building Envelope”, a tool
pay for public infrastructure. for clarifying relations between cities and
developers. The Building Envelope ended
After municipalities seize land for
the municipality’s ability to increase land
development, they often encounter issues
price as developers increased density.
about how to price the land. In
The upside of this policy is that it shifts
Amsterdam, the Development Corpor-
risk to the developer when the
ation of the City of Amsterdam sets the
development price is set early in the
land price at a level related to its eventual
process.
function. Expected market value for
different types of real estate and the Sustainability in the EU
building costs for these types determines Beyond stronger policies for
land price. The development corporation housing production, EU countries
uses a residual value approach to set emphasize sustainability more than the

7
Towards a Sustainable Suburb:
Lessons from the Netherlands

United States does because of culture and completion, the municipality issues a
participation in the Kyoto Protocol. Kyoto compulsory energy certificate and the
requires that industrialized countries municipality reissues the certificate each
reduce their CO emissions by 5.2 percent time the building is sold or rented. A
2
on 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. The certified building must be younger than
country-specific reduction is based on ten years and an independent, qualified
baseline levels. Therefore, the expert must appraise the building. The
Netherlands must reduce their output by certificate details the building’s current
six percent (by comparison, Germany is efficiency level and includes recom-
twenty-one percent and Finland is zero mendations on cost-effective ways to
percent). Construction is an easy target improve energy performance. Owners of
for CO reduction because studies public buildings must display the
2
estimate that buildings use forty percent certificates prominently (similar to an
of the European Union's energy and thirty elevator permit in the United States).a
percent of its CO . 3 Further, the Most countries are aiming for full
2
construction sector produces forty percent implementation of the EPBD by 2007.
of all waste. Figure 1 shows an example of an energy
certificate.
One policy aimed at meeting
sustainability goals, the EU Energy
Performance for Buildings Directive
(EPBD), tries to harmonize energy
calculation methods based on overall
energy performance and sets minimum
energy requirements for new construction

and major refurbishments. At a building's a Document and more information available at
http://www.diag.org.uk/documents.jsp

8