Maastricht Debates: Who owns the city?

The public debate at the Maastricht city hall kicked off with the words of my friend ringing in my ears.

‘You know, these things are only organised in a bid to make people feel like they’re involved’, she exclaimed as we took our seats.

As I sat thinking this over it became obvious she was not the only sceptic in the room. Sure enough, we were no more than ten minutes in before one frustrated, and rather hasty, onlooker claiming ‘democratic deceit’ bawled ‘objection!’ in the midst of culture councillor Jacques Costongs’ address.

Who owns the city, public debate 6 October 2010

Almost immediately it was clear that Maastricht Debates, direct access to the leaders of today would hold true to its tagline.

Organised in the frame of the city’s international week, and held on this occasion in the entrance lobby of City Hall, the Maastricht Debates team on October 6th provided Who owns the city?, the first in a series of events on ‘urban development in a globalised world’.

In a building Jacques Costongs described as the finest example of cooperation in the region, four expert speakers were invited along to provide their thoughts and insights on ‘how we design and manage attractive urban settings which stimulate an active and engaged citizenship’.

A question Maastricht itself seems keen to answer in its bid for European capital of culture in 2018.

Somik Lall (Senior Urban Economist at the World Bank), Felix Madrazo (founder of Supersudaca), Graeme Evans (Professor of Culture and Urban Development, Maastricht and London Metropolitan Universities) and Wim Van den Bergh (Architect and Professor at RWTH Aachen University) were joined on the evening by an eager crowd of planners, academics, students and other citizens, each anticipating a lively debate.

Who owns the city, plans the city and how movement is regulated within the city were quickly established as three subthemes.

Which comes first, people or places?
Wim Van den Bergh was the first to tackle the issue of ownership. Using the example of early Greek colonists and their systematic way of dividing up land, he explained how a democratic approach to city planning can quickly lead to a capitalist society where one neighbour gets richer than another.

Currently, with layers of public and private ownership making up each aspect of the built environment, it appears difficult to decipher just how inclusive these spaces are. With an enormous amount of stakeholders, it appeared, discussion needs to be broadened to go much further than a question of simply ‘owning’ space.

Maastricht Debates from Kontinual Motion on Vimeo.

And so it did. Somik Lall led the debate concerning planning policy in relation to active citizenship. Using the example of New York’s Jane Jacobs, the city is in the service of its people, potentially competing with others to take care of the needs and wants of the population. According to Lall it was Jacobs’ contention that urban planning should allow people to reach their aspirations, and by neglecting people’s interests, the city will be neglected in return. Thus the question was posed, which comes first, people or places?

When it came to finding an answer, emphasis certainly seemed to be placed upon public participation and community consultation (much of which is organised by municipalities, and stated by Graeme Evans, tends to be tokenistic). Believing the culture of planning needs to be changed, appropriation of underused space until real commercial development kicks in was one suggestion. Anti-squatting and community driven artistic endeavours (much like Maastricht’s very own Landbouwbelang and Artspace Rondeel Maastricht, appeared to be ‘commonsensical applications’.

Who shares the city?
Maastricht then could be placed at the centre of what Graeme Evans stated is a more relevant debate, ‘who shares the city?’ Comprising of recreational visitors, tourists, residents and international students, on the back of centuries of foreign influence, the city constantly has people flowing through it. The university welcomes students of all demographics, few of whom continue to live and work in the city post-study. Concerns, therefore, regarding population decline and a lack of opportunities were paramount to discussion. If, as Somik Lall pointed out, ‘policy makers and politicians keep trying to revive cities that are naturally meant to die’, then, as one bemused audience member asked, does this apply to Maastricht?

Who owns the city, workshop 7 October 2010

Of course no speaker was willing to reply ‘yes’. Rather it is this kind of question such dialogue appears to be attempting to tackle. Solutions ranged from developing people’s skills to making more efficient use of Maastricht’s historical value. Thus, through people, positive changed can be sought. As Somik Lall stated ‘places cannot be changed that easily, people can’.

So who owns the city?
Indeed the evening certainly provided some food-for-thought. Discussion and comment from the audience was welcome, allowing pressing questions and viewpoints to be voiced throughout.

As for the reservations of my friend, it remains to be seen if this kind of interaction leads to more appreciation of the community’s concerns. On this occasion, the Maastricht Debates team, at the very least, prompted discussion surrounding the nature of the urban planning process and interaction with the public.

A suggestion from Felix Madrazo concluded the debate. In Maastricht’s case, he stated, ‘use the wave that’s coming and take it in another direction’. Urging us to move away from economic concerns, and referring back to the very title of the debate, Who owns the city? a new approach was offered. ‘It’s ours’.

By Clare Canning

Clare Canning is from Manchester in the UK and is currently studying towards a masters in Arts and Heritage: Policy, Management and Education at Maastricht University.

Other Maastricht Debates events on the subject of ‘Urban Connections’ will be taking place from the next on ‘Cities in Asia’ on November 16th, through to May 2011 with ‘Creative Cities’.