• Nie Znaleziono Wyników

Increasing Spatial Densities of Activities in and around the Port of Rotterdam

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Increasing Spatial Densities of Activities in and around the Port of Rotterdam"

Copied!
20
0
0

Pełen tekst

(1)

PAPER

Increasing Spatial Densities of Activities in and around the

Port of Rotterdam

An operational multi-actor systems approach of sustainable urban areas Dr. Ir. P.P. (Peter Paul) van Loon, Ir. P. (Peter) Barendse, Ir. E. (Erwin) Heurkes Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Architecture.

Julianalaan 134 2628BL Delft 015.2784084

p.p.j.vanloon@tudelft.nl

Abstract

Background: Working together on room for growth and sustainability in the Port of Rotterdam is increasing while space in the area is limited. Furthermore the Port is in the vicinity of cities that want to grow while citizens want to live in an environment that is safe, clean and with good quality for living. The Port of Rotterdam therefore needs to work on a “license to operate” in harmony with his surroundings. Conducting the port operations in a sustainable and socially responsible way is then a prerequisite.

Objective: Building networks of actors for (re)allocation of spatial resources. Given the complexity of the land-use changes and new spatial arrangements in and around the Port of Rotterdam, the (re)allocation of spatial resources should be planned, designed and decided on in a multi-actor governance systems.

Methods: Constructing multi-level design and decision systems for spatial planning to support the preparation and planning of sustainable areas in and around the Port of

Rotterdam. An integration of advanced multi-actor systems (based on group decision making concepts from Operation Research), with management information systems (from

Management Science) and spatial urban design systems (Geographical Information Systems, 2/3D Simulation, Gaming) can be developed and applied.

Results: An operational multi-actor systems approach of sustainable urban areas. Based on the applications of multi-level design and decision support systems to optimize mutual dependencies concerning spatial objectives and resources for sustainability in port areas and their urban and rural environments. While the design objects are modelled in computer models, the decision-making process is modelled in the interactions of the stakeholders with the tools and each other. This enhances the integrated consideration of the many elements of a design problem, particularly those often regarded as being at odds, such as the economic viability, social responsibility, sustainability and environmental impact

(2)

1. Introduction

Multi actor decision support systems for urban area development – also called quantitative urban design and decision-making techniques – have the principal objective of using the body of existing knowledge concerning urban areas, especially the urban developments in these areas (and any new knowledge that is to be discovered in this matter) to reach certain goals and objectives that have been predetermined. These systems use the technology, the power to calculate and the visualisation possibilities of the computer. This does not necessarily mean that these systems only deal with the technical and physical aspects of urban area development. Some quantitative management instruments explicitly take the social and political aspects of urban development decision-making into account. They combine the technical, physical, social and political aspects of urban area decision-making. That part of the decision support systems recognizes the substantial role that decisions play in urban design and planning, largely characterized by ambiguity, uncertainty, risk, and trade-offs. And that these decisions are of a multi-actor structure by nature (Chen, 2006; Binnekamp, 2006: Van Loon, 1998, 2008; Teisman, 1998).

This paper continues with introducing an instrumental management view of multi actor decision making, which forms the general framework for the structuring of the design-decision process (10.2). The remainder of the paper focuses on a specific multi actor decision support system for urban area development: the Urban Decision Room (10.3). The UDR has been developed and applied by some members of the Urban Area Development group of the Department of Real Estate & Housing (TU Delft, Faculty of Architecture). The group's focus is on a collaborative approach to urban area development and has been keen to tackle the problems professionals in urban area development encounter with combining sub-solutions, producing design information and quantifying design decisions. For years the group conducted all kinds of experiments, both practical and theoretical with students and colleagues in practice. These experiments focused on the question of how and under what conditions urban developing teams should work together to achieve the optimum

development (Van Loon, 2008).

2. Multi actor urban decision making, an instrumental management view

In every organisation geared towards production, management is a separate activity

alongside processing and support services. Each of these activities is associated with its own area of responsibility within the organisation: processing deals with the input of (raw) materials, the transformation of the material as it passes through the process and the output of manufactured products; support services provide and maintain the people and the resources. This includes not only the maintenance service, but also equipment purchasing, staff recruitment, training etc.; management coordinates the various activities that make up the processing process, coordinates the support process with the processing process and, above all, coordinates all internal processes with the environment (In ‘t Veld, 2002). Management can also be described on the basis of its two main components, coordination and control: coordination is the linking of the activities and decisions of different

individuals. This allows a particular piece of work to be carried out as a complete entity. Coordination is normally based on the allocation of responsibilities within the work process;

(3)

control is steering the process in the desired direction. This mainly entails correcting any mistakes.

Generally speaking, a process will have been managed properly only if the results are consistent with the values and characteristics determined beforehand. Management ensures that the process is steered towards those results. Representing this as a simple control model, we can say that the management body determines what interventions are necessary in the processing and support process to obtain an output with those particular values and characteristics. This is represented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Management of a process (after: In ‘t Veld, 2002)

Since, at the outset, the outcome of urban area development is at best vague, management of this process will focus mainly on clarifying the outcome (= design, final decision) step by step. Since, moreover, it is not entirely known at the outset how the plan process will be structured, management will also have to focus on setting up and altering it during the process: changes in the phasing, reallocation of the tasks that have to be performed, links between the phases etc.

The literature, and particularly the literature on decision theory, mentions a number of ways of achieving an effective structure for the decision process and a good

design-decision result (Van Loon, 1998). At this point we shall simply set out the general

framework for the structuring of the design-decision process, using the model Herbert Simon (1969) has devised for a decision-making process. His model is simple and, partly as a result of its simplicity, has become very well known. According to this model, a decision-making process can be structured around three process phases (Figure 2): intelligence, the phase during which problems and possibilities are investigated; design, the phase during which problems and possibilities are analysed, and feasible solutions generated; and choice, the phase during which options are selected from the various possibilities, and the chosen option is put forward for implementation.

(4)

Figure 2. Process phases in a decision-making process (after:Simon, 1969)

Each phase can be further divided, using the principle of phased decision-making. In other words, the process in each phase can be divided into a number of logical parts, and there will be a moment of decision (D 1-4) between activities (a 1-4) (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Phased decision-making

If phased decision-making is incorporated into urban planner’s work structure Figure 4 results. The diagram now includes intelligence activities and decisions, design activities and decisions, and choice activities and decisions. Urban planners believe that phased decision-making must take place a number of times so that there are a number of viable alternative solutions. This is necessary in order to give principals and users a wide choice and to reach the best possible solution for them: “optimization means finding the best of all possible programmes” (Faludi, 1973 p. 96).

Figure 4. Urban planner’s work structure

The management of the design-decision process is, in practice, performed by different people: a project leader, who is often also one of the chief project designers; a team of coordinators, each of whom comes from one of the main disciplines in the project; one or more independent managers who are concerned only with regulating activities and decisions, rather than with the content of the project; or an elected representative who acts as

chairperson, leading the process from a more or less neutral position.

In the past management was approached largely mechanistically: the leader determines policy and coordinates and controls the activities needed to carry out the policy. In the

(5)

course of time, this has been replaced by a democratic approach: the leader makes various proposals and consults with his subordinates on decisions that affect them and decisions they should take.

In urban area development, a democratic approach to management is necessary, but is not enough in itself. We have to go a step further. Open discussions with those implementing the projects are needed, but project leaders must also place themselves on an equal footing. Only then will management become an equal, parallel aspect of the urban planning process. In line with the use of the concept of ‘methodological individualism’ as the basic premise of inter-organisational urban planning, project leaders may distinguish themselves only in terms of their task and their decision-making area (Van Loon, 1998).

This parallel function and the individual decision-making area can be used as a basis for integrating the management of the urban area development process into the process as a whole, thus giving it the character of political action, i.e. action that is geared towards the whole, towards cooperative negotiation and democratic decisions.

In political science, two opposing interpretations of the management (control) of a political process have developed (Van Loon, 1998). The first is based on the principle that in a community (a society or organisation) there will always be a certain indifference to the general state of affairs and the future of the community. A few expert leaders, acting as qualified representatives, must therefore be responsible for the overall organisation and must indicate what is best, what the goals are. The second interpretation assumes that every member of the community has some interest in that community, and will therefore show an interest in the whole. All decisions are taken jointly by the members of the community. Of course there will be individuals or groups of individuals in special positions of power, which allow them to decide for others. But no one knows beforehand what is best for everyone. Management of the decision-making process according to the first interpretation is geared towards converging on one point: the ideal, the best option indicated by the leader. This can be done via a series of intermediate steps (see Figure 5).

(6)

In the second interpretation, management is geared towards achieving cooperation, from which an outcome can arise ‘spontaneously’ at several points: everyone contributes something, and coalitions form. This produces a network of relationships (see Figure 6) In terms of design, the first interpretation means that an attempt is made to find an

integrating, binding concept. The second is based on the idea that all kinds of combinations and aggregations of separate ideas are possible. The second interpretation is most consistent with urban area development in its pure form. In practice, all kinds of combinations of these two extremes will occur.

Figure 6. Decision-making geared towards several points

3.

The Urban Decision Room

The Urban Decision Room (UDR) should be placed in the tradition of urban design and planning discipline that is taught, and into which research is carried out, at the Faculty of Architecture at the Delft University of Technology. The UDR was developed at the faculty as one of the new design and planning methods with its own specific features. The UDR is specifically aimed at decision-making processes in the practice of urban planning, and particularly at complex urban area development projects. Hence the ‘U’ for ‘Urban’ (van Loon e.a., 2008).

The participants in the interactive UDR sessions are asked to provide concrete solutions for urban design problems (in terms of preferences for particular functions, number of plots, etc.) and to enter them in a simulation model. A computer network is then used to calculate the common solution space of all the proposals, which is then projected onto a central screen. This outcome generally provides the basis for further discussions and negotiations, after which another round as described above can be held. In contrast to traditional design teams, non-experts can also take part in a UDR.

(7)

Figure 7. The Urban Decision Room

3.1 The Urban Decision Room with a Group Decision Room structure

In terms of structure, the Urban Decision Room (UDR) resembles a Group Decision Room (GDR). Both ‘rooms’ are interactive, with several people gathered together in a room with several computers (figure 7). The computer network enables the participants to communicate with each other about the relevant topics. The network enables also to make calculations of the ‘results’ of this communication and to represent it at each computer. These results may form the basis for further discussions and negotiations.

This background to urban design also enables the UDR to support decisions that are made at concrete urban planning element level. This means that the UDR participants are not asked for idealised visions of policy themes. They are asked to come up with concrete solutions to an urban area. In order to be able to calculate a common ‘outcome’ (see the section below dealing with the solution space), it has also been decided to use a model with a relevant model language in the UDR – as an underlying, technological structure - in which algorithmic decision rules lead to final decisions.

3.2 The Urban Decision Room as a goal-seeking urban design and planning team As already stated, an UDR involves people who are engaged in urban development planning processes coming together. Such people may be connected to the local authority, such as urban planners, economic planners, and project managers, while others may have a position in private (or semi-private) sector parties, like housing corporations or project developers. Representatives from users – present and future – such as residents’ associations may also be invited to take part in a UDR.

The starting point in the UDR is that the individual and specific visions and knowledge of the various participating parties with regard to the development area in question are translated into individual and specific negotiable preferences and constraints for particular solutions for the area. By entering these preferences and constraints simultaneously and interactively into a UDR, and not dealing with them successively as in traditional design teams, the result is not plan variants, but one common solution space. A solution space within which a set of different preferences are possible and feasible. In other words, the UDR is a support instrument in the search for a final and common goal, rather than simply a provider of goals for individual parties.

(8)

Searching for goals within the UDR takes place as follows: solutions or sub solutions for the area to be developed are proposed by various people in the UDR, on the basis of their own respective preferences – preferences which are the expression of individual starting points and preconditions. The sum of all the individual preferences is ideally speaking, the ultimate joint goal. However, ideal situations of this kind do not occur in urban planning practice: in other words, there are boundaries to the goal that is ultimately reached. Attempts therefore have to be made at looking for a solution that includes as much as possible in the light of the starting points and preconditions mentioned above. But finding such a solution is no easy task: after all, there are various alternatives and all kinds of combinations of solutions. For that reason, the UDR seeks to create a solution space within which the ultimate solution (=joint goal) should be found.

In other words, if sub solution A is combined with sub solutions B and C, all three can be accommodated in the solution space, as calculated by the model. But if the cluster of sub solutions A, B and C are combined with sub solution D, then the calculation shows that the outer boundary of the solution space (given the starting points and preconditions) is

transgressed. Sub solution D cannot therefore be combined with A, B and C. If sub solution D is to survive in the vision of any of the participants, then some negotiating will be needed about the starting points and preconditions upon which original preferences were based (fig.10.8). The shifting of the constraints can lead to sub-solution D becoming a point within the solution space. In figure 2 each sub-solution is a particular combination of the values of the variables X and Y (Duerink, e.a., 2009).

Figure 8. Common solution space

3.3 Structure of the Urban Decision Room system

Basically, an Urban Decision Room is an interactive computer simulation system which can be used simultaneously by more than one actor to simulate alternative outcomes of complex planning decisions. In this way concrete planning decisions for current urban issues can be prepared interactively in a multi-actor setting. The UDR is a simulation system based on a digital support model of the urban area in question. The model includes a decision-based representation of multi-actor urban design issues as well as a numerical/geometrical

(9)

representation of the urban objects under consideration (buildings, streets, etc.). Because every urban area development issue has its own decision-making structure, a specific digital UDR model is constructed for every issue, and this was also the case with the Heijsehaven project (UDR Heijsehaven; this is a project for the transformation of a vacant harbour area into a new residential area in the city of Rotterdam) (Van Loon e.a. 2008).

The computational structure of a UDR consists of a network of a number of computers (eight in the case of UDR Heijsehaven), each connected to the others, as well as to a central computer. The digital model is on the central computer. A joint solution (digital urban plan) is built up in stages. In a UDR, simulation meetings are started by every party entering its own proposal. This is a first step in the process of finding a joint solution on how to develop a particular area. The actors provide sub-solutions based on their own perspective to the problems relating to the plan, as well as proposals for combinations of these sub-solutions, all as part of the route towards a joint plan. A repeated series of interactive planning proposals and decisions finally makes it possible to reach a group solution. By consistently repeating these steps in sequential simulations, a structured decision-making process will be created. The UDR, then, can be regarded as an interactive planning arena (Figure 9).

(10)

During the process, the intermediate stages, options, and infeasibilities are projected in a visible way (using the central computer) on to screens readable to everyone. This enables the participants to see the information that they need to enter into interactive discussions with the other parties, and to negotiate in order to come to a solution. The input of different parties from a variety of disciplines and with a variety of interests leads to optimal solutions, through an iterative working process. This makes the UDR an operational instrument for making the great diversity of ideas and interests and power relationships of the many parties involved technologically visible, in terms of the substance of the urban planning question as well as in terms of the urban decision making process.

A fundamental assumption underlying the UDR system concept is that visibility, for

everyone, of the power relations has real meaning and is effective in the negotiations during the planning process. These power relations are expressed in the values of the object

variables on which are decided and the associated alternative choices which could be made. Empirical studies on negotiation have shown that there are situations where this visibility is, on the contrary, not effective (Fisher e.a., 1983, Mastenbroek e.a., 2007). To accurately represent such a situation in the UDR-system it is possible to set certain decision variables as visible or not visible.

(11)

4.

Experiments with the urban decision room in the Port of Rotterdam,

Heijsehaven Urban Area

Six experimental sessions were held with the UDR Heijsehaven between May and October 2006. In each session, an attempt was made at working towards a solution, the so-called group optimum for the Heijsehaven decision-making issue, that best suited the group as a whole for the Heijsehaven design and decision issue. At least three simulation rounds were held on each session, in the form of an interactive workshop, in which professionals and students took part. Some of the professionals were the actual decision-makers who were involved in the development of the Heijsehaven-project through their organisation, and some were given the role of decision-makers by the UDR leader during the sessions. Organisations like Arcadis and Woonbron were already involved with the Heijsehaven, and had made several project proposals.

A fictitious UDR Heijsehaven session, based on these experimental workshops, is described below. The description is based on a selection of the events that occurred and comments that were made during the various sessions. The selection was made in such a way as to give a complete picture of the functioning of the UDR Heijsehaven. It should be noted that the workshops were all held at the point in the planning process where the actors get together for the first time to investigate the realization possibilities for their own projects in relation to the projects of the other actors.

4.1 Structure of the UDR-session

Before starting with the description it is important, in order to understand the functioning of a UDR, to be aware of the following:

- The session is in the hands of a UDR leader.

- The session consists of three simulation rounds. Using the example of the Housing actor, Figure 11 explains how changes of choices and preferences on the part of the various participants come about.

Figure 11. Plan of the working schedule of the Housing function, structured in various rounds

(12)

- The description of the fictitious session that follows includes which rule is applicable. These rules are:

1. To search for a solution that best suits all actors in the group: “There is no such thing as a general optimal solution”

2. Overplaying your hand is not on: “Do not bid more than you can afford”

3. The local authority parties have a veto: “Public interests weigh more heavily than one’s own interests”

4. Everyone should be prepared to modify their preferences and goals: “Flexibility in objectives is necessary”

5. Negotiations are necessary: “No group solution without negotiations”

- The participants complete their initial choices and preferences using individual computer screens (input screens). The participants indicate on which plot they would like to realise a project and what the rental price should be. The owner of the land (HbR) and the urban planner (Ds+V) each indicate what function may go on which plot of land. Figure 4.2 shows an example of an input screen for the residential projects, on which it can be seen that the Housing participant has made a bid of €100 per m2 for plot 13, and that he is bidding €50 per m2 for plot 26. This shows that the representative of the Housing projects would prefer to realise projects on plot 13. However, should this not prove possible (due to a decision by the Port Authority of Rotterdam or dS+V), he is also interested in plot 26. Also, it can be seen in the top right-hand corner that the Housing function does not require more than 56000 m2 in the planning area to realise the seven projects that fall under the Housing function.

- The input sheet additionally shows that the transformation process of the Heijsehaven is divided into three periods. This is because of the long through-time of the transformation and the future release of plots of land.

(13)

Figure 13. Aerial view Heijsehaven and plot partition Heijsehaven

4.2 The fictitious session of the UDR Heijsehaven

Description of the UDR simulation – round 1

The UDR leader gives a short presentation about the content and the structure of the decision-making issue for the Heijsehaven area. The functioning of the Urban Decision Room Heijsehaven is explained to the participants, as are the rules of conduct. Some

background information is handed out about the planning area and the surface area required for the projects that have been proposed. The latter is necessary because the participants start filling in the input sheets directly. The information resulting from the previous phase is distributed by the UDR leader.

The eight participants are asked to take their first design decisions by means of answering questions on the input screens. The six participants who are engaged with the project proposals quickly get down to work. It soon becomes clear that they should be looking not only for the best location for their projects – that, after all, is what all the other participants want. This was readily visible based on the information from the still-empty plot drawings. The less suitable locations are therefore chosen as well.

(14)

Figure 14. UDR explanation round

The participants for the Events and Commerce projects both use the same tactics: click on every option and find out later which plots they will be allocated. It could be a clever tactic, but look out: you have to actually fulfil everything to buy every plot you are allocated, even though your scope for investment will not be limitless (Rule 2 applies here). The urban planning and land owner participants need more time. For the whole area, they decide which urban functions may be allocated to which location – and thereby which functions may not be given to certain plots (Rule 3 applies here).

The first decision round continues more or less without a hitch, though the participants ask for an explanation about their input screens. The UDR leader duly obliges.

Halfway through the first UDR round, the Housing participant asks, “How do I know on which location my housing projects can be realised? What is the best location for me? Can I not find out now what the general plan for the area is?” The UDR leader responds: “Just be happy that you don’t yet know. The urban planner is still making a general subdivision, but this can certainly change if he sees what your intentions are with regard to your projects.”

(Rule 1 applies here). For the Housing participant this is not really a very satisfactory

(15)

After all the decisions have been entered and ‘sent’ to the central decision simulation model, the outcome is calculated. This group outcome is then presented on the output screen. In addition, every participant sees the group outcome on their own screens with information about their own function. This is illustrated in Figure 15 (for the Housing function). The output screen shows the totality of the functions that have been entered.

Figure 15. Output screen (with the group result after round 1) of the Housing function

The UDR leader discusses the group outcome in a plenary session. The Housing function has only been given plots 12 and 13. The plots with red edges are the plots that the Housing participant sought to have (see also Figure 12, Housing input screen). The table underneath the layout shows that Housing does not get plot 29 (but that he did want it) because of the decisions of both the owner of the land and of the urban planner (both marked in red in the table). It can also be seen that Water-related commerce wishes to realise a project on plot 29, and that none of the others are yet interested in it. However, plot 29 is not allocated. This is seemingly because the urban planner and/or the owner of the land did not want either function on this location.

The UDR leader explains that if the Housing participant wishes to realise a project on plot 29, he will have to enter into negotiations with the representative for Water-related

commerce and the urban planner and the owner of the land. The owner of the land is not likely to be a difficult negotiating partner, as his aim is to maximise his returns. Things are different as regards the urban planner, however: it may be that the housing function does not remotely feature in his vision for that location (Rule 3 applies here).

(16)

As well as Housing and Water-related commerce, it can be seen that only Education has acquired plots for the realisation of its projects. The first round has not produced any solutions for any of the other functions. It is also clear that there are conflicting claims on plots – different participants are bidding for the same plots.

Following this outcome, a discussion was held on the various reactions of the participants. The Commerce representative was disappointed that no plots were allocated for Commerce. The urban planner responded, “I do not want any businesses in the planning area”. The UDR leader intervened. (Rule 4 applies here). Because of the public and social interest in the future of the Heijsehaven, and the transformation of the area into a mixed urban district, it is necessary to allow commercial projects. The urban planner initially stands firm, but

ultimately accepts the point. However, he does express his fears that the area will descend into chaos and for that reason wanted to prevent any commercial activity. He is also afraid that the realisation of the Housing function will prove difficult if the Commercial function is admitted to the planning area. But he is prepared to change his initial decision.

A much-heard comment: “The whole planning area is as good as empty, but I have not been allocated a single plot”. The UDR leader explains why this is. The surface area of all the projects combined is much less than that of the planning area. In other words there will always be empty spaces. For the area to be completely used up, extra projects will be

required, even if they are only of a temporary nature. A lot of space remains unused because the owner of the land and the urban planner are very strict about allowing different functions on the plots. The owner may decide that this is not going to be in his best interests in terms of his future revenue. His revenue after the first round is at such a low level that he will have to modify his limits in favour of allowing a greater number of different functions on his plots. After these discussions the UDR leader suggests launching a second round by inviting everyone to start negotiating with others.

Description of UDR simulation - round 2

Following the disappointing outcome of the first round, the participants are busily

negotiating with each other. They start to walk around, looking for other participants. They attempt to convince each other of the benefit of the presence of the function they represent. The owner of the land and the urban planner are especially sought after for discussions. At this stage, it is hardly necessary for the representatives of the various functions to negotiate with each other. They already have a few ideas about who their competitors are for which location. For the moment, they are more interested in gaining permission from the owner of the land and the urban planner.

The negotiations give the participants enough information to enable them to amend their original decisions. In doing so, they take account of their influence on the group outcome. They also try to make sure their choices are more closely aligned to those of others (Rule 5

applies here). The UDR leader walks round and answers the occasional question here and

there. There are noticeably fewer questions than in the first round. After all the decisions have been processed, the second group outcome is displayed. Figure 17 shows the output screen of the Housing function, after round 2.

(17)

Figure 16. UDR simulation round 2

Once more, the UDR leader discusses the outcome. The second round has produced more plot allocations for projects. It seems the negotiations have led to the various preferences and options being better attuned to each other. The Events function is the only one not to have been placed anywhere. The Water-related commerce participant states straight away that he no longer wishes to give up plots 1 and 2, to which the UDR leader says in response, “That’s fine, but the owner of the land and the urban planner have to agree”. These three participants speak among themselves and reach agreement – namely that the two plots can be definitively awarded to the Water-related commerce function. The UDR leader enters this decision into the central model. It is now no longer possible to allocate these two plots to other

participants, who are now excluded from bidding for the plots which are, as it were, removed from the group decision-making process. Now that this decision has been taken, the

participants can concentrate on their decisions for the third round. But the Events participant calls out somewhat desperately, “Why have I not yet been given a plot?” The UDR advises him to quickly consult with the owner of the land and the urban planner, which he does. “Tell them how attractive and important your function is for the planning area”, urges the UDR leader.

(18)

Figure 17. Output screen (with the group outcome of round 2) for the Housing function Description of UDR - round 3

The group uses the final round to achieve a still better allocation of projects in the planning area. In fact, the owner of the land is already satisfied about the outcome of the second round and sits back, happy to wait to see what happens. The negotiations between the participants are primarily about the absence of the Events function, and the very extensive surface area of the Water-related commerce function in the planning area. The third round of negotiations goes quickly. The participants are now more aware of how they can influence the parameters of the overall end solution, as well as the group solution within it.

After the design decisions are determined in the third round, the group outcome is again discussed in a plenary session. Figure 18 shows the final group solution in the output screen of the Housing function.

(19)
(20)

References

Bekkering, T. ,Glas, H. ,Klaassen, D. ,Walter, J. (2001) Management van processen:

succesvol realiseren van complexe initiatieven, Uitgeverij Het Spectrum B.V., Utrecht.

Binnekamp, R. ,Gunsteren, L.A. van ,Loon, P.P. van (2006) Open Design, a

Stakeholder-oriented Approach in Architecture, Urban Planning and Project Management, Research in

Design Series, Vol. 1, IOS Press, Amsterdam.

Bruijn, J.A. de, Heuvelhof, E.F. ten, Veld, R.J. in ‘t (1999) Procesmanagement: Over

procesontwerp en besluitvorming. Schoonhoven: Academic Service, 2e oplage.

Chen, W. , Lewis, K.E. , Schmidt, L.C. (2006) ‘The Open Workshop on Decision Based Design’, in: Lewis, K.E. , Chen, W. , Schmidt, L.C. (2006) Decision Making in Engineering

Design, ASME Press, New York.

Duerink, S. ,Govaart, Y. ,Rust, W. ,Loon, P.P. van (2009) ‘Innovatie in crisistijd, de Urban Decision Room, een multi-actor ontwerpmanagement systeem’ in: De Ontwerpmanager, Voorjaar 2009, Nummer 4.

Faludi, A. (1973) Planning Theory, Pergamon, Oxford.

Fisher, R. ,Ury, W. ,Patton, B. (1983) Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without giving

in, Middelsex: Penguin.

Loon, P.P. van (1998) Interorganisational design: a new approach to team design in

architecture and urban planning. TUDelft, Faculty of Architecture, Publicatiebureau

Bouwkunde, Delft.

Loon, P.P. van, Heurkens, E. ,Bronkhorst, S. (2008) The Urban Decision Room: an urban

management instrument, IOS Press, Delft, Amsterdam.

Mastenbroek, W.F.G., Meij, R. van der (2007). Onderhandelen, Spectrum, Utrecht. Teisman, G.R. (1998) Complexe besluitvorming: een pluricentrisch perspectief op

besluitvorming over ruimtelijke investeringen, Elsevier Bedrijfsinformatie,

’s-Gravenhage.

Veld, J. in ‘t (2002) ‘Organising Operations’. In: W. ten Haaf, e.a. (2002) Fundamentals of

Cytaty

Powiązane dokumenty

1, може відбуватися (після кваліфікаційної оцінки) на конкурсній основі.. проведення та кваліфікаційні критерії конкурсу визначає статут

Autorzy dokonują w niej analizy istoty generalnego aktu administracyjnego, a także przedstawiają propozycje wyodrębnienia jego rodzajów, opierając się na przeglądzie

z Fiore, wydanej w tomie 40 serii Fonti per la storia dell’Italia medievale, Antiquitates, wchodzą traktaty: Genealogia sanctorum antiquorum patrum, De prophetia ignota,

Bohaterowie Majdanu oddali swoje życie nie tylko za Ukrainę, a również za ogólnoeuropejskie wartości, wolności i prawa człowieka, zwracamy się do zakła­ dów

czym zajm ują się w domu: jeśli pracują/ u czą się co robią: po pracy, wieczorem, w sobotę, niedzielę, święta; co robią gdy nie uczą się; czy czas

Pozór nie osiąga bowiem swego autentyzm u, do­ wolnie oddalając się od faktycznego bycia sobą pewnego podm iotu osobowego, lecz tchnie autentyzm em wówczas, gdy jest

Wskutek takiego „przemilczania” Ukraińcy w ciągu kilkunastu lat byli pozbawieni możliwości czytania prozy i poezji Czesława Miłosza – jednego z najbardziej znanych

[r]