Why is the gradual loss of open space within the region an unwanted thing for people living in the Randstad one would ask? A subjective answer would be simple: urban sprawl with occasionally a fragmented piece of open space is just less attractive to live in then a large open landscape with autonomous situated cities. Which is not weird because this was also for a long time one of the unique features of the Randstad.
“The decentralized planning method that currently happens within the Randstad could speed up the phenomenon of uncontrolled growth.” But a more objective answer to why a shrinking and more divided landscape is something unwished for is also because it has a negative impact at the micro-climate of the metropolitan region. It is expected that the temperature due climate-change will be higher in the Netherlands and this will be combined with longer periods of rain and drought. Together with the fact that the amount of paved surface is only expanding in metropolitan areas, could lead to many problems within the Randstad like polluted air, floods and urban heat island-effects. Phenomena’s that lessen the liveability. A more coherent system of green areas can reduce this heat-problem and absorb water after heavy rainfall. Vegetation, water surfaces and the shade of trees can cool urban areas down during hot days, but also draw in fresh air from outlying areas. This results into an improved air quality within the city, which has direct impact on public health. Nowadays the Netherlands is one of the most polluted areas in Europe regarding air quality (Pötz & Bleuzé, 2012). 2. IDENTICAL URBAN AREAS The polycentric nature of the Randstad and its decentralized planning structure also leads to the increase of homogenous areas. The same kind of furnishing malls, business parks, residential areas and office locations are emerging all over the place, because many municipalities are trying to attract the same kind of target groups, focus on the same kind of identities and aim on similar economies (Derksen, van Hoorn, Lörzing & Tennekes, 2007). Sometimes the reason for this is that they have no idea what is happening beyond their border, other times they are competing with each other, but it also happens that they just want to play it safe. Municipalities, but also private developers for example know that retro-styled residential areas at the edge of the city and outlet business parks with large parking spaces will give them profit on short term, because these kind of typologies are now very popular. But as a result these kind of areas are popping up everywhere in the Randstad.
at some point in time be outdated. But this happens even faster when these areas are all very similar in what they are and how they look. They don’t add anything unique to the metropolitan region and in the end you have a whole bunch of homogeneous areas that are get unpopular at the same time. An example: in the ‘60s and ‘70s many satellite cities within the Randstad had the task to deliver large amounts of green and self-reliant living environments for the region, as people preferred living a more traditional live: using the same kind of shopping facilities and churches and they also were not that mobile (as could be read in 2.1). But the socioeconomic context changed during the last fifty years, people’s lifestyles became more diverse and the exact locations of the amenities they use mattered less. This is by the way the same story for the working areas. While thirty years ago companies wanted to settle their offices in more general working locations and as long they were highly visible from the motor way, now they want to cluster with companies of similar sectors in more specialized locations, also areas nearby public transport nodes are getting more popular then highway locations (bron nog toevoegen). Now these living and working areas are segregating at a fast rate. They miss a certain uniqueness: if you would be dropped in one of these locations it is hard to tell if you are for example in Maarssen, Dordrecht or Capelle a/d IJssel. But it is not only about the looks, these areas with how they are situated in the urban fabric don’t fit anymore to the preferences of the people now. If people have a choice and can afford it they will move to a location which fit more to their current behaviour.
“The same kind of furnishing malls, business parks, residential areas and office locations are emerging all over the place.” A study done by the PBL in 2010 shows that the development of the recent VINEX-suburbs resulted into a higher segregation in the older neighbourhoods of the same region. This was proven most clearly in the urban extensions of Ypenburg (Den Haag) and Leidsche Rijn (Utrecht), where the new developments had the most effects on the demographic structure within the older urban areas. The newer VINEX-suburbs, with their better connection to the motor way network and more trendy identity (retrolook, but modern insides) , fitted much better to many
fig. 2.2.b: Many developments are built for shortterm profits and are very identical.
At longer term this will give the metropolitan region multiple problems. The socioeconomic context will definitely change in the future. Every few decade’s people and companies will change their preferences and their opinions to certain urban identities. Urban areas, from neighbourhoods to working locations and shopping areas, will
19