Afgelopen juli werd bekend dat Defensie, tegen de afspraken in, niet meer akkoord gaat met het overdragen van het volledige Marineterrein aan de stad Amsterdam. Wat hiervan de precieze redenen zijn is nog steeds niet geheel duidelijk. Defensie schermt met termen als 'veranderde veiligheidssituatie' en 'zichtbare aanwezigheid'. Ik zie vooral emotionele redenen.
Wethouder Kock was het niet eens met de plotselinge draai, en ging het gesprek aan met Defensie. Met tot nu toe weinig resultaat. Er circuleert inmiddels een voorlopige kaart waarop te zien is dat Defensie zo'n 50% van het terrein wil behouden. En dit is nu juist het gedeelte dat voor de opwaardering van de Kattenburgerstraat met woningen en voorzieningen in de plint zo hard nodig was.
Binnen de blauwe stippellijn het deel waar Defensie zou blijven.
Extra hek
In december zal er een bestuurlijk overleg plaatsvinden. Dat is het moment waarop duidelijk zal worden of een militaire en een publieke functie op het Marineterrein inderdaad naast elkaar kunnen bestaan. Wat dit betekent voor het gedeelte van het terrein dat al was overgedragen is mij niet duidelijk. De gemeente gaat ervan uit dat dit niet terug gaat naar Defensie, maar het terrein is nog steeds in eigendom van het Rijk, dus ik hou m'n hart vast. De krijgsmacht blijkt tot nu toe een onbetrouwbare partner.
Ook het feit dat Defensie een extra hek heeft geplaatst langs een van de opleidingsgebouwen komt op mij nogal agressief over en getuigt niet van een open houding ten opzichte van de gemeente.
Het extra hek langs het voormalig opleidingsgebouw.
Duidelijke scheiding van taken
Ondertussen is bekend gemaakt dat Bureau Marineterrein niet meer verantwoordelijk is voor het begeleiden van de toekomstige ontwikkeling (mocht die nog doorgaan), maar enkel nog voor de tijdelijke invulling. Formeel was het Bureau al niet eindverantwoordelijk, maar in de praktijk bleek de tijdelijke invulling nogal sturend geweest te zijn voor het uiteindelijke toekomstbeeld zoals omschreven in de Principenota. Welke partij daarin de overhand had, Rijk of gemeente, is mij nog steeds niet duidelijk.
Ook het faciliteren van het formele participatietraject is weggehaald bij het Bureau. Dat is ook logisch, aangezien het project steeds meer richting een toekomstvisie gaat en er dus steeds minder naar de tijdelijke invulling hoeft te worden gekeken. Een duidelijke scheiding van taken ligt dan voor de hand.
Voor beide taken is een nieuw Planvormingsteam samengesteld bij de gemeente. Een goed idee lijkt mij, aangezien het Bureau, met vertegenwoordigers van gemeente èn Rijk, voortdurend een dubbele pet op had. Iets wat in de communicatie soms tot hilarische compromissen leidde en bijvoorbeeld in een weinig objectieve publieksenquête resulteerde.
Bureau Marineterrein beperkt zich de laatste maanden in zijn openbare uitingen tot het schrijven van artikelen over de tijdelijke huurders en het promoten van publieksactiviteiten op het terrein. Zo is men bijvoorbeeld plotseling zeer actief geworden op Instagram met vrijwel elke dag een nieuwe foto.
Mijn verwachting is dat deze meer zichtbare scheiding van taken tussen Bureau Marineterrein en het Planvormingsteam van de gemeente tot minder verwarring bij burgers zal leiden.
Voorlopig is het dus afwachten wie de strijd om het Marineterrein gaat winnen. Hopelijk zet de gemeente Amsterdam hoog in, want de noodzaak om voor Defensie midden in de stad een kazerne te behouden is volgens mij volstrekt afwezig.
Noot (31-10-2018): in een eerdere versie van dit stuk was niet geheel duidelijk dat Bureau Marineterrein nooit formeel eindverantwoordelijk is geweest voor de toekomstige invulling van het terrein. Dat gedeelte is om die reden enigszins aangepast. Wie wil weten hoe het precies zit met plichten en verantwoordelijkheden inzake de ontwikkeling van het Marineterrein leest het volgende stukje zware kost uit een artikel van Lilian van Karnenbeek en Leonie Janssen-Jansen in het tijdschrift Land Use Policy.
[...]
Considering decision-making rules, the first period is well defined: the National Government was the single actor permitted to take decisions. With respect to T1, the decision-making rules are less taken for granted. According to formal rules, all decisions are required to be made in collaboration between the Project Agency, the City of Amsterdam and the National Government considering the strategy report and management agreement. The appointed steering committee is permitted to take all decisions concerning the use of the publicly accessible area and the redevelopment of the full area based on the mandate and the power of attorney that has been given by the four actors to the steering committee members. Unanimity in the steering committee is required, otherwise a board meeting is required. In T1, the steering committee was also required to decide about the longer-term redevelopment of all 15 ha of the Navy Yard Amsterdam for the period after mid-2018, resulting in some specific decision-making rules. Initially, the Project Agency is required to draft the guidelines for redevelopment. For this, the Project Agency director has the mandate to hire consultant- and research-agencies to assist. The guidelines are subsequently presented to and discussed with all members of the steering committee. If all steering committee members agree, the guidelines will be proposed to the board. If the board agrees, the City Council of Amsterdam is required to finalize the decision-making. By July 1 2018, a formal planning decision-making document, stating the guidelines for the final redevelopment of the Navy Yard, has to be proposed to the City Councial of Amsterdam. In summary, the National Government is not the only actor authorized to make decisions, contrary to the situation in the first period. Remarkably, the National Government still possesses decision-making power in the second period, although the City of Amsterdam contains a higher degree of power. Furthermore, during the observations and document analysis, traces of informal decision-making rules were not found.
5.3. Choice rules
Considering the formal choice rules, the Ministry was permitted to take all actions in the Navy Yard in the time period T0, while other actors were forbidden to take any action in the area. During T1, the Ministry was permitted to take all actions and is required to manage and maintain the land, buildings and water zones in the privately used area. Additionally, the Ministry was required to leave the publicly accessible area. Concerning other formal choice rules in T1, all actors are required to actively negotiate the redevelopment of the Navy Yard based on guidelines and appointments documented in the strategy report and management agreement. The Project Agency is permitted to take care of the daily circumstances and maintenance of the area within the limits of these guidelines and appointments. Furthermore, the Project Agency is required to report and justify its actions to the members of the steering committee and inform them about temporary uses. The National Government and the City of Amsterdam are, in turn, required to monitor the actions of the Project Agency. Both actors are authorized to reverse actions of the Project Agency. Considering the informal choice rules, three distinctive rules are worth mentioning. First, the City of Amsterdam and the National Government both mention that the strategy report and management agreement do not necessarily correspond with all current circumstances. Although formally agreed upon, both actors state that the redevelopment should accommodate current circumstances at best, questioning to what extent actions must be in conformity with the guidelines of the strategy report and management agreement or actions may deviate the guidelines. Combining this informal choice rule with the authority of the City of Amsterdam and National Government to reverse actions and the decision-making rules, the strategy report and management agreement can, in theory, be disregarded. Secondly, although the steering committee has decision-making powers concerning the use of the area, it is noticeable that the City of Amsterdam clearly holds on to its established planning procedures (well-known—typical Amsterdam—planning documents and approaches), which reaffirms its primus inter pares role in planning decisions. Thirdly, with respect to an informal choice rule in daily circumstances, the co-use of the sport fields and conference centre in the closed-off area is worth mentioning. The Ministry is formally required to allow co-use of the sport fields and conference centre, but by holding on to existing practices for its own purposes they construct informal barriers in such a way that co-use by the Project Agency is almost impossible. A member of the Project Agency mentions, “the event centre is continuously in use by the Ministry of Defence as they organize events for themselves and external parties”. Recapitulating, the formally and informally taken actions differ substantially between the two periods; again, the Ministry was not the sole party taking action at the Navy Yard.
5.4. Information rules
With respect to T0, the Ministry was the only actor that maintained information about the area, the uses and activities. Furthermore, any sharing of this information was forbidden. As for T1, all four actors have—to different degrees—information concerning the use of and the activities in the area. While the Project Agency had access to all of the available information concerning the redevelopment, they are required to inform the three other actors during steering committee meetings. Furthermore, the Project Agency is required to inform citizens of the adjacent neighbourhoods. Though only ‘informing’ is required, the Project Agency was convinced they should organize a citizen platform. In terms of informal information rules, the Ministry was accustomed to keeping available information about the closed-off area private. Other actors requested certain information (e.g. building characteristics) and visits to the closed-off Navy Yard in favour of the redevelopment. However, as the area is still closed-off, this occasionally results in informal barriers to plan visits or share information. Furthermore, by sharing knowledge concerning the redevelopment, the City of Amsterdam and the National Government positively contribute to the urban development. From the Project Agency’s perspective, sharing information with and gathering input from business in the neighbourhood is highly valuable. Eventually, these informal consultations have resulted in a formal agreement with its ‘business neighbours’ about the collaboration. Concerning the information rules, much more information was shared during T1 as compared to T0, although information regarding the closed-off area was secretly dealt with despite the emergence of some restrictive barriers for the redevelopment of the Navy Yard. Observations in this study revealed the explicit effect of informal information rules on the redevelopment.
5.5. Pay-off rules
Concerning the pay-off rules, there were no formal sanctions or rewards in either T0 or T1.13,14 None of the formal documents contain constraints, penalties or coercions related to certain actions. During T1, a so-called ‘gentleman’s agreement’—an informal, non-enforceable agreement between parties in good faith—was in existence. Actors understood that the sharing of information gained in workshops or meetings, such as pictures of urban models, was not acceptable.
5.6. Scope rules
In T0 the scope rules were solely restricted to military uses and performances such as military education, recruitment and training. For T1, the fundamentals for the scope rules are formally documented in a strategy report in the form of guidelines. The National Government and the City of Amsterdam are required to respect and comply with these guidelines, unless otherwise agreed upon (see Section 4 for details). As stated in the strategy report (Ministry of Defence et al., 2013b, p. 3), “Most importantly, the Navy Yard offers a unique opportunity to create a new cultural and urban hub and yet to keep the hidden, mysterious and green character of the space.” The strategy report further states that functions such as housing, education, research, restaurants, green spaces and culture should be clustered. In the early years of the redevelopment, actors are required to focus on in-between uses and temporal initiatives that contribute to an innovative urban destination. The Project Agency formulated three main core values that strengthen the substantive guidelines of the strategy report, namely, innovation, interconnection and focus that underline themes such as sustainability, water, sport and movement. As of 2017, there is no actual zoning plan that determines specific land uses. The scope rules from T0, therefore, influenced the scope rules for T1 to a certain extent. Observations in this study showed that the informal dimension of scope rulesis not necessarily noticeable in the official strategy report, but emerges instead during negotiation about the underlying values that strengthen scope rules.
[...]
