Regional Design: Discretionary Approaches to Planning in the Netherlands

  • Verena Elisabeth BALZ TU Delft, Architecture and the Built Environment

Abstract

In the 1980s, planning approaches in European regions have changed as a result of increasing attention to regional spatial developments and a diminishing reliance on government-led statutory planning schemes. Emerging new approaches, often called spatial planning, shifted the focus from planning predefined territories to the planning of spatial networks, which stretch across multiple administrative boundaries. In this specific context of spatial planning, new decision-making approaches have emerged, involving coalitions of plan actors from multiple tiers and levels of government as well as market and civil actors. In near absence of formally approved statutory planning frameworks, broad involvement became a way to legitimize planning decisions and, at the same time, amass organisational capacity for their implementation.

A decision-making approach that has gained prominence in the context of spatial planning in the Netherlands is regional design. Building upon a tradition of using design-led approaches in planning, expectations on the performances of regional design in the realm of spatial planning are high. Regional design is thought to be an imaginative and creative practice, which leads to planning innovation. It is expected to enhance the spatial quality that planning strategies and projects produce. Regional design is also assumed to perform in governance settings. It is supposed to clarify political options, forge societal alliances, and remove conflict around planning solutions during early moments of decision-making and speeding up their implementation in this way.

Despite these high and varied expectations, an in-depth understanding of the interrelations between regional design and spatial planning is not yet achieved. The rich body of professional writing on regional design in the Netherlands is often focused on single practices. It is fragmented. The body of scholarly writing dedicated to regional design is small and has deficiencies for this reason. A particular knowledge gap is caused by a one-sided perspective on the performances of regional design. Most existing analyses focus on the expected impacts of regional-design practices on planning decisions. Various theoretical notions on spatial planning and governance are used to assert these expectations. A reversed approach, in which the impact of aspects of prevailing planning frameworks on design practice is of concern, is missing. Performances of regional design practice are often considered disappointing and sometimes even averse, due to this lack of indepth understanding.

Research aims and questions

In consideration of the above sketched background, the main aim of this research is to develop a more comprehensive understanding of interrelations between regional design and spatial planning. There are three secondary aims. This research seeks to first integrate notions from various domains and fields for an enhanced transdisciplinary understanding of regional design. Whereas many Dutch regional design initiatives refer to multiple objectives simultaneously, it remains unclear how regional design-led approaches influence planning decisions. A second sub-aim of the research is to develop a distinction of regional design practices in relation to spatial planning frameworks and to improve the prediction of key performances based upon this distinction. It remains also unclear how planning frameworks influence the performances of design. A third sub-aim is to arrive at an enhanced understanding of key aspects of spatial planning frameworks that determine performances. Aims and secondary aims are reflected in the following research questions:

How do the interrelations between regional design and spatial planning influence the performances of design?

What are key performances of regional design in the realm of spatial planning? How can these key performances be analysed?

What aspects of spatial planning frameworks influence the performances of regional design?

How can these aspects of spatial planning frameworks be analysed?

Research approach

Regional design is a collaborative social practice, which involves a multitude of actors, and has a concern about the complex built environment. Expectations that are triggered by the practice are divers and have rarely been studied comprehensively. The above research questions were therefore investigated by means of an exploratory case-study analysis, which is an appropriate research methodology to stabilize and detail propositions in a context of uncertainty. In the first in-depth single case-study key performances of regional design in the realm of spatial planning were investigated. A second multiple case-studies analysis was used to compare interrelations between regional-design practices and spatial-planning frameworks. The study enhanced a greater understanding of the aspects of frameworks that influence the divers performances. Analysed regional-design practices were selected by their principle concern about urbanisation, a relation with Dutch national spatial plans, and their prominence in the Dutch planning discourse. All practices were developed between the mid-1980s, when regional design first appeared as a distinguished discipline in the Netherlands, and the 2010s, when the most recent Dutch national plan that could be considered at the time of this dissertation was published. The majority of empirical analyses was based on publicly available policy documents. Particular attention was given to geographic representations. Besides drawing on empirical evidence, the analysis involved a continuous process of theory formation, which used notions from the fields of architecture and urban design, spatial planning and territorial governance. Results of the exploratory case-study analysis were published in the form of peer-reviewed book chapters and journal articles. The content of these publications that form the Chapters 3 to 7 of this thesis, is summarized below.

Chapter 3 – From concepts to projects: Stedenbaan, the Netherlands

Chapter 3 was earlier published as a co-authored chapter in the book Transit Oriented Development: Making it Happen (Balz and Schrijnen, 2009). The chapter presents an initial review of a regional-design practice that was conducted between 2005 and 2007 by South Wing Studio (Atelier Zuidvleugel). This was a publicly funded policy institute concerned with regional spatial planning and design in the Southern part of the Dutch Randstad region. In the chapter, it is argued that the practice has contributed to establishing the Stedenbaan project, a regional transitoriented development strategy, on the political agenda of governance arrangements in the region. It was decisive to involve plan actors in building the argument for the strategy. This observation has led to the initial proposition of this dissertation: that regional design is an argumentative practice that performs in planning decisionmaking.

Chapter 4 - Regional design in the context of fragmented territorial governance: South Wing Studio

Chapter 4, earlier published as a co-authored journal article in European Planning Studies (Balz and Zonneveld, 2015), presents results of an in-depth single casestudy analysis that answers the questions: what are key performances of regional design in the realm of spatial planning?, and how can these key performances be analysed? The chapter first establishes a theoretically grounded analytical framework that positions regional design in the context of spatial concepts. Spatial concepts are perceptions of geographies that actors pursue during planning decision-making. It is argued that regional design assists in the building of arguments for spatial planning interventions through structuring the reservoirs of analytical knowledge and normative values that these concepts incorporate. As in the initial review of regional design, the South Wing Studio’s contribution to the formation of the Stedenbaan strategy is under investigation. The empirical analysis identifies performances in the form of shifts in policy argumentation from analytical verification to the normative validation of the strategy. The research also highlighted a pragmatic use of design. Analysis showed that design argumentation involved a strong consideration of capacities of actors for planning in territories. Insights led to an adaptation of the original analytical framework: spatial concepts became perceived to have not only an analytical and normative dimension, but also an organisational one.

Chapter 5 - Transformations of planning rationalities: Changing spaces for governance in recent Dutch planning

The second multiple case-studies analysis in this dissertation sought to answer the following questions: what aspects of spatial planning frameworks influence the performances of regional design?, and how can these aspects of spatial planning frameworks be analysed? Chapter 5 of this thesis, first published as a co-authored journal article in Planning Theory & Practice (Balz and Zonneveld, 2018), presents one part of this analysis. Building upon the earlier established notions on dimensions of spatial concepts as a context of regional design, as well as additional theoretical notions on in particular argumentative planning, it is first argued that the ambiguity of spatial concepts shapes room for interpretation in spatial-planning decisionmaking and thus influences territorial governance. In the main empirical section of the chapter, spatial concepts that have been used in Dutch national plans between the 1980s and the 2010s are assessed on their degree of ambiguity. Analysis led to a detailed and critical reading of the transformations of spatial rationales that were used to justify Dutch national spatial planning over time. On a theoretical level, the chapter proposes a methodological approach to investigate such changes. It contributes to the discussion on how governance responses to the use of geographies in planning decision-making can be explained.

Chapter 6 - Regional design: Discretionary approaches to regional planning in the Netherlands

Chapter 6, earlier published as a sole-authored journal article in Planning Theory (Balz, 2018), presents the overall outcomes of the multiple case-studies analysis and addresses the central proposition of this dissertation: that regional design is a form of discretionary action and is meant to qualify spatial planning guidance by means of reflecting upon its implications for particular regions. Building upon the earlier established analytical framework and additional notions from design theory, it is first argued that, depending on the ambiguity of premediated spatial concepts, regional design proposals have fundamentally different interrelations with these concepts. They either are a refinement of analytical knowledge, normative values, and territorial instructions that concepts incorporate, or a challenge to these reservoirs of meaning. Performances of regional design differ consequently. Regional design either evolves as a pragmatic approach where actors commonly operationalise an agreed-upon planning framework by applying it to a particular spatial situation or forms an advocacy where actors disagree on a premediated framework and use design proposals to call for its revision. These findings are supported by an analysis of interrelations between four regional-design practices and the earlier mentioned analysed spatial concepts. In the discussion section, the relevance of insights for Dutch national planning is reviewed. Theoretically relevant results concern the use of regional design in the realm of spatial planning. It is concluded that regional design mediates between a collaborative and strategic rationale of spatial planning through its engagement with both, general and specific perceptions of regions and areas.

Chapter 7 - The institutionalisation of a creative practice: Changing positions and roles of regional design in Dutch national planning

Chapter 7 was earlier accepted for publication as a co-authored chapter in the forthcoming book Shaping Regional Futures: Designing and Visioning in Governance Rescaling (Balz and Zonneveld, 2019). It investigates the organisational implications of perceiving regional design as a form of discretion. In discretion, there is a distinction between discretionary action, which criticises existing rules, and discretionary control, which determines if criticism should lead to a revision of rules. A distance between actors with roles in these functions is required to enhance legitimacy and accountability. In the empirical section of the chapter, the distinction is used for an analysis of a broad range of regional design practices that were used in Dutch national spatial planning during the period between the 1980s and 2010s. The analysis elaborates who initiated practices, who conducted design, and who judged the quality and relevance of design outcomes for planning decisions. In addition, the analysis identifies patterns in the institutionalisation of regional design by the repetition of practices, adoption in formal policies and enshrinement in dedicated organisations. The chapter demonstrates how institutionalisation has facilitated a shift from using regional design as a form of advocacy, oriented at nurturing a critical public audience of planning, to one of pragmatic use, oriented at the implementation of projects of national importance. The conclusions emphasize a need for discernible roles in regional design practice when it is used in discretion.

Conclusion

Chapter 7 was earlier accepted for publication as a co-authored chapter in the forthcoming book Shaping Regional Futures: Designing and Visioning in Governance Rescaling (Balz and Zonneveld, 2019). It investigates the organisational implications of perceiving regional design as a form of discretion. In discretion, there is a distinction between discretionary action, which criticises existing rules, and discretionary control, which determines if criticism should lead to a revision of rules. A distance between actors with roles in these functions is required to enhance legitimacy and accountability. In the empirical section of the chapter, the distinction is used for an analysis of a broad range of regional design practices that were used in Dutch national spatial planning during the period between the 1980s and 2010s. The analysis elaborates who initiated practices, who conducted design, and who judged the quality and relevance of design outcomes for planning decisions. In addition, the analysis identifies patterns in the institutionalisation of regional design by the repetition of practices, adoption in formal policies and enshrinement in dedicated organisations. The chapter demonstrates how institutionalisation has facilitated a shift from using regional design as a form of advocacy, oriented at nurturing a critical public audience of planning, to one of pragmatic use, oriented at the implementation of projects of national importance. The conclusions emphasize a need for discernible roles in regional design practice when it is used in discretion.

This dissertation has evolved as an exploratory case-study research. Its first and most important outcome is in the above listed notions: on (1) key performances that regional design has in the realm of spatial planning and on (2) aspects of spatial planning frameworks that influence these performances. Through building an analytical framework that assesses these propositions, it contributes to an enhanced understanding of interrelations between regional design and spatial planning.

A second outcome of the thesis is the results of the empirical analysis which is centred on the use of regional design in the realm of Dutch national spatial planning between the 1980s and 2010s. It is argued that the institutionalisation of practices has favoured a rather one-sided, pragmatic use of regional design. As a result, distances between actors with roles in discretionary action and control became undiscernible. The criticism that the thesis poses is meant to inform reflection on the involvement of regional design in Dutch national planning. It calls for a more comprehensive, accountable and legitimate future use. There are limitations to critical positions. The empirical analysis took account of a selection of regional design practices only, notably ones with a principle concern about urbanisation. The analysis also does not fully consider the Dutch national government’s additional and less pragmatic efforts to stimulate good regional design practice, e.g. through providing funding for academic research and publications that critically discuss the use of regional design.

A third outcome of this dissertation is the recommended directions for future research. The thesis argues that regional design equals discretion and thus attempts to mediate between generally accepted and applicable spatial planning principles and spatial rationales linked to problems in particular local situations. An enhanced understanding of such attempts first requires a more sophisticated assessment of how perceptions of geographies transform as they are used – how ambiguous spatial concepts turn into detailed designs and vice versa. The ambiguity or softness of spatial planning frameworks is a prominent issue in scholarly discussion on how spatial planning evolves in a context of decentralisation and deregulation. However, there are no benchmark methodologies to detect such ambiguity or softness. The thesis developed an analytical approach to deduce the ambiguity of geographic perceptions from the amount and relative degree of detail of notions in their analytical, normative and organisational dimensions. It requires further validation. Scholars in discretion have highlighted the importance of professional organizations in controlling rule-building. On the grounds of these notions, this thesis argues that the role of regional design professionals in spatial-planning decision-making requires deeper understanding. In particular the values and norms that professionals pursue need more attention. Due to a tradition of using design-led approaches in the realm of planning, regional design is a frequently used practice in the Netherlands. However, similar approaches occur in other (European) countries, albeit in a less prominent and visible way. As planning systems and cultures differ in countries, a comparative perspective on these may lead to a deeper understanding of not just the practices themselves, but also of ways how spatial development finds attention in spatial planning elsewhere. An implicit proposition developed is that flexibility, in the form of ambiguous geographies, relates to the creativity of planning and its ability to find novel and innovative solutions to problems on the ground. This proposition calls for a broader integration of theoretical knowledge about planning and design.

References

FRIELING, D. 2002. Design in strategy. In: DE JONG, T. M. & VAN DER VOORDT, D. J. M. (eds.) Ways to Study and Reserach. Urban, Architectural and Technical Design. Delft: Delft University Press.

FRIELING, D. 2006. Nederland is Maakbaar. Ruimtelijke Ordening in een Democratisch Bestel. Lezing op 12 oktober 2006 in het NAI in Rotterdam [The Netherlands Can Be Produced. Planning in a Democratic System. Lecture on the 12th of October at the NAI in Rotterdam]. Rotterdam: NAI.

FRIEND, J. & JESSOP, N. 1977. Local Government and Strategic Choice, Oxford, Pergamon.

FRIEND, J. & JESSOP, N. 2013. Local Government and Strategic Choice (Routledge Revivals): An Operational Research Approach to the Processes of Public Planning, Routledge.

GEDEPUTEERDE STATEN VAN ZUID-HOLLAND, DAGELIJKS BESTUUR VAN HET STADSGEWEEST HAAGLANDEN, DAGELIJKS BESTUUR VAN DE STADSREGIO ROTTERDAM & BESLOTEN VENNOOTSCHAP NS REIZIGERS B.V. 2006. Intentieovereenkomst Stedenbaan Zuidvleugel [Agreement on Intention Stedenbaan South Wing]. Available at http://www.stedenbaanplus.nl (accessed 12 February 2014).

GODEFROY, P., VAN DER PLOEG, J. & TIMMERMANS, M. (eds.) 2015. Planet Textel: Draaiboek voor een Schone Toekomst [Planet Texel: Screenplay for a Clean Future], Textel: Gemeente Texel and International Architecture Biennale Rotterdam.

GRAHAM, S. & HEALEY, P. 1999. Relational concepts of space and place: Issues for planning theory and practice. European Planning Studies, 7, 623-646.

GUALINI, E. & MAJOOR, S. 2007. Innovative practices in large urban development projects: Conflicting frames in the quest for “new urbanity”. Planning Theory & Practice, 8, 297-318.

GUNDER, M. 2011. Commentary: Is Urban design still urban planning? An exploration and response. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31, 184-195.

H+N+S LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, ECOFYS & TUNGSTEN PRO 2016. 2050 - An Energetic Odyssey. Rotterdam: International Architecture Biennale Rotterdam.

HAGENS, J. E. 2010. The Performance of Landscape Concepts in Spatial Planning: Branding, Bonding and Bringing About. Doctoral thesis, Wageningen University.

HAJER, M. 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

HAJER, M. 2003. Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void. Policy Sciences, 36, 175-195.

HAJER, M., REIJNDORP, A. & FEDDES, F. (eds.) 2006. Een Plan dat Werkt – Ontwerp en Politiek in de Regionale Planvorming [A Plan that Works – Design and Politics in Regional Planning], Rotterdam: NAi Uitgevers.

HAJER, M., VAN ‘T KLOOSTER, S. & GRIJZEN, J. (eds.) 2010. Sterke Verhalen/Strong Stories. Design and Politics #3, Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010.

HAJER, M. & VERSTEEG, W. 2005. A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics: Achievements, challenges, perspectives. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 7, 175-184.

HAJER, M. & ZONNEVELD, W. 2000. Spatial planning in the network society: Rethinking the principles of planning in the Netherlands. European Planning Studies, 8, 337-355.

HAJER, M. A. 2002. Discourse analysis and the study of policy making. European Political Science, 2, 61-65.

HAJER, M. A. 2005. Setting the stage: A dramaturgy of policy deliberation. Administration & Society, 36, 624-647.

HAJER, M. A. 2006. Doing discourse analysis: Coalitions, practices, meaning. In: VAN DEN BRINK, M. & METZE, T. (eds.) Words Matter in Policy and Planning - Discourse Theory and Method in the Social Sciences. Utrecht: Koninklijk Nederlands Aardrijkskundig Genootschap.

HARAN, N. 2010. The Power to Collaborate: How Judicious Use of Power Accelerates the Strategic Capacity of Regions in the Netherlands. Doctoral thesis, University of Amsterdam.

HARTMAN, S., RAUWS, W., BEEFTINK, M. & DE ROO, G. 2011. Het adaptieve vermogen/The capacity to adapt. In: OVINK, H. & WIERENGA, E. (eds.) Regio’s in Verandering. Ontwerpen voor Adaptiviteit/Regions in Transition. Designing for Adaptivity. Design and Politics #5. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010.

HCSS & TNO 2011. Nederlands Concurrentievermogen en Mondiale Krachten: Een Eerste Verkenning van Topsectoren [Dutch Capacities for Concurrence and Mondial Forces: A First Inventory of Top Sectors]. The Hague: The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies (HCSS).

HEALEY, P. 1997. Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies, London, Macmillan Press LTD.

HEALEY, P. 1999. Institutionalist analysis, communicative planning, and shaping places. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19, 111-121.

HEALEY, P. 2003. Collaborative planning in perspective. Planning Theory, 2, 101-123.

HEALEY, P. 2004. The treatment of space and place in the new strategic spatial planning in Europe. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28, 45-67.

HEALEY, P. 2006. Relational complexity and the imaginative power of strategic spatial planning. European Planning Studies, 14, 525-546.

HEMEL, Z. 2013. Nederland als Ontwerp [The Netherlands as Design]. In: BROUWER, P., HEMEL, Z., OXENAAR, A., VAN ROSSEM, V. & STISSI, V. (eds.) Liber Amicorum Manfred Bock. Druten: Cuypersgenootschap.

HILLIER, B. & LEAMAN, A. 1974. How is design possible? Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 3, 4-11.

HILLIER, B., MUSGROVE, J. & O’SULLIVAN, P. 1972. Knowledge and design. Environmental design: research and practice, 2, 3-1.

HINCKS, S., DEAS, I. & HAUGHTON, G. 2017. Real geographies, real economies and soft spatial imaginaries: Creating a ‘more than Manchester’ region. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 41, 642-657.

HOEKSTRA, J. & FRANCKE, M. (eds.) 2016. The Nordic City. The Energy Transition as a Driver for the Next Economy in the City and Region of Groningen. IABR Atelier Groningen, Rotterdam: International Architecture Biennale Rotterdam.

HOOGHE, L. & MARKS, G. 2001. Multi-level governance and European integration, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

INNES, J. E. & BOOHER, D. E. 2003. The impact of collaborative planning on governance capacity. IURD Working Paper Series. Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regional Development, UC Berkeley.

JENSEN, O. B. & RICHARDSON, T. 2003. Being on the map: The new iconographies of power over Europeanspace. International Planning Studies, 8, 9-34.

JESSOP, B. 2001. Institutional re(turns) and the strategic - relational approach. Environment and Planning A, 33, 1213-1235.

JESSOP, B. 2004. Multi-level governance and multi-level metagovernance. Multi-level governance, 49-74.

JESSOP, B. 2012. Cultural political economy, spatial imaginaries, regional economic dynamics. Lancaster University, Cultural Political Economy Research Centre. Lancaster (CPERC Working Paper, 2012-04). Available online at http://www. lancaster. ac. uk/cperc/docs/Jessop% 20CPERC% 20Working%20Paper, 202, 012-02.

JONES, M. 2009. Phase space: Geography, relational thinking, and beyond. Progress in Human Geography, 33, 487-506.

JONES, M. & PAASI, A. 2013. Guest editorial. Regional world(s): Advancing the geography of regions. Regional Studies, 47, 1-5.

KEMPENAAR, A. 2017. Design in the Planning Arena. How Regional Designing Influences Strategic Spatial Planning. Doctoral thesis, Wageningen University.

KEMPENAAR, A., WESTERINK, J., VAN LIEROP, M., BRINKHUIJSEN, M. & VAN DEN BRINK, A. 2016. “Design makes you understand”—Mapping the contributions of designing to regional planning and development. Landscape and Urban Planning, 149, 20-30.

KLAASEN, I. T. 2003. Knowledge-based Design: Developing Urban & Regional Design into a Science. Doctoral thesis, Delft University of Technology.

KLOSTERMAN, R. E. 1985. Arguments for and against planning. Town Planning Review, 56, 5.

KOOLHAAS, T. & MARCUSSE, E. 2006. Atelier Ijmeer 2030+. Amsterdam IJmeer Almere [Studio Ijmeer 2030+. Amsterdam IJmeer Almere], Rotterdam, Uitgeverij 010.

KUNZMANN, K. R. 1996. Euro‐megalopolis or themepark Europe? Scenarios for European spatial development. International Planning Studies, 1, 143-163.

LAMBREGTS, B., JANSSEN-JANSEN, L. & HARAN, N. 2008. Effective governance for competitive regions in Europe: The difficult case of the Randstad. GeoJournal, 72, 45–57.

LAMBREGTS, B. & ZONNEVELD, W. 2004. From Randstad to Deltametropolis: Changing attitudes towards the scattered metropolis. European Planning Studies, 12, 299-321.

LAWSON, B. 2006. How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified, Routledge.

LAWSON, B. 2009. Design Expertise, Oxon/New York, Architectural Press.

LINGUA, V. & BALZ, V. E. (eds.) 2019. Shaping Regional Futures: Designing and Visioning in Governance
Rescaling: Springer International Publishing (forthcoming).

LUITEN, E. 2011. Gereanimeerd erfgoed: Nationaal project Nieuwe Hollandse Waterlinie als format voor het landschapsbeleid [Reanimated heritage: The national project New Dutch Water Line as a format for landscape planning]. Bulletin KNOB, 110, 223-230.

LUITEN, E., VAN HEZEWIJK, J., BUNK, E. J. & WITSEN, P. P. 2004. Panorama Krayenhoff. Ruimtelijk Perspectief Nieuwe Hollandse Waterlinie [Panorama Krayenhoff. Spatial Perspective for the New Dutch Water Line]. Den Haag: Stuurgroep Nationaal Project Nieuwe Hollandse Waterlinie.

MARKUSEN, A. 1999. Fuzzy concepts, scanty evidence, policy distance: The case for rigour and policy relevance in critical regional studies. Regional Studies, 33, 869-884.

MARSHALL, S. 2012. Science, pseudo-science and urban design. Urban Design International, 17, 257-271.

MASSEY, D. 2011. A counterhegemonic relationality of place. Mobile Urbanism: Cities and Policymaking in the Global Age, 1-14.

MASTOP, H. & FALUDI, A. 1997. Evaluation of strategic plans: The performance principle. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 24, 815-832.

MATHUR, N., SKELCHER, C. & SMITH, M. 2003. Towards a discursive evaluation of partnership governance. European Consortium for Political Research joint session. Edinburgh.

MATTEMAKER, L. & BROUWER, J. 2005. Diversiteit Langs de Stedenbaan: Vraagverkenning Woonmilieus [Diversity along the Stedenbaan: Study into Demands for Housing Environments]. Delft: ABF Research.

MAYNTZ, R. 2001. Zur Selektivität der steuerungstheoretischen Perspektive [About the selectivity of the political-steering perspective]. MPIfG Working Paper. Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung (MPIfG).

MAYNTZ, R. 2004. Governance Theory als fortentwickelte Steuerungstheorie? [Governance theory as a progression of political steering?]. MPIfG Working Paper. Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung (MPIfG).

MEYER, H. 2009. Reinventing the Dutch delta: Complexity and conflicts. Built Environment, 35, 432-451.

MINISTERIE VAN EZ 2004. Pieken in de Delta. Gebiedsgerichte Economische Perspectieven [Peaks in the Delta. Economic Perspectives on Area Development]. The Hague: Ministerie van Economische Zaken (EZ).

MINISTERIE VAN I&M 2010. Handreiking MIRT-Verkenning [Manual for Decision-making in MIRT Procedures]. The Hague: Projectdirectie Sneller & Beter.

MINISTERIE VAN I&M 2012. Structuurvisie Infrastructuur en Ruimte: Nederland Concurrerend, Bereikbaar, Leefbaar en Veilig [National Policy Strategy for Infrastructure and Spatial Planning]. The Hague: Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu (I&M).

MINISTERIE VAN I&M 2013. Making Projects. Den Haag: Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu (I&M).

MINISTERIE VAN I&M 2017. De Opgaven voor de Nationale Omgevingsvisie [Tasks for the National Environmental Planning Strategy]. The Hague: Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu (I&M).

MINISTERIE VAN OCW 2011. Meer dan Kwaliteit: Een Nieuwe Visie op Cultuurbeleid [Vision on cultural policy]. Den Haag: Ministerie van Onderwijs Cultuur en Wetenschap (OCW).

MINISTERIE VAN VROM 1988. Vierde Nota over de Ruimtelijke Ordening: Op Weg naar 2015. Deel d: Regeringsbeslissing [Fourth Report on Spatial Planning]. The Hague: SDU uitgeverij.

MINISTERIE VAN VROM 1993. Vierde Nota over de Ruimtelijke Ordening Extra. Deel 4: Planologische Kernbeslissing Nationaal Ruimtelijk Beleid [Fourth Report on Spatial Planning Extra]. The Hague: Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer (VROM).

MINISTERIE VAN VROM 2003. Ontwerpatelier Deltametropool [Design Studio Delta Metropolis]. Den Haag: Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer (VROM).

MINISTERIE VAN VROM 2008. Structuurvisie Randstad 2040. Naar een Duurzame en Concurrerende Europese Topregio. Zoals Vastgesteld in de Ministerraad van 5 september 2008 [Structural Vision Randstad 2040]. The Hague: Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer (VROM).

MINISTERIE VAN VROM & RIJKSPLANOLOGISCHE DIENST 2001. Ruimte Maken, Ruimte Delen: Vijfde Nota over de Ruimtelijke Ordening 2000/2020. Vastgesteld door de Ministerraad op 15 December 2000 [Fifth Report on Spatial Planning]. The Hague: Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer (VROM).

MINISTERIE VAN VROM & RIJKSPLANOLOGISCHE DIENST 2002. Ruimte Maken, Ruimte Delen. Vijfde Nota over de Ruimtelijke Ordening 2000/2020. PKB Deel 3, Kabinetsstandpunt [Fifth Report on Spatial Planning]. The Hague: Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer (VROM).

MINISTERIES VAN EZ, FINANCIËN & OCW 2011. Naar de Top. Het Bedrijfsbeleid in Actie(s) [To the Top. The Top-sector Policy in Action(s)]. The Hague: Ministeries van Economische Zaken (EZ), Financiën en Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap (OCW).

MINISTERIES VAN I&M, OCW, BZK, EZ & DEF 2012. Werken aan Ontwerpkracht. Actieagenda Architectuur en Ruimtelijk Ontwerp 2013-2016 [Working on the Power of Design. Action Agenda Architecture and Spatial Design 2013-2016]. The Hague: Ministeries van Infrastructuur en Milieu (I&M), Onderwijs Cultuur en Wetenschap (OCW), Binnenlandse Zaken en Koningsrelaties (BZK), Economische Zaken (EZ) en Defensie (Def).

MINISTERIES VAN OCW, LNV, VROM & V&W 1999. Nota Belvedere. Beleidsnota over de Relatie Cultuurhistorie en Ruimtelijke Inrichting [Belvedere Note: Policy Note on the Relation between Cultural Heritage and the Built Environment]. The Hague: VNG uitgeverij.

MINISTERIES VAN OCW, VROM, LNV & V&W 1996. De Architectuur van de Ruimte. Nota over het Architectuurbeleid 1997-2000 [The Architecture of the Built Environment. Note on the Architecture Policy 1997-2000]. Den Haag: Ministeries van Onderwijs Cultuur en Wetenschappen (OCW), Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer (VROM), Landbouw Natuurbeheer en Visserij (LNV) en Verkeer en Waterstaat (V&W).

MINISTERIES VAN OCW, VROM, LNV, V&W, EZ, DEF & BZ 2005. Actieprogramma Ruimte en Cultuur. Architectuur- en Belvederebeleid 2005-2008 [Action Programme the Built Environment and Culture. Architecture and Belvedere policy 2005-2008]. Den Haag: Ministeries van Onderwijs Cultuur en Wetenschappen (OCW), Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer (VROM), Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (LNV), Verkeer en Waterstaat (V&W), Economische Zaken (EZ), Defensie (Def) en Buitenlandse Zaken (BZ).

MINISTERIES VAN OCW, VROM, V&W & LNV 2000. Ontwerpen aan Nederland. Architectuurbeleid 2001-2004 [Designing the Netherlands. Architecture Policy 2001-2004]. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers.

MINISTERIES VAN V&W & VROM 2004. Nota Mobiliteit: Naar een Betrouwbare en Voorspelbare Bereikbaarheid [Mobility Report: Towards Relyable and Predictable Accessibility]. Den Haag: Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat (V&W) en Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer (VROM).

MINISTERIES VAN VROM, LNV, V&W & EZ 2004. Nota Ruimte. Vastgesteld in de Ministerraad d.d. 23 april 2004 [Spatial Strategy. Approved by the Council of Ministers on the 23rd of April 2004]. The Hague: Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer (VROM).

MINISTERIES VAN VROM, LNV, V&W & EZ 2005. Nota Ruimte, Deel 3A: Aangepast Kabinetsstandpunt naar Aanleiding van Behandeling in de Tweede Kamer [National Spatial Strategy, after parliamentary debate]. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers.

MINISTERIES VAN VROM, LNV, V&W & EZ 2006. Nota Ruimte, Deel 4: Tekst naar parlamentaire instemming [National Spatial Strategy, after parliamentary approval]. Den Haag: Ministeries van Volkshuisvesting Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer (VROM), Landbouw Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (LNV), Verkeer en Waterstaat (V&W) en Economische Zaken (EZ).

MOLL, P. 1991. Funktionen der Karte [The functionality of maps]. In: AKADEMIE FÜR RAUMFORSCHUNG UND

LANDESPLANUNG (ARL) (ed.) Aufgabe und Gestaltung von Planungskarten. Hannover: Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung.

MOUGHTIN, C. 2003. Urban Design: Method and Techniques, Routledge.

MUNOZ, D. 2010. Binding rules which influence certainty and flexibility in planning. In: MUNOZ, D. (ed.) Capturing Value Increase in Urban Redevelopment. Leiden: Sidestone Press.

NADIN, V. 2007. The emergence of the spatial planning approach in England. Planning Practice & Research, 22, 43-62.

NADIN, V. & STEAD, D. 2008. European spatial planning systems, social models and learning. disP - The Planning Review, 44, 35-47.

NEEDHAM, B. 1988. Continuity and change in Dutch planning theory. The Netherlands Journal of Housing and Environmental Research, 3, 5-22.

NEEDHAM, B. 2005. The New Dutch spatial planning act: Continuity and change in the way in which the Dutch regulate the practice of spatial planning. Planning Practice & Research, 20, 327-340.

NEEDHAM, B. 2007. Dutch land use planning. Planning and managing land use in the Netherlands, the principles and the practice. Reeks Planologie nr. 9. The Hague: Sdu Uitgevers.

NEEDHAM, B. 2015. The National Spatial Strategy for the Netherlands. In: KNAAP, G.-J., NEDOVIC-BUDIC,

Z. & CARBONELL, A. (eds.) Planning for States and Nation-States in the U.S. and Europe. Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

NEUMAN, M. 1996. Images as institution builders: Metropolitan planning in Madrid. European Planning Studies, 4, 293-312.

NEUMAN, M. 1998. Does planning need the plan? Journal of the American Planning Association, 64, 208-220.

NEUMAN, M. 2000. Regional design: Recovering a great landscape architecture and urban planning tradition. Landscape and Urban Planning, 47, 115-128.

NEUMAN, M. 2010. The Imaginative Institution: Planning and Governance in Madrid, Farnham, Ashgate.

NEUMAN, M. & ZONNEVELD, W. 2018. The resurgence of regional design. European Planning Studies, 26, 1297-1311.

NSCGP 1999. Spatial Development Policy. Summary of the 53rd Report. The Hague: Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy (NSCGP).

OECD 2007. Territorial Reviews: Randstad Holland, the Netherlands. Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD 2014. Territorial Reviews: Netherlands 2014. Paris: OECD Publishing.

ONDERWATER, P. & HOLWERDA, H. 2005. Stedenbaan als resultaat van samenwerking [Stedenbaan as the result of cooperation]; Presented at the Colloquium Vervoersplanologisch Speurwerk 2005, Antwerpen, 24 September 2005. Available at http://www.cvs-congres.nl (accessed 9 February 2013).

OVINK, H. & BOEIJENGA, J. 2018. Too Big. Rebuild by Design’s Transformative Response to Climate Change, Rotterdam, nai010.

OVINK, H. & WIERENGA, E. (eds.) 2009. Ontwerp en Politiek/Design and Politics. Design and Politics #1, Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010.

PAASI, A. 2000. Re-constructing regions and regional identity. Nijmegen: Nethur lecture, 7.

PAASI, A. 2010. Commentary: Regions are social constructs, but who or what `constructs’ them? Environment and Planning A, 42, 2296-2301.

PAASI, A. 2012. Regional planning and the mobilization of ‘regional identity’: From bounded spaces to relational complexity. Regional Studies, 1-14.

PLATFORM ZUIDVLEUGEL 2003. De Stedenbaan [City Line]. Den Haag: Provincie Zuid-Holland.

POPPER, K. 1957. Science: Conjectures and refutations. In: MACE, C. A. (ed.) British Philosophy in Mid- Century. London: George Allen and Unwin.

PROJECTGROEP VISIE ARCHITECTUUR EN RUIMTELIJK ONTWERP 2008. Een Cultuur van Ontwerpen. Visie Architectuur en Ruimtelijk Ontwerp (VARO) [A Design Culture. Vision on Architecture and Spatial Design].

Den Haag: Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap; Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer; Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit; Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat.

PROVINCIE NOORD-HOLLAND & VERENIGING DELTAMETROPOOL 2013. Maak Plaats! Werken aan Knooppuntontwikkeling in Noord-Holland [Make Space! Working on Transport Node Development in North Holland]. Haarlem: Provincie Noord-Holland.

PROVINCIE ZUID-HOLLAND 2004a. Discussienotitie: Een Ruimtelijk Ontwerpatelier als Werkvorm [Discussion Note: A Spatial Design Studio as a Way of Working]. Den Haag: Provincie Zuid-Holland.

PROVINCIE ZUID-HOLLAND 2004b. Ontwerpatelier Zuidvleugel/Zuid-Holland [South Wing /South Holland Design Studio] (internal discussion note, autumn 2004). Den Haag: Provincie Zuid Holland.

PROVINCIE ZUID-HOLLAND 2007. Overdracht en Erfenis Atelier Zuidvleugel [Transfer and Heritage South Wing Studio] Den Haag: Provincie Zuid-Holland.

PROVINCIE ZUID-HOLLAND, STADSGEWEEST HAAGLANDEN, SAMENWERKINGSORGAAN HOLLAND
RIJNLAND, GEMEENSCHAPPELIJKE REGELING DRECHTSTEDEN, INTERGEMEENTELIJK SAMENWERKINGSORGAAN MIDDEN-HOLLAND, COLLEGE VAN B&W VAN DE GEMEENTE ROTTERDAM, COLLEGE VAN B&W VAN DE GEMEENTE DEN HAAG, BESLOTEN VENNOOTSCHAP NS REIZIGERS BV,

BESLOTEN VENNOOTSCHAP NS STATIONS BV & BESLOTEN VENNOOTSCHAP NS VASTGOED BV 2007. Uitvoeringsovereenkomst Stedenbaan Zuidvleugel [Agreement on Implementation City Line South Wing]. Available at http://www.stedenbaanplus.nl (accessed 12 February 2014).

REIN, M. & SCHÖN, D. 1993. Reframing policy discourse. In: FISCHER, F. & FORESTER, J. (eds.) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. London: UCL Press.

RICHARDSON, T. & JENSEN, O. B. 2003. Linking discourse and space: Towards a cultural sociology of space in analysing spatial policy discourses. Urban Studies, 40, 7-22.

RIJKE, J., VAN HERK, S., ZEVENBERGEN, C. & ASHLEY, R. 2012. Room for the River: Delivering integrated river basin management in the Netherlands. International Journal of River Basin Management, 10, 369-382.

RITTEL, H. W. J. 1987. The Reasoning of Designers. Berkeley: University of California.

ROODBOL-MEKKES, P. H., VAN DER VALK, A. J. J. & KORTHALS ALTES, W. K. 2012. The Netherlands spatial planning doctrine in disarray in the 21st century. Environment and Planning A, 44, 377-395.

SAGER, T. 2011. Neo-liberal urban planning policies: A literature survey 1990–2010. Progress in Planning, 76, 147-199.

SALET, W. 2006. Rescaling territorial governance in the Randstad Holland: The responsiveness of spatial and institutional strategies to changing socio-economic interactions. European Planning Studies, 14, 959-978.

SALET, W. & WOLTJER, J. 2009. New concepts of strategic spatial planning: Dilemmas in the Dutch Randstad region. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 22, 235-248.

SALEWSKI, C. 2012. Dutch New Worlds. Scenario’s in de Stedenbouw en Ruimtelijke Ordening in Nederland, 1970-2000 [Dutch New Worlds: Scenarios in Urbanism and Spatial Planning in the Netherlands, 1970- 2000], Rotterdam, 010 Publishers.

SCHÖN, D. A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, London, Temple Smith.

SCHÖN, D. A. 1985. The Design Studio: An Exploration of its Traditions and Potentials, London, RIBA.

SCHÖN, D. A. 1988. Designing: Rules, types and words. Design Studies, 9, 181-190.

SCHÖN, D. A. 1992. Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Research in

Engineering Design, 3, 131-147. SCHÖN, P. 2005. Territorial cohesion in Europe? Planning Theory & Practice, 6, 389-400.

SCHÖNWANDT, W. & GRUNAU, J. 2003. Planen und Entwerfen als Lösen komplexer Probleme [Planning and designing as the resolution of complex problems]. Schriftenreihe des Instituts für Grundlagen der Planung. Stuttgart: Universität Stuttgart.

SCHÖNWANDT, W. L., HEMBERGER, C., GRUNAU, J.-P., VOERMANEK, K., VON DER WETH, R. & SAIFOULLINE,

R. 2011. The art of problem-solving—Design and evaluation of a training program in solving complex planning problems. disP - The Planning Review, 47, 14-26.

SIJMONS, D. 2002. Voldongen fictie: De potenties van het regionaal ontwerp [The accomplished fiction:

The potential of regional design]. In: FEDDES, F. (ed.) Landkaartmos en Andere Beschouwingen over Landschap. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010.

SPAANS, M. 2006. Recent changes in the Dutch planning system: Towards a new governance model? Town Planning Review, 77, 127-146.

STEGMEIJER, E., KLOOSTERMAN, R. & LUPI, T. 2012. Bouwen op een Sterk Fundament: Een Tussenevaluatie van het Architectuurbeleid [Building upon a Strong Basis: Intermediate Assessment Architecture Policy]. Den Haag.

STOLK, E. 2015. Een Complex-Cognitieve Benadering van Stedebouwkundig Ontwerpen [A Complex- Cognitive Approach to Urban Design]. Doctoral thesis, Delft University of Technology.

STUURGROEP STEDENBAAN 2005. Businesscase NS (Personal communication, memorandum of a steering group meeting, October 25).

SWYNGEDOUW, E., MOULAERT, F. & RODRIGUEZ, A. 2002. Neoliberal urbanization in Europe: Large–scale urban development projects and the new urban policy. Antipode, 34, 542-577.

TEISMAN, G. R. & KLIJN, E.-H. 2002. Partnership arrangements: Governmental rhetoric or governance scheme? Public Administration Review, 62, 197-205.

TEWDWR-JONES, M. 1999. Discretion, flexibility, and certainty in British planning: Emerging ideological conflicts and inherent political tensions. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 18, 244-256.

TEWDWR-JONES, M., GALLENT, N. & MORPHET, J. 2010. An anatomy of spatial planning: Coming to terms with the spatial element in UK planning. European Planning Studies, 18, 239-257.

THE RT HON LORD SCARMAN 1981. The Scarman Report: The Brixton Disorders 10-12 April 1981. Report of an Inquiry. London: Penguin Books.

THIERSTEIN, A. & FÖRSTER, A. (eds.) 2008. The Image and The Region - Making Mega-City Regions Visible!, Baden: Lars Müller Publishers.

THROGMORTON, J. A. 1993. Planning as a rhetorical activity: Survey research as a trope in arguments about electric power planning in Chicago. Journal of the American Planning Association, 59, 334-346.

THROGMORTON, J. A. 2003. Planning as persuasive storytelling in a global-scale web of relationships. Planning Theory, 2, 125-151.

TILLIE, N., KLIJN, O., FRIJTERS, E., BORSBOOM, J. & LOOIJE, M. (eds.) 2014. Urban Metabolism. Sustainable Development of Rotterdam, Rotterdam: International Architecture Biennale Rotterdam.

URBAN UNLIMITED 2003. Visie Stedelijk Netwerk KAN [Vision Urban Network Arnhem-Nijmegen]. Nijmegen, Rotterdam: Knooppunt Arnhem-Nijmegen, Provincie Gelderland en KAN-gemeenten.

VAN AKEN, J. E. 2005. Management research as a design science: Articulating the research products of mode 2 knowledge production in management. British Journal of Management, 16, 19-36.

VAN AKEN, J. E. 2007. Design science and organization development interventions: Aligning business and humanistic values. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43, 67-88.

VAN BERGEIJK, H. (ed.) 2015. Van Lohuizen & Van Eesteren. Partners in Planning and Education at TH Delft, Delft: TU Delft Open.

VAN DER CAMMEN, H. 1987. Nieuw Nederland. Onderwerp van Ontwerp [The New Netherlands. An Object of Design], Den Haag, Stichting Nederland Nu als Ontwerp, Staatsuitgeverij ‘s Gravenhage.

VAN DER VALK, A. 1990. Het Levenswerk van TH.K. van Lohuizen 1890-1956. De Eenheid van het Stedenbouwkundige Werk [The livework of TH.K. van Lohuizen 1890-1956], Delft, Delftse Universitaire Pers.

VAN DER VALK, A. 2002. The Dutch planning experience. Landscape and Urban Planning, 58, 201-210.

VAN DIJK, T. 2011. Imagining future places: How designs co-constitute what is, and thus influence what will be. Planning Theory, 10, 124-143.

VAN DUINEN, L. 2004. Planning Imagery. The Emergence and Development of New Planning Concepts in Dutch National Spatial Policy. Doctoral thesis, University of Amsterdam.

VAN DUINEN, L. 2013. Mainport and corridor: Exploring the mobilizing capacities of Dutch spatial concepts. Planning Theory & Practice, 14, 211-232.

VAN DUINEN, L. 2015. New spatial concepts between innovation and lock-in: The case of the Dutch Deltametropolis. Planning Practice & Research, 30, 548-569.

VAN EESTEREN, C. 1948. De Conceptie van onze hedendaagse Nederzettingen en Cultuurlandschappen, hun Verschijningsvormen en Uitdrukkingen [The Conception of our present-day Settlements and cultivated Landscapes, their Appearance and Expression]. Rede uitgesproken bij de aanvaarding van het ambt van buitengewoon hoogleraar in de stedenbouwkunde aan de Technische Hogeschool te Delft op woensdag 28 april 1948, door C. Van Eesteren [Speech by C. van Eesteren at the occasion of his inauguration as extraordinary professor of urbanism at Delft University of Technology]. Delft: Technische Hogeschool.

VAN GEET, M. T., LENFERINK, S., ARTS, J. & LEENDERTSE, W. 2019. Understanding the ongoing struggle for land use and transport integration: Institutional incongruence in the Dutch national planning process. Transport Policy, 73, 84-100.

VAN ROSSEM, V. 2014. In search of a better world. Cornelis van Eesteren and the rise of urban planning. In: EFL FOUNDATION & GTA ARCHIVES (eds.) Atlas of the Functional City. CIAM 4 and Comparative Urban Analysis. Bussum, Zurich: Uitgeverij THOTH, gta Verlag.

VERENIGING DELTAMETROPOOL 1998. Deltametropolis. A Declaration by the Spatial Planning Aldermen of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht regarding future Urban Development in The Netherlands. Available oneline at www.deltametropois.nl (accessed February 2014).

VERVLOESEM, E. & WESSELS, R. (eds.) 2016. From Cure to Care. Atelier Utrecht, Rotterdam: International Architecture Biennale Rotterdam.

VINK, B. & VAN DER BURG, A. 2006. New Dutch spatial planning policy creates space for development. disP, 164, 41-49.

WATERHOUT, B. 2008. The Institutionalisation of European Spatial Planning. Doctoral thesis, Delft University of Technology.

WATERHOUT, B., OTHENGRAFEN, F. & SYKES, O. 2013. Neo-liberalization processes andspatial planning in France, Germany, and the Netherlands: An exploration. Planning Practice & Research, 28, 141-159.

WESTERINK, J., LAGENDIJK, A., DÜHR, S., VAN DER JAGT, P. & KEMPENAAR, A. 2013. Contested spaces? The use of place concepts to communicate visions for peri-urban areas. European Planning Studies, 21, 780-800.

WETENSCHAPPELIJKE RAAD VOOR HET REGERINGSBELEID (WRR) 1998. Ruimtelijke Ontwikkelingspolitiek [Spatial Development Policy]. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers.

YIN, R. K. 2012. Applications of Case Study Research, London, Sage Publications.

YIN, R. K. 2013. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, London, Sage Publications.

ZANDBELT & VAN DEN BERG 2012. Ruimtelijke modellen SMASH 2040: Amsterdam-Schiphol-Haarlemmermeer [Spatial Models SMASH 2040: Amsterdam-Schiphol-Haarlemmermeer]. Rotterdam: Zandbelt&vandenBerg.

ZONNEVELD, W. 1989. Conceptual complexes and shifts in post-war urban planning in the Netherlands. Built Environment (1978-), 15, 40-48.

ZONNEVELD, W. 1991. Conceptvorming in de Ruimtelijke Ordening: Patronen en Processen [Conceptualisation in Spatial Planning: Patterns and Processes]. Doctoral thesis, University of Amsterdam.

ZONNEVELD, W. 2005a. In search of conceptual modernization: The new Dutch ‘national spatial strategy’. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 20, 425-443.

ZONNEVELD, W. 2005b. Multiple visioning: New ways of constructing transnational spatial visions. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 23, 41-62.

ZONNEVELD, W. 2008. Visioning and vizualization. In: THIERSTEIN, A. & FÖRSTER, A. (eds.) The Image and the Region: Making Mega-City Regions Visible. München: Lars Müller Publishers.

ZONNEVELD, W. & EVERS, D. 2014. Dutch national spatial planning at the end of an era. In: REIMER, M., PANAGIOTIS, G. & BLOTEVOGEL, H. (eds.) Spatial Planning Systems and Practices in Europe: A Comparative Perspective on Continuity and Changes. Routledge.

ZONNEVELD, W. & SPAANS, M. 2014. Meta-governance and developing integrated territorial strategies: The
case study of MIRT territorial agendas in the Randstad (Netherlands). Planning Theory & Practice, 15,
543-562.

ZONNEVELD, W. & VERWEST, F. 2005. Tussen Droom en Retoriek: De Conceptualisering van Ruimte in de Nederlandse Planning [Between Dream and Rhetorics: The Conceptualisation of Space in Dutch Planning], Rotterdam, NAi Uitgevers.

Author Biography

Verena Elisabeth BALZ, TU Delft, Architecture and the Built Environment

I studied Architecture at the Technical University in Berlin, Germany, and the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago, USA. My studies in the United States were supported by grants from the J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board, the United States Information Agency, and the Illinois Institute of Technology. My graduation thesis, which tested a particular industrial design-support computer programme on its usefulness for urban design, was judged excellent.

Between 1999 and 2005 I was employed at Maxwan Architects and Urbanists, and Crimson architectural historians, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. As an urbanist and senior urbanist at these firms I participated in and led urbanism projects of various levels of scale in several European countries. From 2005 to 2008 I was Chief Designer at Atelier Zuidvleugel (South Wing Studio), a publicly funded policy institute concerned with regional planning and design in the southern part of the Dutch Randstad region. In this position I became acquainted with developing and carrying out innovative regional-design strategies in complex multi-actor governance settings. Projects I initiated and led have had as their main concern transit-oriented development and the integration of socio-economic and spatial development in the region. I am the principal author of a number of books that document these projects, as well as co-author of a book that reviews South Wing Studio’s regional design practice.

Since 2009 I have been an assistant professor and teacher at the Department of Urbanism, Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology. The main focus of my research is on the use and performance of regional design-led approaches in planning decision-making. My work on this topic has been published in international peer-reviewed journals and academic books. As a research team leader I have initiated conference sessions and co-organized international conferences dedicated to the Department’s core interest in regional design. My engagement has contributed to the building up of an international network of researchers with interest and expertise in this emerging theme. In addition to regional design, I also have expertise on spatial planning, Dutch national planning, regional policy, territorial governance, and European Cohesion Policy. I have built up and applied this knowledge during my participation in a broad range of publicly funded research projects. Besides participating as a researcher and national expert in such projects, I have contributed to the acquisition of research grants from, among others, the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), and acquired funds for my own research projects. As a teacher I am involved in the Bachelor and Master of Architecture, Urbanism, and Building Sciences programmes. Besides being a course coordinator, lecturer, design tutor, and mentor on individual courses, I am also co-coordinator of the third quarter of the MSc Urbanism track, entitled ‘Spatial Strategies for the Global Metropolis’, and studio coordinator of the MSc Urbanism graduation studio ‘Planning Complex Cities’.

Since 2008 I have had my own firm. As an independent researcher and designer I provide consultancy on regional spatial planning and design. I frequently co-operate with design firms, in particular OOZE architects, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

How to Cite
BALZ, Verena Elisabeth. Regional Design. A+BE | Architecture and the Built Environment, [S.l.], n. 6, p. 1-252, june 2019. ISSN 2214-7233. Available at: <https://journals.open.tudelft.nl/index.php/abe/article/view/3862>. Date accessed: 16 july 2019. doi: https://doi.org/10.7480/abe.2019.7.3862.
Published
2019-06-15