Zoning on purposes as a contemporary alternative for zoning on land uses of open spaces in an urbanised context

The (mono)functional zoning in land use planning has already a long record of service and finds its roots in an historical political and societal ambition of separating functions and activities in space. But above all, the continuous success of this type of zoning is linked to the legal security it creates. Although a decrease in legal security still seems an invincible problem, the technique of functional zoning in spatial planning is increasingly being questioned. An alternative planning discourse of ‘open space as public space’ for instance, a planning discourse about open space fragments in an urbanised context developed in the context of my PhD-dissertation (Leinfelder, 2007 and 2009), seems incompatible with this functional zoning … but also three other alternative planning discourses about the relation between city and countryside, discussed in my dissertation, do not result in spatial entities that are inspired by land uses, but by differences in dynamics, environmental impact and meaning of places. Based on these observations, a ‘rediscovery’ of the zoning plan – as a ‘strategic’ zoning plan – seems necessary. The addition of ‘strategic’ indicates a more active, more realisation oriented and more selective approach than today’s comprehensive and passive functional zoning. The zoning in a strategic zoning plan is no longer related to the allocation of zones to one or more land uses, but to entities that refer as much as possible to the (societal) purposes for the open space involved. The name of these zones tries to express as much as possible the most relevant spatial characteristics of the entities desired for – concerning dynamics, vulnerability, meaning, … And the juridical rules related to these entities define the conditions in which – maybe yet unknown – spatial projects can take place without mentioning the land uses by name. In other words, development and management of space become increasingly dominant to the traditional allocation of space. Undoubtedly, also landscape as a holistic frame of integration is becoming of more and more importance in such zoning plans. The strategic zoning plan also has to be considered as a more indicative and temporary frame of reference for private and public actors through which the decision making about specific projects and measures can be coordinated – even when the choices at the moment of the decision are different than those at the moment of the design of the plan

Increasing societal discomfort about a dominant restrictive planning discourse on open space in Flanders/Belgium

The specific spatial context in the densely urbanised northern part of Belgium, Flanders, offers a sort of laboratory conditions to study, design and plan fragments of open space in an urbanising context. A chronological analysis of documents in three periods relevant to Flemish spatial planning policy allows to conclude that one single planning discourse has reigned spatial planning in Flanders already since the design of the first zoning plans 45 years ago. This planning discourse considers city and countryside as two separate and separated entities. Today however, the validity of this dominant discourse is increasingly under pressure. An obvious societal need appears to be growing to turn around the perception of a possible contradiction between city and countryside. In a densely urbanised spatial context, alternative planning discourses should be based on the idea of open spaces that offer complementary services within a partnership between city and countryside

Assessment of governance strategies for climate adaptation in Flanders / Belgium

Climate discourse in recent decades has mainly focused on the issue of mitigation. Through a better understanding and assessment of climate challenges, adaptation arises as a complementary strategy to mitigation. Vulnerability in relation to climate change is seen as a function of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity. Adaptation can influence sensitivity while mitigating impacts on the exposure to climate change. (IPCC, 2007). Adaptation requires space for climate on a local scale and should therefore be incorporated into the structure of amy given place or region. Consequently, however, implementation has to overcome local resistance. (IPCC, 2007) In this first part of a broader investigation into adaptation, the climate change challenge is situated in the Flemish context. Assessment of an appropriate framework in the international literature is followed by a delineation of the relation between space, demand and supply, and policy. A first step is taken towards the development of a climate scan tool to narrow down adaptation options and strategies. At this point, qualitative spatial implementations will be investigated through research by design in order to assess integrated and integral adaptations

Rural futures in urbanising contexts: open space as public space.

status: publishe

Ja tegen Europa

status: publishe

Land Use Plans: Long Live the Crocodiles

Some would say that land use plans are the dinosaurs of planning policy. And indeed, in almost every country in continental Europe land use plans emerged as main instruments in the earliest/almost prehistoric periods of organic planning legislation. But unlike the dinosaurs, land use plans have managed to survive in most of these countries and they have adapted successfully until now as some kind of living fossils. That is why we prefer to see them as crocodiles. Like crocodiles, land use plans appear quite frightening because of their non contemporary unattractive look and their lethal/legal power. Unfortunately, similar to the gradual extinction of crocodiles because of climate change, land use plans seem to become endangered and mainly too because of drastic changes in contextual factors. Since their features seem rather unappealing at first sight, acolytes of crocodiles as well as land use plans rarely raise their voices in the debate about their survival. However, this contribution wants to change strategy. It consciously ignores the characteristics of land use plans that might make them vulnerable. Instead, it addresses three main contextual aspects of its questionable survival. In other words it focuses on the destructive ways in which planners, policy makers and citizens more and more position land use plans as planning instruments. First, planners and policy makers seem to have almost blind faith in the power of land use plans. The latter are still too often considered, by planners as well as policy makers, as the universal solution of each planning process. This dogmatic belief burdens land use plans with impossible expectations since it ignores the original ambition of land use plans, namely offering a framework for the assessment of building permits. It also neglects the role and position of other policy instruments in consolidating the outcomes of a planning process. Secondly, convinced of the robustness of land use plans, in the last two decades policy makers in closely related policy domains such as for instance environmental, nature conservation and cultural heritage policy, have legally linked their own sectoral assessment tools to the approval process of land use plans. Despite the integrating character of planning, this strategy has led primarily to a formal overload of land use plans with sectoral policy goals what makes them obese and vulnerable. Finally, the sensitivity of individual citizens for interference of government in their private property rights has grown tremendously, even when this interference is inspired by public interests. The combination of government’s preference for land use plans as a tool to limit these rights on the one hand and the vulnerability of these plans because of the lethal amount of linked sectoral policies on the other hand, make land use plans ideal subjects for judicial procedures. Already weakened because of the combination of the first two aspects, land use plans are easy preys. Before officially declaring land use plans extinct, this contribution pleads for a drastic sanitation of the societal and political context in which land use plans have to function. We want to prevent these crocodiles from extinction because, in our opinion, land use plans still have an optimistic and meaningful life expectancy. But as crocodiles have adapted to and need a specific climate, land use plans need to be strictly used for the purposes they were generated for originally