Jump to main content.

International Brownfields Case Study:
Westergasfabriek, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Executive Summary

The Westergasfabriek reuse plan combines cultural activities within the historic buildings of a 19th century gas plant with traditional community park functions. Despite the residual contamination, the local district council, working with its project team and the community, built new relationships and strategies that helped design a new community park, preserved the historic buildings, and established the Westergas as an international cultural venue.

The Westergas plant closed in 1967, and the property was conveyed to the local district council in 1992. The gasworks site consists of nineteen buildings including an immense gas tank. Thirteen are protected as historic buildings under Dutch law. The existing contamination resulted from the gas manufacturing process, when heavy metals, volatile organic compounds, and benzene leached into the soil. The cleanup plan is a two-phase process: (1) excavating soil where park visitors may directly contact the ground, and (2) building a dam to seal off the contamination "hot spots" while conducting groundwater monitoring. Interim uses of the park have been allowed because all of the heavily-contaminated soil is currently under asphalt.

Westerpark was originally a five hectare (12 acre) site adjacent to a railroad station and the Westergasfabriek. Combining the industrial grounds with the original park site has allowed for considerable expansion of activity at Westerpark. The final dimensions of the park are approximately 50 hectares (124 acres).

Many factors set Westergasfabriek apart from other brownfields projects, including the level of local government leadership, community collaboration, the cultural uses of the historic buildings, the phased-cleanup plan, and the visionary ideas of the project team. Both the local district council and the community recognized the sites' potential and worked through several obstacles to achieve consensus. The district council realized that because the residents were the end-users of the park, it was critical to incorporate their input during the early planning stages. The interim cultural uses of the buildings have already benefited the surrounding community and implementation of the final park plan should only increase the returns. The Westergas experience provides many ideas that communities in the United States can adapt to their cleanup and reuse of similar brownfields properties.

Temporary Cultural Uses

Even before the cleanup of the site and development of a permanent park plan, the district council embarked on an innovative initiative to find temporary uses for the buildings. Because the surrounding neighborhood is notorious for its high rate of squatters (people who inhabit abandoned buildings and can obtain ownership rights in certain cases), the district council sought to prevent the buildings' physical deterioration while commencing discussions with the community and environmental regulators for the permanent cleanup and reuse of the site. Although the temporary plan for using the buildings as cultural venues was initially fueled by pragmatism, ultimately it sparked neighborhood and community interest in the site. It also provided an opportunity to test the success of opening the site to cultural events. Interim cultural uses have ranged from opera performances to car shows to photography exhibitions. Longer-term tenants include the European headquarters of Cirque du Soleil, a theatrical training facility, and the West Pacific Café and Nightclub.

The Project Team's Leadership and Vision

Another key ingredient to the project's success was the dedication of a full-time staff person during the formative stages of the project. The district council recruited Evert Verhagen, the public works director, to coordinate community activities and temporary uses of the buildings. In addition to the leadership and vision that Mr. Verhagen brought to the Westergasfabriek, he quickly assembled a talented and diverse project team that has successfully maintained the momentum of the project. The project team strives to involve all of the stakeholders in the project's different facets (i.e., park planning, cultural events, and the cleanup). As a result, all parties are kept aware of new developments, thus preventing stagnation of project's progress.

The Park Plan

Westerpark's success depends on achieving the right balance among competing neighborhood demands for a traditional park with the ecological and cultural demands of the entire community. Given these circumstances, the project team understood the need for a flexible park plan. Rather than a rigid design that focuses solely on physical aspects, the Westerpark plan integrates cultural venues within the historical buildings as the park's major attractions. This design will allow the park to evolve over time, adapting to the changing needs of its users.

The project team also recognized the necessity for private resources and management expertise to rehabilitate the buildings and operate the cultural venues. As a result of an emerging public-private venture, the local government would be responsible for financing, building, and maintaining the park, while a private organization would directly manage the leasing and planning of cultural events. Both the multi-year process and the design incorporate innovative concepts which might be applied to brownfields sites in the United States and elsewhere.

Setting the Stage: History and Background

The Westergasfabriek (translated, the Western Gas Factory) is a former coal gasification plant.[1] Located just west of the city near both the railway line and the waterfront, the site consists of 19 structures covering 15,287 square meters (about four acres), and includes a 3,000 square meter gas tank. Once natural gas was introduced in the mid-1960s, the plant became functionally obsolete and closed.[2]

Thirteen of the Westergas buildings were built between 1885 and 1905 in a neo-renaissance style, and thus hold historical significance.[3] Having no access to the plant until the city vacated the property, residents in surrounding neighborhoods were surprised by the beauty of the buildings' architecture, upon seeing them for the first time.[4] While some residents thought it would be a good idea to tear down the buildings and expand the adjacent Westerpark, planning and building such a park would take years. Given the tight housing market and high incidence of squatting in the surrounding neighborhood, the land could not lay idle for long. Local government officials had to act quickly to find a temporary use for the site.

Despite a high level of community excitement about the availability of Westergasfabriek, the gasworks left the site with a fair amount of contamination. Benzene, volatile organic compounds, and heavy metal contaminants had leached into the soil and the canal during the gas manufacturing process. When the city vacated the site, the original Dutch Soil Protection Act required full remediation of the pollution at an estimated cost of 60 to 100 million Guilders.[5] The central city government found itself in a quandary. Neither the city government nor the national government had the resources to pay for the complete cleanup. Yet, it needed to find a temporary use that was suitable with the existing levels of contamination to avoid squatters taking over the abandoned factory. Given the high costs to remediate Westergasfabriek, the central city was left to explore other creative options to redevelop this site.

Catalysts for Redevelopment

The city council's early studies concluded that the buildings were useless, particularly the gasometer. Because influential community groups were eager to build a park, they initially supported demolishing all of the buildings, except for two near the canal that were designated for community purposes. The demolition plans were also supported by the fact that the buildings were not protected under national historic preservation laws.[6] However, though the city had reserved funds in their budget for this purpose, it could not realistically proceed without the Ministry of the Environment providing 90% of the remediation funds. A shortage of funds in the Ministry's budget blocked further action on the demolition plans.

In the spring of 1990, the central city government decided to have the newly-created local district council head the Westergasfabriek project.[7] The lack of funds, the level of pollution, the difficulty of the project, and the lack of consensus among the various groups initially stalled reuse decisions.[8]

The Center for Modern Music

Shortly after the district council became the owners of the property in 1992, a national competition was held to generate ideas for the buildings' reuse. From the three hundred proposals received, four ideas were chosen: a center for modern music, a graphic design school, a museum, and a flexible project that would allow a variety of cultural uses. The ideas were creative, but only the modern music center had a good chance of getting city funds. For over a year, the city leased space to the Ijsbreker Music School while it held discussions with the School about developing a permanent plan for a modern music center. The center would have used the buildings not only as music studios and performance space, but also for the center's offices, recording studios, and library. However, the physical upgrades needed for the music center would have exceeded the city's available funds.[9] Moreover, instead of the center being one of many uses in the redevelopment scheme, the School's plans would have taken over the entire park. In 1995 the central city government formally rejected the music center proposal at the Westergasfabriek site, causing great disappointment within the district council.[10]

Despite the decision about the music school, the central city felt it had an obligation to redevelop the Westerpark district. The mayor and aldermen appointed the Alderman for Economics to oversee the project and help it move forward. The district council, with the cooperation of the central city and community members, developed the "Brown Book." Containing a series of concept reports that described possible plans for the park, the book detailed goals, objectives, permissible uses, and fundraising options.[11] These plans were submitted to the special committee of the district council that oversees cultural activities and the development of the park.[12]

Meanwhile, isolated cultural events at the park had attracted many young people from the surrounding community. Their attendance at these events led to greater participation in the Westerpark planning meetings. This effort was a key turning point in the community's perception of the park plan. The idea of combining a "culture park" with a traditional park was ignited, thereby slowly creating consensus on the importance of using the factory buildings.

Temporary Cultural Uses and Permanent Park Plan

Although the necessary contamination cleanup plans were still pending, the district council decided to proceed with its efforts to develop the park. The district council continued to temporarily rent the buildings as cultural venues. Rather than rent to one anchor tenant, it decided to form an organization to rent out the buildings for multiple uses. The gas tank, in particular, had the potential to bring in revenue because of its unique character: it is structured much like a silo with a groundfloor large enough to be utilized as a venue for various cultural activities. The district devised a strategy on two levels: find interim uses for the buildings and determine a permanent plan for the park.

A full-time project manager, Evert Verhagen, was selected during this period, bringing new energy to the project (see Appendix A for interview with Evert Verhagen). One of Evert's first steps was to form a talented and dedicated project team. The project manager and his team understood that they could not operate the Westergasfabriek project with the traditional civil servant mind-set. Successful management of the temporary cultural activities and development of the long term park plan would demand a creative and entrepreneurial spirit.[13]

The on-going success of the cultural venues has served as a catalyst for the further development of Westergasfabriek. The gasometer's initial event was for the premiere of the opera, "Antigone," at the Holland Festival. According to Evert Verhagen, one of the benefits of this building's location is its relative isolation. Thus large events such as festivals and exhibitions do not disturb the surrounding neighborhood.[14] Since this successful opera production, the Amsterdam Theatrical Society has established its own company, and De Trust, Orkater and Hollandia have also staged performances at Westergasfabriek. Other buildings house the drama school, DasArts, a film studio, Studio Wenck, the West Pacific Café and Nightclub,[15] and the European headquarters of Cirque du Soleil.[16]

"The strength of the Westergasfabriek lies in the fact that cultural activities take place at different locations on the site almost continuously."[17] The activities at Westergasfabriek have run the gamut from classical music to nightclub parties to art exhibitions. The temporary reuse plan was successful because it allowed for creative alternatives based upon the public's desires. Westergasfabriek provided the framework for cultural uses, and the public's positive reception of these diverse uses has added momentum and energy to the long-term redevelopment of the site. As a result of these efforts, in 1996 the central city government approved the park concept, and reserved 12 million Guilders for development of the park. Final approval for the park budget was reached in early 1998.18

Permanent Plans for Westerpark

Westergasfabriek presents many options of what should become a much grander Westerpark. Over the years the central city government and the district council have taken steps to enhance the grounds and facilities at Westerpark, the park adjacent to the former gas plant. Although the quality is quite high, Westerpark's existing framework is in the tradition of a formal English-style park. People today, however, are more active and demand athletic facilities and recreational fields. These new activities, consequently, demand more space compared with the benches, gardens, and pathways found in traditional urban parks.[19]>

Westergasfabriek presents the community and the district council with an opportunity to create a blue print for a different type of park. Part of the Westergas site includes open space with wetlands habitat and canals. The community and the council are trying to connect the old factory site with these "polderlands"[20] to enhance their ecological value and use. Currently, part of this area includes walking paths and an obstacle course playground for children. This area is near an old cemetery and will remain a quiet zone far from the cultural activities that are located south of the railroad tracks.

Integrating the cultural uses with these different visions of a park, however, is not an easy task. The project team and district council have engaged the community in a variety of meetings and forums for everyone to discuss their ideas for Westerpark.

A formal competition was held to determine the permanent park design. Five architects were selected. Based upon presentations of their ideas and sketches, a vote was taken. The vote was split, but the district council eventually chose a design by landscape architect Kathryn Gustafson in June 1997. Mrs. Gustafson is now in charge of designing the permanent park plan while carefully incorporating community input into these important design decisions.[21]

As the project team, district council, and community begin work with Gustafson to design the park plan, a consensus is gradually emerging that this site will exhibit some characteristics of a traditional park (i.e., trees, benches, grass areas, etc.), but will also integrate a variety of cultural uses within the historic buildings. A park with such diverse uses will inevitably require the architect to modify her original design submission, thus she and the district council are already engaging in a series of meetings with the neighborhood's diverse groups. The goal is to blend all of these differences together into a design that integrates the desires of all the users.[22]

Private Management of the Cultural and Building Activities

The project team eventually realized they could not rehabilitate the old buildings or revitalize Westergasfabriek to host dynamic cultural activities without private resources. From the district council's perspective, the long-term lease of the buildings for cultural activities and businesses is critical for generating sufficient funds to enhance the entire site, both the physical rehabilitation of the buildings and the park facilities.[23] From the project team's perspective, the cultural uses inside the buildings must somehow connect with the park's outside activities. Since the district could not fund the entire revitalization of Westerpark, the project team is seeking business partners to oversee the building rehabilitation and rentals for cultural activities.[24]

According to preliminary discussions, the district council would maintain influence over the project by leasing the property (e. g., for 100 years) rather than selling to a private developer or management company.[25] In doing so, the district council can attach certain requirements or conditions to ensure Westergasfabriek is maintained and operated consistently with the community's vision. For example, the district council would like to ensure access to a few of the buildings at different times of the year for neighborhood meetings and special events. The council could also encourage the developer or management company to draw from the workforce in the adjacent neighborhood.

These negotiations over the fate of the buildings and the cultural activities are somewhat problematic for the long term management of Westergasfabriek. How will the buildings be used? What limits can or should be placed on their use? What permits, conditions, and zoning requirements must be met? These redevelopment issues involve the greatest risk for the project's long-term success.[26]

Regulatory and Programmatic Framework

National and Regional Cleanup Laws and Regulations

Soil pollution became a major political issue in the Netherlands in 1980 as a result of a severe case of contamination near Rotterdam. Public response was massive, and many citizens were afraid that contamination might exist in the soil under their homes. The National Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and Environment established the Soil Cleanup Interim Act in 1983, resulting in national soil testing.[27] Currently, every province conducts annual investigations on suspected soil contamination.

Because of the strong public outcry, legislation passed in the early 1980s included strict remediation standards. Properties were classified according to three contamination levels:

A-level: Considered clean with contaminants at or below background levels
B-level: Required additional investigation (some contamination suspected)
C-level: Required complete cleanup (some contamination present)

If a site was rated A or B, the amount of cleanup would vary depending on the land-use at that site. C-level ratings always required a complete cleanup.[28]

Amsterdam's Environment Department[29] is primarily responsible for creating and administering the pollution cleanup laws for the city and the cleanup plan for Westergasfabriek. As a result of the Director of the Environment Department's skillful negotiations with the National Environment Minister, the Netherlands enacted the Soil Protection Act of 1995, which now connects all cleanup levels with future land uses.[30]

Under the new 1995 Act, the C-level has been revised to include an intermediate standard that does not automatically require full remediation to background levels. Cleanup standards have been developed with maximum permissible risk (MPR) levels based on land-use. If the MPR level is exceeded, a full remediation must be conducted to meet that standard. If the MPR is not exceeded, under Dutch law a full cleanup is not required. Environmental regulators may, however, encourage supplemental steps so that pollution is not too close to the MPR levels. The Westergasfabriek project falls into this gray area.[31]

The federal government designates approximately 175 million Guilders a year for cleanups. Hundreds of projects compete for those funds across the country. Under the new soil protection law, the National Ministry funds up to 90% of the cleanup for projects that cost more than 10 million Guilders and the local governments contribute the remaining 10%. Because it is difficult for the government to delegate oversight, it maintains a strong interest in the decisions made on such projects. Although the City of Amsterdam works with its district councils to develop cleanup plans, ultimately the National Ministry makes the final decision because they control the funding.[32]

The Westergasfabriek Cleanup Plan

Amsterdam's Environment Department commenced its negotiations with the National Environment Ministry over the Westergasfabriek site with an estimate of 60-100 million Guilders for the cleanup.[33] They designed the original cleanup plan in 1990, but at that time the cleanup law was much more restrictive. Under the old soil protection law, for instance, it was nearly impossible to excavate the soil at Westergasfabriek and use it elsewhere on the site. Prior to the new law, every inch of excavated soil had to be removed and treated. Whatever could not be cleaned would be disposed of in a landfill. These requirements made the cleanup costs so prohibitive that fully funding the plan became impossible. Given these astronomical cleanup costs, it seemed that Westergas would remain idle for years.

Amsterdam's Environment Department, however, had started to experiment at other sites with risk-based cleanup standards that tied the level of cleanup to future land uses. Although these local cleanup standards were still within the requirements of national laws and policies, they gave developers more flexibility. The department then strategically used the cleanup issues at the Westergasfabriek site to help illustrate the need for more flexible cleanup standards at the national level.[34] As a result of their negotiations, the National Environment Ministry supported the new Soil Protection Act of 1995.[35]

Cleanup Standards

The 1995 Soil Protection Act requires complete cleanup when contamination exceeds the MPR level. The old law required cleanup of any contamination reaching the C-level. Under the previous rules, a perimeter fence would have been erected on the Westergas site and it would have remained undeveloped.[36]

Under the new system, MPR levels are tied to land use. Because Westergasfabriek is to become a park, the remaining levels of contamination are below the MPR. The Westergas site would have presented risks if it included residential uses. Park users will only sit on the grass and will not be exposed to the contamination that lies deep underground. Since the MPR is not exceeded under the new system, complete removal of the contamination is not required. Amsterdam's environmental department, however, encourages some degree of cleanup so that residual contamination is not too close to the MPR levels. As a result of discussions among the national and district governments and with the community, it was decided to perform some additional level of cleanup to lower the risk at the Westergas site. Everyone agreed that adding a layer of top soil to the park areas would reduce the risk, even though it is not required by law.[37]

Since the neighborhood zoning currently allows recreational uses, Westergasfabriek's revised cleanup plan is based on these land uses.[38] The current plan involves two phases:

First Phase: A clean layer of top soil is needed in certain places where park visitors may have direct contact with the polluted ground. Some of the by-products will be mixed in with the soil to raise the level of the land. Because all of the contaminated "hot spots" are currently under asphalt, existing cultural uses of the site are allowed pending the cleanup.[39]

Second phase: This phase is comprised of building a dam to contain the hot spots along with implementing the necessary groundwater monitoring. As an intermediate step, a pump system will be installed to monitor water and prevent it from seeping, and either a sheet metal or plastic darn will seal the contamination. A layer of top soil, one meter deep, will be placed over the dam with trees placed on top.

Cleanup Funding

Under current law it is estimated that top soil remediation will cost 5 million Guilders, and the groundwater plan will cost another 40 million Guilders. This estimate of is half of the initial cleanup costs under the old soil protection laws. Under the new soil protection law, for example, "closed soil balance" allows excavation and removal on site, dropping the costs per 1,000 tons of soil from 200- 300 Guilders to 30-40 Guilders.[40]

At this stage the national ministry does not have enough funds for the entire cleanup, but appears willing to fund the preliminary phase. If the national ministry pays the 5 million for the first phase, it will only pay 50% or less of the second phase cleanup costs, roughly 22.5 million Guilders, as part of a new national policy requiring all former gas factories to be responsible for part of the cleanup. However, most former owners and private companies generated the pollution when it was perfectly legal to do so under Dutch law. Under Dutch law, one is not responsible for pollution if you caused it before 1975. [41] As the previous owner of the site, it appears as if the central city government will be responsible for the remaining half of the cleanup costs.

Status of the Cleanup Plan: The formal cleanup plan for Westergasfabriek was completed in Fall 1997, although the process of negotiating with the national minister for funds is still in progress. The mayor has sent a letter endorsing the project to help secure the necessary funds.

It is hoped that future technology will allow the water and soil to be cleaned further or that the chemicals will break down due to natural attenuation. Recent water samples at the nearby Oostergasfabriek indicate contamination levels lower than would be expected, suggesting that natural processes in soil partially mitigate contamination.[42] The park still bears a degree of risk, but the community is confident that the measures taken by the city are sufficient to protect public health.[43] The community group, Friends of Westerpark, would have preferred remediating the soil to the highest levels possible, but recognized that the cost of this process is far too high, and that the proposed plan is still consistent with national laws and policies.[44]

Local Land-Use Authority & Institutional Controls

Responsibilities of the central city government include the city's comprehensive land-use plan, along with essential municipal services such as police, fire, water supply, and public transportation.[45] Under Dutch law, every city is required to develop a comprehensive zoning plan, which must be approved by each district and regional government. The State or Province coordinates regional plans for the central government. The Province must also approve each city's plan for housing districts and determine if they are consistent with Dutch law. If the Province rejects a plan, the national government reviews it.[46]

In the Netherlands, zoning is based on spatial planning law. The process to change the zoning of a site is very difficult and requires the input of all community members and approval by the district council. Zoning imposes limits to those general uses in a particular geographic area. While the seller of a property must inform potential buyers of contamination on a site, the buyer must also perform their own "due diligence" investigation of the property.

Cleanup Plan Registry

As a result of the new soil cleanup law, every cleanup plan is registered with a central organization, "het Kadaster," which keeps precise track of each owners parcel and its specific boundaries. Each municipality maintains a branch office where this information can be obtained. Every cleanup plan since 1995 is required to be filed with the Kadaster. Any buyer can contact the Kadaster to find information on a site's soil cleanup plan. This information can also be obtained from the appropriate province or municipal environmental department.[47]

Institutional Controls

Although there is no formal scheme of institutional controls,[48] it is doubtful that property could be conveyed without informing the prospective owner about the existing contamination and the relevant environmental officials about the transfer of ownership.[49] In theory, if a property was conveyed within a very short period of time, there is a slim chance that information about soil pollution may not appear.

Residential development in the Netherlands involves many official approvals and processes. Beyond the soil protection law, Dutch housing law regulates the various aspects of home building. Once a site is approved for housing, a building permit must be obtained that requires soil tests. While building permits are obtained from the district council, soil cleanup plans are obtained from the province or one of the Netherlands' four major cities.[50] Should a new owner decide to change the land use from industrial or commercial to housing, for example, the central city's government and district council's spatial zoning laws would apply. Thus, these zoning laws along with the Dutch housing laws and the soil protection act, would make it very difficult to build housing on contaminated property without the proper approvals.

Community Involvement

An essential ingredient to the success of Westergasfabriek is the high level of community participation and the creation of strong relationships among all of the primary stakeholders: the district council, the project team, and the various community groups. As the level of trust has evolved through the different planning and redevelopment stages, a consensus has emerged about the cleanup plan, the temporary uses of the buildings, and the long range plan for the park.

Creating consensus, however, was not easy. As with any land development proposal, a number of competing interests arose about the temporary cultural uses and the long-term plan for the park. The district council chairman, Ruud Grondel, worked hard to establish trust among the different groups by giving the citizens ample opportunities to share their ideas and desires (see Interview with Ruud Grondel). The Westergasfabriek project team also spent countless hours coordinating and participating in neighborhood project meetings. They organized several forums and designed competitions to test creative ideas about the park's future uses. Together, Ruud and the project team were able to create a collaborative decision-making process that helped facilitate consensus within the community.

Westerpark Community Background

Villages in the Westerpark district are physically bounded by canals and the park. Within Westerpark, the railroad separates two distinct areas, the Staatsleiden and the Spaarndammer neighborhoods. Both areas have distinct architecture and cultures, and consequently, have different desires for the park.

Staatsleiden is more trendy, containing a higher percentage of artists and musicians. The area was originally established by students and revolutionaries, and maintains a strong historical connection with its people. A long history of squatters also exists in this sector. The Spaarndammer community is predominately a blue collar neighborhood comprised of labor housing dating from the 1890s to 1930s. Because of the buildings' age, they are considered historical monuments and cannot be altered according to national law. Although access to the park is poor from this district, it is the only green space available in the area. Thus, residents of the Spaarndammer community possess a strong sense of ownership over Westerpark, as well as a strong desire for traditional park uses. By comparison, most of the new residents to the Westerpark district settle in Staatsleiden because of its higher quality of housing.

Friends of Westerpark: Community Leaders

With members in both neighborhoods, the Friends of Westerpark has influenced the entire rebirth of Westergasfabriek, and has become the largest and best organized movement. The influence of the Friends has grown as more and more citizens have become interested in Westergas and have brought their ideas and concerns to the process.

The Friends are an advocacy group that represents the neighborhoods' views about the park works to influence the district council and, if necessary, the central city government. The Friends does not act as mediator, but rather serves as a liaison between the community and the Westergasfabriek project team.

The Friends grew out of an earlier group called the "Westerpark Overleg" or discussion group for Westerpark.[51] The group's leaders initially came together around 1985 to oppose a plan that would have expanded the railroad tracks and destroyed most of the old park. They successfully fought the railroad expansion and forced the city to promise the neighborhood a park. As part of these early discussions about Westerpark, a project group was formed that included key local government officials, real estate developers and community members. Around the early 1990s, about the same time the Westerpark Overleg attained success against expansion of the tracks, news came that the city utility company would soon vacate Westergasfabriek. This new development added further complexity to the neighborhood dynamics and the discussions about the future park plan.

During these early discussions, the community activists did not fully appreciate that creating a park plan was only an initial step. Outstanding issues needed further resolution included: registering the historical buildings, assessing the contamination, maintaining the buildings, and finding funding. Although the local district council tried to provide guidance, citizens were frustrated and impatient. Tension arose over the reuse of Westergasfabriek. The Spaarndammer residents felt that expenditures by the central city government for a culture park were short-sighted and unfair; the park might favor one neighborhood over another.[52] Although they were willing to compromise on certain issues, each discussion brought more confusion. Additional regulations or problems were uncovered, and new members joined without understanding the history of what the group had previously addressed. One community leader observed that perhaps a typical "Dutch" problem had arisen, namely too much community involvement since these discussions did not create any sense of agreement.[53]

The Competition of Ideas

In 1992 the district council announced a competition to gather preliminary ideas about the park's future. As it was the district council's goal to make a decision within a year, the competition generated a rash of community meetings. Meetings took place every month, and all government activities revolving around the park were discussed. Sometimes sessions were heated, as differences of opinion were aired and arguments erupted.

Community members were roughly divided into two factions: those interested in using the buildings; and those interested in the park. Artists wanted to keep the buildings. Other groups wanted recreational uses for the park, such as playgrounds, tennis courts, and a skating path. The common objective among these groups was to create a meeting place where people could interact with each other. However, their interests were somewhat divergent.[54]

Another primary community concern was the city's plan to temporarily rent the buildings. In addition to concerns about contamination, noise, traffic, and pollution, residents felt that instead of a park, the city was giving them a "cultural Disneyland." The intent had shifted from a local amenity to attracting visitors from outside the neighborhood. The Friends felt that Westerpark should be part of a larger ecological plan connecting the inner city with the greener outskirts and should serve as a transportation route for wildlife. At the onset of the project, the Friends held the opinion that renting the buildings for cultural purposes would add little value to the neighborhoods. However, sustainability is also an important consideration for many citizens, and the project group felt that job creation must compete with other goals.

Ruud Grondel, the district council chairman, worked to establish trust among the groups, and organized several "speak ins" and open meetings. The district's goal was to involve as many diverse citizen groups as possible to avoid the dominance of "meeting tigers." The Friends of Westergas were active and well-received, but the district council also felt it was important to seek participation from other members of the community.[55]

A Final Park Plan

As the community pushed the district council to start formal work on the park plan, discussions took place about the balance between a passive versus active park. A trip was organized to Emscher Park, a similar site in Germany, as well as to other sites around Holland to gather possible ideas for Westerpark.[56] The Friends of Westerpark selected representatives from more than 500-600 citizens to join members of the district council and project team in forming a new "Park Workgroup" that would examine options. Citizens filled out questionnaires to vote for their favorite park design as part of a formal competition. Although the citizen vote on the five designs was split, the competition jury and project team eventually recommended the design by architect Kathleen Gustafson that would bring the park to life.

Despite the tensions present throughout the decision-making process, community members felt good about this open, park-planning process. The Friends of Westerpark were key figures in helping to choose the final design and were instrumental in spreading the word concerning the project throughout the neighborhood.[57] The community had ultimately adopted a very pragmatic approach to redevelopment. Without public funds to complete remediation, creating a park turned a potential industrial wasteland into a place for everyone to enjoy. The vision of Westergasfabriek is on the road to becoming reality.

Conclusion

The ongoing project at Westergasfabriek holds important lessons for any community taking on the challenge of urban revitalization. In many ways, European countries, such as the Netherlands, have been at the forefront of redevelopment because of the high density of its cities. This need for space, combined with an appreciation of industrial and cultural heritage, has led to creative solutions that preserve history while rethinking options for productive land use.

Perhaps the most important lesson Westergas teaches us is that an open and inclusive process is the key to a successful redevelopment project. Having people who both understand the community's needs, as well as take ownership of its many complexities to see the project through is crucial. Redevelopment must often be done in stages in order to account for changing economic, political, and social needs and conditions. A vision for the site where questions about the appropriateness of future land use by the community must be resolved and a clear plan presented and followed.

As it winds its way toward a new phase of completion, Westerpark's success will lie in the citizens' acceptance of this old relic transformed into a modern-day park. Perhaps the process to come to agreement on urban land use is just as important than the actual result, in which case Westerpark is an outstanding example. In any event, one should utilize the model it presents to examine opportunities closer to home.

Endnotes

1 Westergas was owned by the Amsterdam Utility Board from 1898 until 1992.
2 Change for the People? with the People, Conference Proceedings, May 16-18, 1994, vol. 9, p. 60.
3 Change for the People? with the People, Conference Proceedings, May 16-18, 1994, vol. 9, p. 60, Ontwikkelingsplan voor de Westergasfabriek, Stadsdeel Westerpark, Amsterdam 1996.
4 Interview with community member Joost Vermeulen (hereinafter Joost Interview).
5 Interview with central city government's Environment Department (hereinafter van der Pal Interview).
6 Interview with chairman of the local District Council, Ruud Grondel (hereinafter District Interview).
7 Amsterdam's central city government devolved some of its authority in 1990 by creating local district councils. The district elects a council and the council elects an alderman or chair. Eighty percent of the tasks of the councils involve street cleaning, housing, education, land-use planning, and general governmental duties like processing passports. The district council is also responsible for building and land-use permitting.
8 District Interview.
9 District Interview.
10 For the district council, the loss of the modem music center was a serious blow. It undercut the commitment of the central city government which was essential in getting the necessary funds for the park. From the community perspective, people had serious doubts about the music center idea and whether it had enough value for the surrounding neighborhood.
11 Joost interview.
12 Given these general frustrations, the district council felt the need to coordinate and consolidate their contacts with the various departments of the central city government (e.g., the mayor and the various aldermen in charge of environmental issues, finance, and culture). As a means to help move this project forward, the central city appointed a coordinating alderman to centralize the City's decision-making on the project. Previously, no specific person had oversight of the Westergas project.
13 On occasion the project team encountered resistance from other divisions within local government. For example, the TTA theatre group had trouble obtaining a building permit because it lacked sewer capacity. The central city building department denied them permission to connect to the sewer system because of the existing pollution on the site. The project team, however, was able to successfully negotiate the installation of sewer lines in spite of the contamination.
14 Verhagen, Evert. Westergasfabriek website, "Extended Text" http://www.westergasfabriek.nl Exit EPA
15 The West Pacific Café and Nightclub is a restaurant which has been involved since the beginning of the leasing period.
16 Verhagen, Evert.
17 Westergasfabriek: A Development Plan, 1996, p. 13.
18 District Interview.
19 Verhagen, Evert.
20 Polder-lands are a type of wetland or bog created by the Dutch as part of their tradition in reclaiming land from the bay.
21 The development of the park is currently underway, although final decisions have yet to be made regarding the total budget. District Interview.
22 District Interview.
23 District Interview.
24 District Interview. The project team hopes that these negotiations for a private partner, who will be responsible for physical upgrades as well as rental operations, will conclude by the fall of 1998.
25 About 80% of the site would be owned in this manner. This is a common practice in Amsterdam where only 20% of the land that was sold before 1900 is exclusively owned by private individuals or organizations. Roughly 80% of the land in Amsterdam is publicly owned, but privately leased. After the lease expires, the land automatically reverts to the govemment and the government reaps the benefits of any increases in property value, but they must buy the fixtures and buildings from the private owner.
26 District Interview.
27 Visser, Wilma. Contaminated Land Policies in Some Industrialized Countries. Technical Soil Protection Committee, The Hague, Jan. 1994.
28 van der Pal Interview.
29 The City of Amsterdam's Environment Department advises the 16 district councils and the central city government. The National Minister of the Environment has delegated administrative responsibility under the new soil protection law to the 12 provinces and the 4 major cities (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Utrechtt and Hague). These 4 cities have the same rights as the 12 provinces, while other cities in the Netherlands must apply to their provinces for cleanup approvals. The four major cities and 12 provinces have the responsibility to administer the soil protection law (van der Pal interview). Smaller cities may petition the National Minister to obtain this delegation authority, but attention must be paid to ensure that future land uses are consistent with cleanups.
30 The environmental department used the Westergasfabriek project as an example to change the law on the environmental cleanup policy. As a result, the policy was changed from requiring complete cleanups to allowing for partial cleanups that meet certain criteria. Obviously, this approach is considerably less expensive. It had been Amsterdam's policy to assess land use and cleanup on a case by case basis for several years before the law was changed. This process was conducted without violating the federal law because the city communicated frequently with the federal ministry and sought special permits and approvals stating that the city's actions were within the boundaries of the law. Although there was conflict with the ministry over the cleanup levels from time to time, national regulations were never violated.
31 van der Pal Interview.
32 van der Pal Interview.
33 District Interview.
34 The Westergas site was one of many exemplary sites used to persuade the legislature to change the law.
35 van der Pal Interview.
36 Joost Interview.
37 van der Pal Interview.
38 The council intends to make an agreement with the private partner to comply with all three levels of zoning, land-use conditions, and permits for the year, etc., van der Pal interview.
39 van der Pal Interview.
40 van der Pal Interview.
41 van der Pal Interview.
42 van der Pal Interview.
43 Research conducted in Holland finds that trees with roots in polluted soil will not transport pollution through the leaves. However, the study emphasizes that its investigation process is not as thorough as those completed by U.S. EPA.
44 Maarten Grondel from Friends of Westerpark (herein after Friends Interview).
45 The mayor is appointed by the "national government" which establishes a strong relationship between the local and central government. District Interview.
46 Another key provincial duty is the collection of taxes; 90 percent of taxes are collected at that level and redistributed to local governments according to set formulas. Local taxes account for the remaining 10 percent of taxes collected, although that amount is growing. District interview.
47 The environmental department does not send the entire cleanup plan to the Kadaster, but a notice that documents approval of the plan. Only Holland's four major cities have environmental departments with delegated authority to keep a register of cleanup plans.
48 Institutional controls are legal mechanisms employed at contaminated sites to ensure that human and environmental health will be protected as long as contamination remains on site.
49 van der Pal Interview. Regulations are being developed to protect public health at risk-based cleanups and to trigger more cleanup if land uses change in the future. Working groups at the national level are currently discussing these issues.
50 In the future, Amsterdam hopes to streamline this process by delegating the soil cleanup responsibility to the district offices. The greatest obstacle in doing so is guaranteeing that the relatively small district offices have the expertise to run these programs. Decentralizing this authority would require more engineers and technical staff, etc., van der Pal interview.
51 When the city council installed the direct council to take the lead with Westerpark in 1990, the power and influence of this project group dissipated. The Friends of Westerpark eventually grew over the next several years from the core leaders from Westerpark Overleg. Friends Interview.
52 Although the majority of the Spaarndammerbuurt representatives supported the cultural uses of all existing buildings and oppose demolition, integrating cultural activities into the long-term park plan could be seen as primarily benefiting Staatslkiedenbuurt community.
53 Joost Interview.
54 District Interview.
55 District Interview.
56 District Interview.
57 District Interview.

Using This Site | About PDF | Site Archive
Please email comments on this website to:Brownfields-Web-Comments@epamail.epa.gov

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.