See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233087253

Mixed-use Development: Theory and Practice in Amsterdam's Eastern

Docklands

Article  in  European Planning Studies · October 2005

DOI: 10.1080/09654310500242048

CITATIONS READS

49 1,885

2 authors, including:

Eric Hoppenbrouwer
Province of Drenthe
4 PUBLICATIONS   98 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Eric Hoppenbrouwer on 28 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 European Planning Studies

ISSN: 0965-4313 (Print) 1469-5944 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceps20

Mixed-use development: Theory and practice in

Amsterdam's Eastern Docklands

Eric Hoppenbrouwer & Erik Louw

To cite this article: Eric Hoppenbrouwer & Erik Louw (2005) Mixed-use development: Theory
and practice in Amsterdam's Eastern Docklands, European Planning Studies, 13:7, 967-983, DOI:
10.1080/09654310500242048

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310500242048

Published online: 19 Jan 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1871

Citing articles: 30 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceps20
European Planning Studies Vol. 13, No. 7, October 2005

Mixed-use Development: Theory and

Practice in Amsterdam’s Eastern
Docklands

ERIC HOPPENBROUWER & ERIK LOUW


Bureau Stedelijke Planning B.V., Klein Amerika 18, Gouda, The Netherlands

Delft University of Technology, OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies,
Delft, The Netherlands

[Received May 2004; accepted September 2004]

ABSTRACT During the last few decades mixed-use development has become an important planning
paradigm in various European and North American cities. However, the concept of mixed-use is
ambiguous in both theory and practice. In this paper a typology of mixed-use developments is
revealed to identify its major components. This typology is then applied to the case study area
Eastern Docklands in Amsterdam which is a major urban transformation area in which the
concept of mixed-use development has been implemented. It is concluded that in this area there is
a good deal of mixing between housing and employment, but it is still unclear whether the
strategic goals are reached.

Introduction
The principle of mixed use should be promoted, especially in city centres, so as to
introduce more variety and vitality into urban fabric. Housing and work areas, as
well as other compatible uses, should be closely related in time and space so as to
reduce the need to travel, conserve energy and reduce pollution. (ECTP’s New
Charter of Athens, 1998)

Since World War II, town planning in many European and North American cities has
been considerably influenced by the principles of functionalism, expounded by the inter-
national movement of CIAM (Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne). CIAM
advocated the ‘Functional City’ in which the four main functions of the city (housing,
employment, recreation and transport) were clearly separated. The resulting townscapes,

Correspondence Address: Erik Louw, Delft University of Technology, OTB Research Institute for Housing,
Urban and Mobility Studies, PO Box 5030, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 0965-4313 print=ISSN 1469-5944 online=05=070967–17 # 2005 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080=09654310500242048
968 E. Hoppenbrouwer & E. Louw

often referred to as CIAM town planning, sought to increase efficiency and safety by
separating incompatible activities. Poor urban conditions and pollution led to the
segregation of land use. During the last decades, however, there has been a shift in
town planning towards mixed land use and mixed-use development has become an
important planning paradigm in various European and North American cities. In Europe
mixed-use is commonly seen as part of an urban renaissance (Stead & Hoppenbrouwer,
2004) or the compact city concept (Breheny, 1992) and in the US as part of the so-called
New Urbanism strategy (Bernick & Cervero, 1997; Furuseth, 1997; Gyourko &
Rybczynski, 2000). It is seen as a significant instrument to create and maintain attractive,
liveable and sustainable urban environments. The concept of mixed-use is, however,
ambiguous (Rowley, 1996) and, according to Grant (2002, p. 71), “has become a mantra
in contemporary planning, its benefits taken for granted”. This ambiguity is found in both
theory and practice.
As well as a theory of good urban form, mixing use forms part of a wider strategy
for sustainable development. Grant (2002) argues that although mixing uses seems a
relatively straightforward concept, a closer look at the objectives and strategies of the
advocates of mixed-use reveals at least three conceptual levels. The first level is increasing
the intensity of land use by, for instance, encouraging a mix of forms and tenures of
housing. This social mix objective is more popular in North America than in Europe.
Grant’s second level involves increasing the diversity of uses by encouraging a compatible
mix. In many cases a mix of commercial or office uses with residential uses is seen as
a mix which may generate synergy effects. The third level involves integrating segregated
uses and is about overcoming regulatory barriers, mostly concerned with environmental
impacts, noise, or traffic. The three conceptual levels reveal the ambiguity of mixed-use
in that they refer to various contexts in which mixed-use is used: environmental, social,
design and institutional.
In planning practice we find documents which adopt the view that mixed-use has a
number of benefits and identify various types of policies that might help to promote
mixed-use development (for an overview of UK and Dutch documents see Stead and
Hoppenbrouwer, 2004). The basis on which the UK government supports mixed-use devel-
opment in planning policy statements is illustrative of the two general reasons for advancing
mixed-use development (see Figure 1). The first general reason for promoting mixed-use
development is to reduce the need to travel by providing for a range of requirements in
close proximity. A concentration of activities makes the integration of activities possible,
while at the same time providing for a combination of potential traffic flows between
these concentrations based on the application of efficient traffic systems (Priemus et al.,
2000, p. 99). However, the concentration of various urban functions does not only affect
mobility flows, but also the urban territory itself. The second general reason for promoting
mixed-use development is its contribution to urban diversity and vitality. Mixed-use devel-
opment offers opportunities to improve the quality and attractiveness of the urban area—for
example by increasing use, activity and vitality during the day, in the evening and at week-
ends. There may also be benefits in terms of preventing crime and promoting security.
However, mixed land use is not a panacea. Grant (2002) states that mixed-use promises
economic vitality, social equity, and environmental quality, but it cannot readily deliver
such benefits in a context where cultural and economic forces promote the separation of
land uses. One such economic force is the real estate sector. According to Coupland
(1997), developers are rather unwilling to proceed with mixed uses because they prefer
 Mixed-use Development 969

Figure 1. Benefits of mixed-use development. Source: Coupland, 1997 (Originally: Department of

the Environment, 1995)

safe, reliable investments which yield solid returns over an extended period instead of
risky investments in mixed-use development. Hirt (2003) shows that in Cleveland,
Ohio, the ‘rhetoric’ of mixed land use is almost absent from zoning codes and that this
gap between rhetoric and practice widens from the city core to the periphery (see also
Talen & Knaap, 2003).
In addition, certain activities still demand separation from other uses, particularly
residential. For example, heavy industry is generally incompatible with housing
(Angotti & Hanhardt, 2001), although contemporary industries are becoming cleaner
and quieter than older industrial premises. Therefore, mixed land use and diversity does
not automatically lead to vitality. Lynch (2000, p. 192), for instance, states that too
much diversity leads to an abundance of offerings resulting in urban stress. Finally, formu-
lations of mixed-use development are insufficient in terms of urban design alone. It also
comprises non-design features such as the urban experience, the nature of uses, definitions
of public and private, conflict and security. In this context, Lynch (2000, p. 192) states that
mixed-use and diversity are desirable in the abstract, but they cannot be identified or
measured until one knows how people perceive differences.
Yet, in spite of these constraints, mixed land use is generally seen as an important
instrument in town planning for achieving attractive, vital cities and its benefits are
largely taken for granted. Rowley (1996, p. 95) begs us to “treasure mixed-use diversity
and grab any opportunities to create exemplars of mixed-use developments, to test and
educate”. Coupland (1997) concludes that mixed-use development is no panacea, but its
contribution to continuing to improve towns and cities should not be underestimated.
970 E. Hoppenbrouwer & E. Louw

In this paper we are not going to argue about the pros and cons of mixed-use
development. Instead, we develop and apply a typology of mixed-use development in
order to get a better understanding of the concept of mixed-use. In order to make this
analysis manageable we focus on two primary land uses, namely housing and employ-
ment. From this the paper addresses three questions. (1) What are the components of
mixed-use in theory? We will address this question from a planning and design perspec-
tive and develop a typology. (2) Which of these components are implemented in our case
study area (Oostelijk Havengebied or Eastern Docklands) in Amsterdam in the Nether-
lands? From the 1980s onwards various forms of mixed-use were implemented in this
large waterfront redevelopment area near the city centre which is regarded as a successful
project in the Netherlands. (3) How is mixed land use perceived by entrepreneurs? With
this question we will elaborate on Lynch who states that not only the mix itself but also
the nature of mixed uses and the perception of the mixed-use design are important.
This paper is structured as follows. First of all we look at the ‘theory’ of mixed land use
and, more specifically, of the key elements of which mixed-use is composed. Based upon
these key elements, we will develop a typology in which these elements are integrated.
After this theoretical exercise we come to the more practical part of this paper and turn
to our case study Eastern Docklands in Amsterdam. We will analyse the types and
amounts of housing and employment and focus on the urban design, the nature of uses
and the perception of the entrepreneurs in the area. We end with conclusions about the
way in which our typology helps to understand the concept of mixed-use and some theor-
etical notes about the implementation of mixed-use concepts.

Mixed-use in Theory
While much has been written about mixed land use in practice, little has been said about
mixed-use in theory. In 1961 Jane Jacobs argued in The Death and Life of Great American
Cities that a fine-grain mixing of diverse uses creates vibrant and successful neighbour-
hoods. According to Jacobs, a balanced mix of working, service and living activities
provides a lively, stimulating and secure public realm. Jacobs makes a distinction
between mixed primary uses and mixed secondary uses. By primary uses she means resi-
dential and major employment or service functions—any land use that generates a large
number of people moving through an area. These primary uses produce the demand for
secondary uses—shops, restaurants, bars and other small-scale facilities. The resulting
movements between these uses will occur at different times, forming tidal ebbs and
flows. According to Jacobs this leads to a better distribution of demand over the day,
adding to local diversity in contrast to a public realm which is occupied by one type of
land use which will be used only at certain periods during the day.
Since the publication of The Death and Life of Great American Cities the term mixed-
use development has frequently appeared in planning literature. However this term is
hardly defined. The Urban Land Institute (1987) defines a mixed-use project as a coherent
plan with three or more functionally and physically integrated revenue-producing uses.
However, a combination of two functions can also denote mixed-use development. But
what is a function? CIAM advocated four main functions of cities: housing, employment,
recreation and transport. As one defines mixed-use as the opposite of CIAM-town
planning than a mix of two or more of these functions can be defined as mixed land
use. However, in the mixed-use literature many more functions are discerned. Grant
 Mixed-use Development 971

(2002) for instance also includes a mixture of social and private housing and a mixture of
housing types in her definition of mixed-use. In the Netherlands however this mixture
is not seen as part of mixed-use.
In addition to the various types of land use there is the geographical scale of mixed-use
development. Jacobs refers to mixed-use at the neighbourhood scale, while Coupland
(1997) refers to the scale of a building-complex and Grant at the local scale. So, urban
functions can be mixed at various spatial levels. In addition, functions can also be
mixed in time. When a particular space is used by two or more functions after each
other, one can speak of a sequential use of space. For example, a school can be used as
a community centre in the evening and a theatre can be used for conferences during the
daytime and as a cinema in the evening (see also De Wilde, 2002). So, the dimension
of time refers to the fulfilment of multiple functions within a certain time-period: an
hour, 24 hours, week, month, season, year, etc. It is clear that the longer the time-
horizon, the larger the mix of functions. When we focus on the functions of housing
and employment, it is clear that these functions can be mixed in various ways at different
spatial scales and at different times. A house, for instance, where over 24 hours one lives
and (tele)works can be characterized as a mixture of housing and employment at the
lowest spatial level. On the level of a building-complex these activities can also be
mixed, with, for example, shops and offices on the ground floor of the building and resi-
dences above. But also on the scale of an inner city, housing and employment are mixed,
complemented by a whole package of other functions. Even on the scale of a city different
mixed-use environments can be distinguished, each with their own mix of functions.
There are other aspects to mixed-use besides functions, geographical scale and time.
According to Grant (2002) mixed land use involves increasing the diversity of uses
within the fabric by encouraging a compatible mix, which generates synergies and does
not create conflict. Economists define mixed land use in terms of the synergy and agglom-
eration effects between different but complementary activities (Nijkamp et al., 2003).
Mixed land use tends to increase the kind of combinations and interactions—physical
and social as well as visual—that also supports urban vitality and quality. This quality
is measured as an increase in land valuation through an adequate mix of spatial functions
(Lagendijk, 2001). In the Dutch context, where land is seen as scarce, the improvement of
spatial quality in terms of design is seen as an essential condition to mixed land use and
intensive land use. Mixed-use definitions often refer to intensive land use and multiple
land use. However, intensity does not necessarily denote mixed-use and can also refer
to monofunctional use, while multiplicity implies multifunctional land use and intensive
land use. Also in analytical terms there is a divergence between the density and diversity of
land uses (Harts et al., 2003). A manageable definition by Priemus et al. (2000) for mul-
tiple land use is “the fulfilment of multiple functions within a certain space and a certain
time”. This definition could also be applied on mixed land use. The difference between
mixed land use and multiple land use, is that mixed land use is mainly used in an urban
context, while multiple land use is both used in a urban and rural context. In this sense
Lagendijk (2001) notes that the concept of mixed land use has moved from its original
association with urban development and the compact city.
Rowley (1996) has created a comprehensive conceptual model of mixed land use and
development, mainly based on the internal texture of a settlement. In this model several
of the aspects of mixed land use as mentioned earlier are combined. First of all it
comprises the key features of the settlement texture: grain, density and permeability.
972 E. Hoppenbrouwer & E. Louw

The grain of a settlement refers to the way in which the various different elements of a
settlement are mixed together in space. Roberts and Lloyd-Jones (1997, p. 159) define
grain as “the size of the urban block and the subdivision of the block”. A fine or close
grain refers to a settlement where like elements are widely dispersed among unlike
elements and a grain is coarse when extensive areas of one element are separated from
extensive areas of another element. Moreover, an abrupt transition from a cluster of
like elements to unlike elements points to a sharp grain and a gradual transition to a
blurred grain. Density is inextricably bound up with mixed-use and grain. The density
of intensity or activity is dependent on the number of users as well as the mix of uses.
According to Jacobs (1961) medium to high residential densities of between 100 – 200
dwelling units to the net acre are necessary to maintain vitality in cities. Permeability
refers to the notion that good urban development allows a ‘democracy’ of choice in
pedestrian movements through it, as derived from the layout of roads, streets and paths.
Next to these key features of settlement, Rowley also added spatial scale into his model,
making distinctions between buildings, street blocks, streets and districts. Moreover, he
also distinguishes between four types of locations where mixed-use are found or may
be promoted: city/town centre, inner urban areas, suburban areas and greenfield areas.
Rowley even recognizes three approaches to maintaining or promoting mixed-use
settings: (1) conservation of established mixed-use settings; (2) gradual revitalization
and incremental restructuring of existing town areas; and (3) comprehensive development
or redevelopment of larger areas and sites.
Rowley’s model provides a good basis for conceptualizing mixed-use development,
although certain adjustments need to be made. First of all, Rowley’s model primarily
focuses on one particular dimension, i.e. mixed-use between buildings on the flat
surface. We will call this the horizontal dimension. However, we need to consider other
dimensions as well. To begin with, we must include the shared premises dimension.
Basically this refers to multifunctional use at a particular point, i.e. premises in a building
or dwelling used by one household. More and more people work at home as employee or
self-employed which in fact can be interpreted as a more private and informal way of
mixing housing and employment at one point in space. Louw and de Vries (2002) state
that this could even be considered the ultimate form of mixed-use, as it combines two
functions within the walls of a single building. In this context we see home-working
property as a typical example of this shared premises dimension. Next, we need to
consider the vertical dimension: building underground and multi-level building. Land
uses are often vertically mixed by building two or more functions above each other, a
well-known example being housing over shops (Goodchild, 1998). This layered use of
land is often referred to as multiple land use, because the ground surface is being used
for more than one function. Finally, there is the dimension of time, which is not integrated
within the model of Rowley.
Moreover, Rowley’s division of scale needs to be reconsidered. Street and street
block denote the same scale and the scale level of a city is missing. In addition,
Rodenburg et al. (2003) define multifunctionality on the basis of quite similar indicators,
but bring forward another important element. The element within the settlement texture
that should be included is the interweaving of land uses, i.e. the extent to which urban
functions are dispersed within a bounded area. Rodenburg et al. explain this by an
example of a grocery store divided into four single units scattered over an area. Although
the four units belong to one type of land use the interweaving of functions in the area
 Mixed-use Development 973

Figure 2. A conceptual model of mixed land use for four dimensions

974 E. Hoppenbrouwer & E. Louw

Table 1. Components of mixed land use: dimensions versus scale

Building Block District City

p
Shared premises dimension p p p
Horizontal dimension p p
Vertical dimension p p
Time dimension

increases, since the number of territories increases, while the number of functions
is only one.
On the basis of Rowley’s model and the corresponding comments we have developed a
typology for mixed land use for the functions of housing and working (which can be easily
extended with other functions) and composed of scale, urban texture and dimension
(see Figure 2). This typology has been developed from a spatial perspective and represents
four dimensions: (I) the shared premise dimension, (II) the horizontal dimension, (III) the
vertical dimension and (IV) the time dimension. They symbolize mixed-use at a particular
point, on a flat surface, vertically clustered and in sequential order. Next to it, urban scale
is included, subdivided into building, block, district and city. This is a very broad subdivi-
sion, but the increase in scale is clear and all kinds of mixed-use developments can be
fitted into one of these types. Moreover, the urban texture has been included, with
grain, density and the interweaving of functions as main components. In Tables 1 and 2
the most likely relations between the four dimensions and the scale and urban texture
are presented. When we combine dimension with urban scale (Table 1) it is not surprising
that mixed land use on the horizontal dimension takes place at the higher scale of districts
and cities, while mixed-use at a particular point, by vertical clustering and shared in time
represents the lower scale of buildings and blocks. The combination between dimension
and urban texture shows that the shared premise dimension is only linked to density,
while all three components are relevant for the horizontal dimension (Table 2). For the
shared premises, vertical and time dimensions, the interweaving of functions is not
relevant, because it is about the number of separate territories within a bounded area.
A wide variety of mixed-use projects can be positioned under this multi-dimensional
typology, while at the same time it takes account of important components like urban
scale, urban texture and urban functions. Although the typology could be extended with
other aspects such as type of location (town centre, suburban, greenfield, etc.) or type
of occupation, for convenience of comparison, the typology remains restricted to four
components (function—in our case housing and working—dimension, scale and urban
texture) to avoid it becoming too complex and unwieldy. However, taking notice of
other design features could certainly be helpful in the concept development of mixed

Table 2. Components of mixed land use: dimensions versus urban texture

Grain Density Interweaving

p
Shared premises dimension p p p
Horizontal dimension p p p
Vertical dimension p p
Time dimension
 Mixed-use Development 975

land use. Moreover, formulations of mixed-use development are insufficient in terms of

urban design alone. It also comprises other non-design features such as the urban experi-
ence, the nature of uses, definitions of public and private, conflict and security. According
to Lynch (2000, p. 192) “a good environment is a place which affords obvious and easy
access to a moderate variety of people, goods, and settings, while this variety can be
expanded if a person wishes to expand further energy—an explorable world, whose
vast diversities can be sought out or ignored at will”. In spite of these marginal notes,
our typology allows a better insight into the different mixed land use concepts and
identifies some important features, which should be used in analysing mixed-use.

Mixed-use Development in the Eastern Docklands

The compact city concept and a restrictive building policy has been at the heart of Dutch
planning policies for the last two decades, aiming to prevent uncontrolled urban sprawl
and to encourage urban renaissance (Dieleman et al., 1999). The compact city concept
has been implemented by intensifying the use of land within existing settlements and
concentrating greenfield developments to within existing built-up areas. Mixed-use
development has been part of this policy since the mid 1980s. It was implemented in
large cities such as Amsterdam and Rotterdam, aimed mostly at mixing housing and
employment. This was in part a reaction to the monofunctionalism of earlier urban
renewal programmes, which where primarily focused on housing. Later programmes
also involved the renewal or redevelopment of some industrial and service premises,
but the focus was still on housing.
The municipality of Amsterdam started to implement the compact city concept in the
1980s. In 1984 the municipality published the draft structure plan ‘De stad centraal’
(Focus on the City) in which compactness and mixed-use were officially introduced as
policy goals (Gemeente Amsterdam, 1984). On a smaller scale the implementation of
this policy had already begun some years earlier. The main aim was to stop the decreasing
number of inhabitants by increasing the quality and quantity of the housing stock and
improving the level of employment. In the city centre mixed-use development was
aimed at the service sector and small companies.
The first plan to redevelop the Eastern Docklands was drawn up in 1980. The Eastern
Docklands consists of some artificial peninsulas developed around 1900, adjacent to the
inner city of Amsterdam (see Figure 3). It was traditionally a prosperous harbour for
the transhipment of general cargo and bulk goods. When this area gradually lost its
harbour function during the 1970s, it was decided to transform the area into a residential
area. An important precondition was the commitment of the local government to a
compact city with additional urban development in close proximity to the city. A mix
of uses was always the purpose. Initially, it was intended to develop several small-scale
industrial and commercial estates mainly to accommodate businesses, which were
obliged to relocate because of mono-functional urban renewal policies.
In 1990 the local government modified the original plan (Gemeente Amsterdam, 1990).
The most important change was to develop small-scale business spaces for offices,
workshops and studios on the ground floor of apartment blocks and home-working pre-
mises. This would increase the area’s vitality and would also be a way of achieving an
attractive urban environment. The scheme included approximately 8500 dwellings,
approximately 100,000 square metres of commercial spaces (offices, businesses and
976 E. Hoppenbrouwer & E. Louw

Figure 3. Map of Amsterdam and Eastern Docklands (with its sub-areas)

a shopping mall) and approximately 20,000 square metres of educational and service
facilities. Most of the commercial spaces are situated near the city centre (the western
part of sub-area Oostelijke Handelskade). The area has an urban character with high build-
ing densities of 100 dwellings per hectare of land. This is high compared to the 30 – 40
dwellings per hectare in the newly built residential greenfield areas designed in the
same period.
The Eastern Docklands consists of 11 sub-areas (see Figure 3). Three sub-areas are
industrial estates—Cruquius, Zeeburgerpad and Veemarktt—of which only the Veemarkt
area has been redeveloped. Cruquius and Zeeburgerpad remain unchanged. With the
 Mixed-use Development 977

exception of Oostelijke Handelskade, all the other sub-areas are mainly residential and
have been completed. Each sub-area was built over a period of about 5 years, starting
in 1987 in Abattoir, followed by Entrepot, KNSM (1990 – 1995), Java 1994 – 2001,
Borneo-Sporenburg (1997 – 2002) and Rietlanden (completed in 2003) respectively.
Much attention has been paid to the urban design of the area. In the Netherlands
the Eastern Docklands is well known for the architecture of its buildings. The area is a
reflection of changing insights in urban design and architecture (Koster, 1995). Each of
the sub-areas reflects the architectural and urban design concepts and developments of
its time. Abattoir is a typical urban renewal area with lots of standardized social
housing of the 1970s and 1980s. The new housing in KNSM is “of an unprecedented
monumentalism in the Netherlands” (Koster, 1995, p. 8). On the contrary Java bears
resemblance to the historic canals in Amsterdam. In Borneo/Sporenburg there are
mainly high-density low-rise dwellings with some experimental lot divisions. These
changes also reflect the shift in Dutch housing policy during the 1990s from social
housing to private housing development. This means that more dwellings were built in
the private rented and owner-occupancy sector. Although the emphasis of the develop-
ment was on new construction, some old buildings were preserved and reused. In Abattoir
some warehouses were converted into dwellings. In KNSM and Rietlanden several build-
ings also survived. The main shopping centre in Rietlanden is established in a former
warehouse, while there is a design and artist centre in Loods 6 (Warehouse 6) in
KNSM. Also, several small office buildings have been preserved and were converted
into dwellings or small commercial premises.
During the development of the Eastern Docklands the way in which mixed-use devel-
opment was implemented changed. In the 1980s the focus was on the horizontal dimension
of the district or neighbourhood level. In this period Abattoir was developed as a residen-
tial area with social housing and Veemarkt as a small industrial estate. According to the

Table 3. Planned and developed components of mixed land use in Eastern Docklands by sub-area:
dimensions versus scale
Eastern
Building Building-block docklands Amsterdam

Shared premise Java

dimension Sporenburg/
Borneo
Rietlanden
Horizontal Entrepot Entrepot Zeeburgerpad
dimension KNSM Rietlanden Cruquius
Rietlanden Veemarkt
Abbatoir
Vertical Sporenburg/ KNSM
dimension Borneo Java
Rietlanden Sporenburg/
Borneo
Time Sporenburg/
dimension Borneo
978 E. Hoppenbrouwer & E. Louw

CIAM-functionalism, on a high spatial level this could be seen as mixed-use development.

During the 1990s the focus moved to the vertical dimension (particularly in KNSM) and
later to the shared premise dimension. In Borneo/Sporenburg most of the ground floors of
the low-rise dwellings were designed to accommodate small businesses. This shift in
dimension also reflects the change in the scale of mixed-use development: from district
to block and ultimately to the building level. This development is illustrated in Table 3
in which the possible forms of mixed-use (dimension versus scale) are shown as a box
(see also Table 1). In each box the sub-area in which this form is implemented is
named. All possible forms of mixed use, except the time dimension at the building-
block scale, are implemented. The change in scale shown in Table 3 also means that
the interweaving of housing and working has been intensified. At the same time the
grain has become finer and closer, although in the case of home-working property the
grain can hardly be observed. In contrast to Borneo/Sporenburg mixed-use development
in Rietlanden consists of a mix of dimensions (shared premise, horizontal and vertical),
scales (building and block) and grain (rather course between blocks).

The Entrepreneurs and Mixed-use

The typology helps us to analyse the Eastern Docklands in a systematic way. Yet, the
analysis occurs mainly from a design perspective (physical aspects), although functional
aspects are also important. We will now examine one of these functional aspects, that is
the type of businesses that have settled in the Eastern Docklands and the perception entre-
preneurs have of the area. To conduct this research the municipal real-estate database was
matched with the employment database. With this dataset we analysed the type of
businesses, the type of accommodation for each company and employment in the area.
From the dataset a structured random sample was drawn for a telephonic survey. The
survey was structured because we wanted companies in the survey from all sub-area’s
and in both dwellings and commercial premises. For the survey only companies in the
residential sub-areas were selected. The companies in the three industrial estates were
excluded because these areas were not developed as part of the mixed-use development.
Also, the companies in the shopping centre and public services were excluded from the
survey because they cannot be seen as primary types of employment for mixed use.
They are present in every neighbourhood irrespective of whether the area has been
developed as a mixed-use area or not. In total 210 companies were interviewed.
At the beginning of 2002 the Eastern Docklands had 1541 businesses and institution
employers in total, with 4197 full-time employees and 408 part-time employees (see
Table 4). Small companies dominate the area—62% have one or two employees. Large
businesses are mainly established in the industrial estates, while small-scale businesses
are basically located in the residential areas. With more than 1600 full-time jobs in the
residential areas, the mixed-use policy has been successfully implemented. In 1987 the
estimate was 800 jobs. Most of the employment is within the service sector, particularly
in the residential sub-areas. In traditional sectors such as manufacturing and trade most
jobs can be found in the industrial estates.
The high proportion of small companies reflects their accommodation (Table 5), in that
almost half of the companies have its domicile in a dwelling (shared premises dimension).
For the residential area this share is almost three-quarters. Most of the other companies in
the residential areas occupy commercial spaces on the ground floor of apartment blocks
 Mixed-use Development 979

Table 4. Percentage of companies and employment in the Eastern Dockland by sector in 2002

Companies Employment (full time)

Total area Residential area Total area Residential area

Manufacturing 13 10 22 8
Trade 11 6 10 4
Crafts 6 6 3 4
Finance and insurance 4 5 1 2
Media and ICT 18 23 10 18
Consultancy 28 35 24 31
Other offices 5 4 4 7
Public services and shops 15 10 24 24
Other 2 0 1 0
Total 100 100 100 100
N 1541 956 4197 1626

(vertical dimension). The changes in the implementation of the mixed-use policy are also
evident in the data (Table 6). On the one hand shared premises mixed use is much higher in
the more recently developed neighbourhoods than in the older Abattoir neighbourhood.
On the other hand the share of companies on the vertical dimension is zero in Abattoir
and 35% in KNSM. In the neighbourhoods built after KNSM this share drops to 20%.
Although this seems to be the result of a shift in mixed-use policy, the shift in housing
policy should also be kept in mind. Dwellings in the private sector are normally larger
and more expensive, and therefore more suitable for small businesses than social
housing. In Rietlanden 46% of the companies are located within commercial spaces,
which is much higher than in Borneo-Sporenburg. This reflects the great diversity of
mixed-use components in the sub-area: home-working property, housing over shops,
office buildings and the shopping centre (see Table 3).
In the telephone survey entrepreneurs were asked about their perception of the Eastern
Docklands and their motives for settling there. Three-quarters of the respondents were
accommodated in a dwelling. In general, entrepreneurs were very satisfied with their
accommodation and location in the Eastern Docklands. The accessibility by car and the

Table 5. Share of companies by type of accommodation in the whole area and in the residential
neighbourhoods
Eastern Docklands Residential areas

Dwellinga (shared premises dimension) 49 71

Homeworking propertya (shared premises dimension) 1 1
Commercial spaces (horizontal and vertical dimension) 34 18
Unknown 16 10
Total 100 100
a
Homeworking property is especially developed as a shared premises dimension type of mixed use. Some dwell-
ings are developed with the possibility to include some space for commercial activities. The shared premises
dimension is not enforced by the construction and these limited spaces can also be used for residential purposes
(see for this distinction also Louw & De Vries, 2002).
980 E. Hoppenbrouwer & E. Louw

Table 6. Accommodation of companies in residential neighbourhoods (neighbourhoods

ordered by age)
% Companies in a % Companies in a % Dwellings with a
dwelling commercial space company

Abattoir 100 0 5
Entrepot 73 27 6
KNSM 65 35 8
Java 74 26 12
Borneo/Sporenburg 80 20 12
Rietlanden 54 46 4
Total residential areas 73 27 9

location close to the city centre were highly appreciated. Next to it, entrepreneurs posi-
tively assessed the quality of the built environment. The urban structure and architectural
design were also highly appreciated. They were much less satisfied with the dense sur-
roundings (40% stated that the density is too high) and the parking facilities, which
appeared to be insufficient (47% said these are bad). Only 5% of the entrepreneurs
stated that mixed-use development was inconvenient to their company.
The analysis of the survey also revealed that entrepreneurs in business accommodation
have more commercial motives to settle in the Eastern Docklands than those in dwellings.
For instance, they gave higher preference to accessibility, closeness to clients and the price
of accommodation and location. Entrepreneurs in dwellings saw image and aesthetic
qualities as an important motive to settle their business in the Eastern Docklands.
Housing preferences were also mentioned as motives for settling businesses. Some even
mentioned a combination of housing and working as an important reason to choose the
Eastern Docklands. This implies that although the Eastern Docklands have been
developed as a mixed-use area, the image is more like a residential area.

Conclusions
In this paper we attempted to give an impetus to the ambiguous concept of mixed land use
by means of a typology and applying it to the Eastern Docklands in Amsterdam. This
typology was based upon the scheme from Rowley (1996), yet extended with some
other key features. Our typology entails four aspects: urban functions, dimension, urban
scale, and urban texture. When analysing mixed-use developments these are important
elements, which should be taken into account. The proposed typology gives us a better
insight into some typical characteristics of mixed land use and helps us to analyse a
mixed-use area in a more systematic way. The typology also forms a research tool for
comparing different types of mixed-use areas. Yet, it operates mainly from a design and
planning perspective, although functional aspects are also important. However, the
typology could be useful as a basis for analysing functional aspects by examining for
example the perception of users in one type of mixed-use area discerned in the typology.
We applied the typology to the Eastern Docklands renewal district in Amsterdam. This
area is a comprehensive redevelopment area, which was transformed from a harbour area
into a mixed-use area. It was concluded that the planners’ emphasis shifted from mixed use
in the horizontal dimension at the district level to mixed use in the shared premises and
 Mixed-use Development 981

vertical dimension. There were no attempts to implement the time dimension in mixed use,
although the development of home-working property can be seen as an example of this
dimension. When working spaces in dwellings can be used for housing this flexibility
in time is clearly present (Louw & De Vries, 2002).
The grain of the area could be marked as fine and sharp. Businesses are interwoven in
the residential area, while there is a rather abrupt transition from housing to the three
industrial estates. The exact density of the study area in terms of intensity of activity is
unknown, but is inextricably bound up with mixed use and grain. Given that the intensity
of activity is dependent on the number of users as well as the mix of uses, and since the
Eastern Docklands has a small range of users, it could be assumed that this area has a low
intensity of activity. However, the interweaving of functions is rather high since the extent
to which urban functions are dispersed within this area is quite large.
In terms of the number of businesses in the Eastern Docklands it seems that the policy of
local government to mix land uses has been successful. Not only does the number of jobs
outnumber the forecasts, but entrepreneurs are also satisfied with the area. However,
businesses in the residential areas are very small and mainly in the commercial service
sector. These services do not bring about the lively, stimulating and secure public realm
Jane Jacobs was talking about, because the number of employees is small, and these ser-
vices do not attract many visitors or create lively street frontages. Therefore these services
have very little direct effect on public life. Moreover, uses that do have the potential to
stimulate social activity such as shops, restaurants and bars are deliberately concentrated
in the shopping centre or within very strict boundaries, according to the land use plan.
Only the design and artist centre in Loods 6 attracts visitors and creates a lively public
realm on a small scale. So the established mix of uses in terms of different activities is
rather limited to a compatible mix without generating synergies. The only synergies
that exist are within the private space, that is the mix of housing and working in the dom-
estic area. It is therefore questionable whether the benefits of mixed use such as promoting
urban vitality are really achieved within the development of the Eastern Docklands.
Does this conclusion mean that mixed-use development in the Eastern Docklands has
failed? Yes and no. No, when we look at the over-enthusiastic endorsements of mixed-
use benefits, which are largely based upon the work of Jacobs in 1961. These benefits
are particularly applicable to town centres. Although the Eastern Docklands is an inner-
city location, it is not the centre of Amsterdam with its shops, museums, restaurants,
offices, etc. However, to some extent the compactness and the urban texture resemble
the city centre. The functions that are allowed are non-conflicting, including some func-
tions that make city centres an attractive place to be and generate crowds on the streets.
The mixed-use development chosen by the municipality is primarily a function-rational
approach to avoid environmental conflicts. The non-compatible land uses of manufactur-
ing and housing are largely confined to higher scale mixing or interweaving on separate
sites and was only implemented at the beginning of the development.
From the viewpoint of entrepreneurs mixed-use policy has not failed. They appeared to
be very satisfied with the mixed-use environment, whereby housing preferences are one of
the most important motives for settling in this area. The intentional pursuit of mixed land
use at a low spatial scale, the urban/architectural design, an attractive living environment
and good accessibility contributed to the success of this area. Referring to our typology it
seems that an area with a mixture of dimensions, a fine and sharp grain, and a high degree
of interweaving has positive impacts on the perception of the area, in this case of small
982 E. Hoppenbrouwer & E. Louw

business. But residents are also satisfied with the area (Bosch & Gadet, 2000) and real
estate agents claim that the Eastern Docklands is very much appreciated as a residential
area.
This double-sided yes and no answer to the rate of success means that mixed-use
development remains an ambiguous concept. We think this is a consequence of the
difference between which goals and ambitions are set and the level on which the
concept is implemented. Much of the reasoning behind mixed-use policies is aimed at
meeting strategic goals and addressing regional and national issues. However, these cen-
trally determined goals require local solutions to deal with frictions between environmen-
tally sensitive and environmentally intrusive functions. In the Eastern Docklands this was
solved by limiting the mix of functions. As a consequence the higher ambitions of mixed
use are not met, but the implementation by the local government has been rather success-
ful, as witnessed by the perception of the entrepreneurs. Probably the emphasis on urban
design has caused this to happen.

Acknowledgements
The research was partly funded by the Municipality of Amsterdam and Habiforum Centre
for mixed-use development in the Netherlands. The authors would like to thank Dominic
Stead for his constructive comments on an early version of this paper, and three
anonymous reviewers.

References
Angotti, T. & Hanhardt, E. (2001) Problems and prospects for healthy mixed-use communities in New York City,
Planning Practice & Research, 16(2), pp. 145 –154.
Bernick, M. & Cervero, R. (1997) Transit Villages in the 21st century (New York: McGraw-Hill).
Bosch, N. & Gadet, J. (2000) Wonen op het KNSM-eiland. Een evaluatieonderzoek naar de woonbeleving op het
KNSM-eiland (Amsterdam: Dienst Ruimtelijke Ordening).
Breheny, M. (1992) The contradictions of the compact city: A review, in: M. Breheny (Ed.) Sustainable
Development and Urban Form, pp. 138 –159 (London: Pion).
Coupland, A. (1997) Reclaiming the city; Mixed Use Development (London: E & FN SPON).
Dieleman, M., Dijst, M. J. & Spit, T. (1999) Planning the compact city: The Randstad Holland experience,
European Planning Studies, 7(5), pp. 605–621.
ECTP (1998) New Charter of Athens; the principles of ECTP for the planning of cities (London: ECTP).
Furuseth, O. J. (1997) Neotraditional planning: a new strategy for building neighborhoods? Land Use Policy,
14(3), pp. 201 –213.
Gemeente Amsterdam (1984) De stad centraal. Ontwerp structuurplan Amsterdam. Het plan (Amsterdam:
Gemeente Amsterdam).
Gemeente Amsterdam (1990) Nota van Uitgangspunten voor IJ-oevers. Plannen voor het Oostelijk Havengebied
(Amsterdam: Gemeente Amsterdam).
Goodchild, B. (1998) Learning the lesson of housing over shops initiatives, Journal of Urban Design, 3(1),
pp. 73 –92.
Grant, J. (2002) Mixed use in theory and practice; Canadian experience with implementing a planning principle,
Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(1), pp. 71–84.
Gyourko, J. E. & Rybczynski, W. (2000) Financing new urbanism projects: Obstacles and solutions, Housing
Policy Debate, 11(3), pp. 733 –750.
Harts, J. J., Maat, K. & Ottens, H. (2003) An urbanisation monitoring system for strategic planning, in:
S. Geertman & J. Stillwel (Eds) Planning Support Sytems in Practice, pp. 315 –329 (Berlin: Springer).
Hirt, S. A. (2003) From the urban core toward the suburban periphery; land use divisions and policies in metro-
politan Cleveland, Ohio. Paper presented at the 3rd ACSP-AESOP Congress, Leuven, Belgium, 2– 12 July.
Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities (London: Pimlico).
 Mixed-use Development 983

Koster, E. (1995) Oostelijk Havengebied Amsterdam/Eastern Docklands: New Architecture on Historic Ground
(Amsterdam: Architectura & Natura).
Lagendijk, A. (2001) Regional learning between variation and convergence: the concept of ‘mixed land-use’ in
regional spatial planning in the Netherlands, Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 14(1), pp. 135– 154.
Louw, E. & de Vries, P. (2002) Working at home: The Dutch property dimension, Planning Practice & Research,
17(1), pp. 17 –30.
Lynch, K. (2000) Good City Form, Originally published: A theory of good city form, 1981, 12th printing
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Nijkamp, P., Rodenburg, C. A. & Vreeker, R. (Eds) (2003) The Economics of Multifunctional Land Use
(Maastricht: Shaker Publishers).
Priemus, H., Nijkamp, P. & Dieleman, F. (2000) Meervoudig ruimtegebruik; Stimulansen en belemmeringen
(Delft: Delft University Press).
Roberts, M. & Lloyd-Jones, T. (1997) Mixed uses and urban design, in: A. Coupland (Ed.) Reclaiming the City.
Mixed Use Development, pp. 149 –178 (London: E & FN SPON).
Rodenburg, C. A., Vreeker, R. & Nijkamp, P. (2003) Multifunctional Land Use: An Economic Perspective, in: P.
Nijkamp, C. A. Rodenburg & R. Vreeker (Eds) The Economics of Multifunctional Land Use, pp. 3– 15
(Maastricht: Shaker Publishers).
Rowley, A. (1996) Mixed-use development: Ambiguous concept, simplistic analysis and wishful thinking?,
Planning Practice and Research, 11(1), pp. 85–97.
Stead, D. & Hoppenbrouwer, E. C. (2004) Promoting an urban renaissance in England and the Netherlands,
Cities, 21(2), pp. 119– 136.
Talen, E. & Knaap, G. (2003) Legalizing smart growth: An empirical study of land use regulation in Illinois,
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22(4), pp. 345 –359.
Urban Land Institute (1987) Mixed-use Development Handbook (Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute).
Wilde, Th. S. de (2002) Meervoudig ruimtegebruik en spoorinfrastructuur; Gebiedsontwikkeling
en voorbeeldprojecten (Utrecht: Holland Railconsult).

View publication stats