Governance and planning in student housing development
An analysis of municipal steering capacity in dutch student cities
N.S.B. Kolli (TU Delft - Architecture and the Built Environment)
W.K. Korthals Altes – Mentor (TU Delft - Architecture and the Built Environment)
M.E.A. Haffner – Mentor (TU Delft - Architecture and the Built Environment)
More Info
expand_more
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.
Abstract
The Netherlands has a chronic shortage of student housing; however, there is inadequate knowledge of governance processes affecting delivery outcomes. There is substantial existing literature outlining the quantitative deficit of student housing; however, there has been limited study on governance processes and their impact on delivery outcomes in relation to the preservation of qualitative goals (shared housing typologies and affordability) throughout the development life cycle via the municipalities' ability to translate negotiated visions into delivery outcomes (influence/steering).
This thesis will investigate how governance methods (soft tools) and planning approaches (hard tools) impact the success of the delivery of student housing in Dutch student cities. It will do so through a qualitative comparative case study by analysing two distinct Purpose-Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) projects (the Pauwmolen project in Delft and the High Five project in Utrecht) that represent different markets but share very different institutional approaches to and rates of construction completion.
Using the framework of an Institutional Steering Chain with a focus on network governance theory and a synthesis of Buitelaar & de Kam’s (2009) success framework, the analysis was conducted in three stages. The lens for this analysis is transferable to other areas of student housing but is not limited to only these areas. The triangulation of data used for the analysis involved elements of policy, planning, and semi-structured interviews (with municipal stakeholders, developers, and student union representatives).
The findings from the analysis indicate that Delft is operating within a facilitative land-based regime consisting of fragmented instruments and no common Normative Vision (for how to achieve student housing success). The result is a mixed outcome for student housing; quantitative goals for delivery have been accomplished, however, qualitative expectations — with respect to the provision of shared housing, tenancies longer than 12 months, and affordability of student housing − have not been fulfilled.
Conversely, Utrecht has developed a layered instrument architecture to guide development through multi-party covenants, conditional zoning regulations, and the creation of a ground lease (to manage efficiency pressures while maintaining other binding commitments associated with the delivery of student housing). The result has been an effectiveness ratio that suggests a high projected level of effectiveness for student housing within a framework of conventional governance and planning methods.
In conclusion, the research indicates that an effective student housing delivery system under extreme market pressure requires the development of layered and redundant governance and planning mechanisms, as well as a combination of proactive legitimacy, ownership of land by public authorities, and the use of conditional legal instruments. The research recommends that Delft establish a multi-party covenant, create a layered governance and planning framework, and work together to conduct national advocacy.