by  / Inbo

Must’s matrix is firmly geared to urban development by coalition, in other words, the creation of broad-based support. The approach is very much solution-directed. An overview is given of the elements at issue in the renewal process. These elements are subsequently used by the various parties working together to develop an urban design framework. According to the Must strategy, once the elements are known, the creation of coherence in the plan is mainly the task of the designer.

As we see it, more attention deserves to be paid to coherence between the different aspects of a district. By this we mean not just between the spatial components, but rather between the various social, economic and spatial aspects. In theory a district is not made up of separate, independent components; each factor and individual in a district influences the others. We at Inbo have directed our attention to this coherence in an internal workshop. The initiative for this workshop was prompted by a desire to take a broader look at the problem of urban renewal. VROM has indeed indicated that the question of urban renewal must be approached as a whole, as much socially and economically as physically, but in practice this often turns out to be extremely complicated and many plans still concentrate mainly on the physical aspects. We therefore looked for a method which would broaden our way of working and thinking.

The outcome of our workshop also turned out to be a matrix, this time with a strongly analytical character. The matrix incorporates some thirty characteristics of the district involved. Against these characteristics are set nine aspects that are affected by these characteristics, namely public safety, social cohesion, social differentiation, housing differentiation, spatial structure, utility value (physical), economic strength, future value and level of services (economic). These characteristics and aspects are linked to one another by cross-connections, making it possible to use the matrix to analyse problems in a district, to guide the measures taken and to test solutions.

The matrix shows, for example, that tackling nuisance caused by young people not only has a positive effect on public safety, but also improves a number of other aspects of the district, such as the utility value of the environment. Adjustment of the urban design layout also does more than merely improving the spatial structure, for example by exerting a positive influence on public safety, differentiation and cohesion, and utility value, as shown in the diagram below. Spatial designers can take advantage of this in their arguments to support the particular operations they propose.

The matrix is not an end in itself, but a means to broaden our way of thinking and working. We believe that spatial consultants and designers involved in urban renewal should take a broad view, considering more than just the physical environment. As we see it, the starting point for any approach to urban renewal must be the interplay between the different aspects of a district. The practical and solution-oriented steps set out in the Must matrix provide the next step in building the analytical foundation which needs to precede further activity. In this respect the two matrices go well together, helping people involved in urban renewal to tackle their problems. This is our contribution to a broader view of spatial Netherlands, but the country has a long way to go yet. So there is still room for discussion, innovative ideas and initiatives.

Jan Hoedemaker, Douwe Boonstra, Saskia Simon, Jaap Hoekstra and Michèle de Ruiter, initiators of the Inbo workshop
Postscript
The genie is out of the bottle! The matrix is on the move! It seems that in various places in the design field matrices are being reloaded to enable the creation of a tangible, verifiable and controllable representation of reality. The idea is that design decisions can be guided by a matrix. Inbo’s matrix is directed at the acquisition of exhaustive knowledge of everything dynamic and variable. Of course tackling the nuisance caused by young people has a positive effect on public safety, but why and how should the urban designer take account of this fact in his spatial design?

As Inbo quite correctly observes, we mainly apply the matrix to create support within a renewal exercise and to improve and speed up the process. However, the design itself can not be judged by any system of objective quantification. It is after all subject to emotional and subjective forces introduced by all those involved and to the personal interpretation of the designer. The design is therefore difficult to objectivize; there is often no direct connection between cause and effect.

The designer’s most important contribution to urban renewal is his or her knowledge of things that last and are permanent, which is to say built structures and not social or economic structures. The designer operates within a framework with a history, attempting to use specific changes to create a spatial environment which will survive at least the next fifty years. This, over and above my previous argument, is why I favour a public planning process, guided by a matrix and allowing sufficient scope for autonomy in the design.

Wouter Veldhuis, Must Amsterdam