Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The emerging objective to combat urban sprawl has put densification on the political agenda. Simultaneously, the complexity of planning within the existing built environment means that planning increasingly occurs on the project level. Project-based negotiations between planning authorities and landowners, in which agreements between parties are formalized in negotiated land use plans or private law contracts, thus shape the outcomes of densification projects. Considering the potential adverse effects of densification on housing affordability, it is important to understand how this shift towards project-based negotiations affects the ability of planners to secure public benefits such as affordable housing in redevelopment projects. This study uses a neo-institutional framework to analyze the negotiations between landowners and planning authorities and illuminates under which conditions affordable housing is provided. Case studies of six projects in two larger-scale redevelopment areas in the cities of Bern (Switzerland) and Nieuwegein (Netherlands) show this ability is highly dependent on (1) the existence of binding affordable housing targets, (2) landownership by non-profit actors, and (3) the direct involvement of citizens. The cases show a distinction between different types of project negotiations. In the Netherlands, contract-based negotiations can lead to the dilution of affordability targets, while in Switzerland, these targets are implemented more consistently through negotiated land use plans. The findings indicate that a project-based approach to planning may speed up the implementation of densification objectives but comes at the cost of democratic accountability. Instead, to ensure the social sustainability of urban densification projects, the scope of negotiations between planners and developers needs to move beyond cost-benefit considerations to include a broader range of public interests.
Bouwmeester et al. (Mon,) studied this question.