1. Different roles of public land ownership
The two countries show differences in how public landownership is used to implement densification objectives. Land policy in the Netherlands has historically been characterized by an active role of planning authorities in the land market. Dutch municipalities buy land, prepare it for development, and then sell it to developers. Although public land ownership as a planning instrument became less popular after the 2007 economic crisis, when many Dutch municipalities experienced financial deficits in land sales, it is becoming more popular again. This active approach allows more control over spatial developments, which municipalities use to implement various housing, environmental, and infrastructural objectives.
In the Swiss cases studied, public landownership also plays a role but takes a more long-term approach through ground leases. Some municipalities, like Biel, have a long tradition of using ground leases to implement housing and economic policy objectives. Other Swiss municipalities also increasingly use this strategy to implement densification objectives. Ground leases provide municipalities with increased control over the terms and conditions of redevelopments but also offer a stable yearly income. This highlights that while both countries utilize public land ownership to steer densification, they adopt distinctly different temporal strategies. The Netherlands tends toward a more short-term, immediate control over development projects. In contrast, Switzerland focuses on a long-term approach through ground leases, ensuring sustained influence and stable income over extended periods.
2. Use of Exceptions to Planning Rules
In my case studies, I observed the frequent use of exceptions in the Netherlands in spatial planning. Dutch municipalities can allow landowners to deviate from established land use plans. Landowners are granted a permit to deviate from the land use plan and sign a private law contract with the municipality where the terms and conditions of development are anchored. This allows municipalities to include extra-legal conditions for development that cannot be included in the land use plan. For example, many cities use these exceptions to include higher energy standards in developments. While this flexibility allows planners to adapt to changing needs, in some cases, it also dilutes policy goals, especially related to affordable housing, as immediate project needs override longer-term policy objectives. In Switzerland, deviations from the land use plan are rare. The rigidity can maintain the integrity of long-term planning goals but may also slow adaptation to new challenges or opportunities in urban development.
3. Democratic Involvement of Citizens
Switzerland's direct democratic system significantly impacts planning processes. Although in both countries, planning negotiations in densification projects mainly occur between planning authorities and developers, in Switzerland, citizens can vote on implementing special land use plans. As the implementation of densification projects is thus dependent on general acceptance, public engagement plays an important role throughout the planning process. The cases studied show that the direct involvement of citizens in the planning process can lead to the creation of additional affordable housing, enhancing the chance that the public accepts the densification project. Simultaneously, it may also complicate or prolong the planning process. In contrast, the planning system in the Netherlands does not require a direct democratic vote on spatial planning decisions. Instead, planning decisions need to be approved by the city council, which is democratically elected. The results show that this can lead to faster decision-making but also reduces the influence of citizens on densification outcomes.
