All over Europe in the past three decades, the trend has been towards large-scale urban projects. The aim of these systematic interventions, developed in close collaboration between governments and large private investors, has been to strongly direct spatial, economic and social developments in specific sections of cities. Major construction programmes have been implemented around strategic locations in former port areas and at (new) transport nodes, especially those of the growing European high-speed train network. These programmes have involved a combination of offices, hotels, housing, retail, culture, entertainment and new public spaces. Notable projects in the Netherlands have included the Zuidas and the southern bank of the river IJ in Amsterdam and Kop van Zuid in Rotterdam. Comparable goals are being aimed for in projects such as HafenCity in Hamburg, Rive Gauche in Paris, Docklands in London and Donau City in Vienna. A discourse of globalisation and competition has naturally played a major role among the politicians and economic elites who initiated such transformations. They have emphasised the need for positioning cities better as a good place to live for new (and wealthy) residents and for accommodating high-value economic and cultural functions that would otherwise go elsewhere. In short, they have pointed to the importance of strengthening the nodal function of cities, especially in the service economy.

Have these large-scale spatial transformations in the recent past been successful? This is an important question, but in view of the large number and diversity of the projects, one that is not easy to answer. Moreover, one is always faced with the tricky methodological and political question of how success can be measured. Generally speaking these projects have delivered what could be expected in view of their goals. The transformed city districts have indeed been enriched with high-quality residential and office space, facilities for consumers and (sometimes) culture. They have become vehicles for large-scale property investments, and some cities have been able to improve their position in economic networks – obviously at the expense of losses for others. In terms of urban planning, architecture and programme they have often reflected a fairly elitist view of the city. Many of these projects have not been fine examples of democratic participation in the development of their concepts and decision-making. Closed processes that depoliticised projects have been more typical.