Micro Urbanism in Flanders, architecture policy and urban practice for villages

MICRO URBANISM IN FLANDERS, Architecture policy and urban practice for villages

Since the Flemish government announced the 'betonstop' (concrete stop) in 2017, the discussion on sprawl and urbanisation in Flanders took a new turn. 'Betonstop' is used to label the intention to stop developing green fields and open space as of 2040. The concept is rooted in a broader policy spatial framework for the whole of Flanders (Beleidsplan Ruimte Vlaanderen) and is a response to European goals for open space protection and sustainable land use. While the concept of 'Betonstop' is not yet translated in actual planning instruments and lacks the necessary budgets to support such ambitions, it became part of a general debate in Flemish households, well beyond the confines of experts and academic discourse. The multitude of newspaper articles, televised debates, the attack and eventual resignation of the then minister of spatial planning show how the discussion entered the political stage and the minds of Flanders households,especially those with house ownership. The impact of the 'betonstop' on land value, the unclear timing and sometimes clumsy communication by policy makers created concerns with many and propelled the planning term in the every day language of the general population. Two years later the authorities coined the term 'bouwshift' (building shift) to reframe the goal and shed some of the negative connotation of the original concept, without drastically changing the actual policy goal.

Rural areas, villages and small towns are at the forefront of the 'betonstop' challenge. If we accept the adagio in current planning policy making that denser cores around well served multimodal transporthubs need to receive most of the urban growth, the future of many villages and rural areas becomes precarious. The predominant argument by small town majors and rural advocacy organisations such as the Boerenbond and the Landelijke Gilden is that existing financial regulation on how tax money is distributed amongst cities and communes, puts large pressure on small town budget policy, who are facing larger responsibilities, soaring pension costs for former staff and increasing expenses for – amongst others – declining agriculture economy, climate change adaptation, poverty mitigation and infrastructure maintenance. Their answer to the financial sustainability of their commune is development, based on the probable yet not always proven assumption that extra dwellings attract new families and thus additional tax incomes.

This focus on growth puts tensions on the relation between local policy makers at the commune and village level versus the provincial and Flemish level. With the translation of the Flemish Spatial Policy Plan (BRV) to the provincial scale well on its way at the start of 2020, rural areas start to understand the impact on their current approach towards development of their villages and towns, raising the stakes and the protests. What is missing in this polarised debate is the actual quality of the urban context, landscape and village identity. Where real estate value and policy finances are at stake, the quality of existing villages is not the strongest concern. Though many villagers and some administrations and politicians have raised the concern about what is being lost and how radical some villages are changing, most of our urban practice for villages can be situated in that realm. How can we build advocacy around the quality of village urbanism and what instruments are effective in guiding often small administrations in such processes?