Research: Balancing nightlife and city livability

Besides the pandemic, which has thrown all discussions about the lack of perspective of Rotterdam's nightlife into high gear, friction between nightlife and its regulation by the municipality has been noticeable more often in recent years. Well-known examples are the long-standing (and continuing to this day) bickering over the Schieblock, the collapse of the Ferro Dome plans and the mismanagement of the dispute between the operators of Stadhuisplein and the student flats opposite. These and other incidents prompted the launch of a qualitative study into possible areas of improvement in the relationship between nightlife and the municipality in which the research question was: To what extent can Rotterdam city council balance nightlife facilitation with the liveability of the city in the years to come? While the research thus focused on the regulation of nightlife by the municipality, in practice this also involved questions about the concept of liveability, the values of nightlife, its risks and the prevention of these risks. To answer these research question(s), in addition to an extensive literature review, eight qualitative, semi-structured interviews were held with various stakeholders in Rotterdam's nightlife scene. These stakeholders range from operators to local residents and from municipal advisers to security guards. The variety of positions in nightlife of the interviewees means that the data consisted of varied experiences and ideas about nightlife regulation.

Some (general) recommendations emerged from the study. For instance, it is inherent in a large and growing city like Rotterdam that zoning plans and visions are constantly being adjusted and changed, making long-term commitments to entertainment venues difficult. But, using Schieblock as a perfect example, it is not an unreasonable request to include long-term commitments in the facilitation of some venues, as these can have a positive effect on the city as a whole. And while some risks are also inherent in nightlife, all the research suggests that an overarching, multidisciplinary and regulatory council is most effective in combating them, both in cost and results. However, creating such a body may prove difficult as it requires a change in the structure of the municipal body and the capacity of the council is shrinking. 

Extending (night) permits and opening hours is another complicated discussion. However, both sides of the discussion identified the flaws and possible improvements of the current system as optimal use of permits and municipal capacity is not being made. Because of declining police powers, regulation of the city centre at night is a precarious issue. But experiments like the one in Amsterdam with facilitating better facilities and greater availability of hosts and BOAs has actually led to a decrease in police interventions.

Finally, a key recommendation is to explore the adoption of a dual form of nightlife regulation and facilitation. The N8W8 was identified as promising by all interviewees, although there was also some scepticism about its effectiveness. At the same time, one of the most pressing aspects of improvement for the municipality is the damaging bureaucracy that can arise in governing a large city. It may be wise to explore the formation of a municipal body with representatives from all relevant departments related to nightlife facilitation. This body could streamline the democratic and bureaucratic process, present an unambiguous long-term vision and intensify cooperation with the N8W8. The N8W8 could then become the 'bridge' between the sector and the municipality, while still providing both parties with solicited and unsolicited advice. 

The study concluded that nightlife can enhance a city's social cohesion, facilitate talent development, improve a city's image and bring numerous (direct and indirect) economic benefits. At the same time, there are also several risks associated with nightlife. As a result, however, it appears that facilitating nightlife without compromising liveability is a painstaking process. Nightlife is influenced by safety measures, licensing, trends, drug use, arts and culture policy, population density, infrastructure and more. In addition, the municipality's capacity is also shrinking over the past few years (and expectedly in the years to come). This means increasing pressure on a decreasing number of people to facilitate nightlife and maintain the city's liveability. Added to this, the multidisciplinary nature that nightlife has entails that many different municipal departments have a voice in its vision and facilitation, resulting in a negative bureaucracy and sometimes conflicting interests. This does not mean that improving nightlife facilitation is impossible. By increasing knowledge and experience within the municipality about the daily (or nightlife) operations of the sector (perhaps through intensive cooperation with the N8W8 R'dam) and looking at possible restructuring of decision-making processes, it is possible that effective long-term policies can be made for the benefit of nightlife in the coming years without affecting the liveability of the city. 

This is a summary of Wouter Dorst's master's thesis. Read his full thesis here.

Written by Wouter Dorst (October 2020)