Towards business improvement districts in Denmark: Translating a neoliberal urban intervention model into the Nordic context

Abstract

This paper investigates how business improvement districts (BIDs) are translated into a Danish context. Drawing on a theoretical framework that combines the concepts of travelling ideas, mobile urbanism and neoliberalisation, this paper explores how an actor-network is being constructed to mobilise support for a BID pilot scheme in Denmark. The introduction of BID-inspired concepts in Denmark represents an illustrative case of how mobile urban policies are translated into local contexts as part of continuous processes of neoliberalisation of urban governance and policy-making. In Denmark, the BID model is promoted as a market-based planning tool to support progressive planning goals of supporting town centres as vibrant commercial centres. Furthermore, the BID concept is, among Danish planners, perceived as a useful organisational framework for the construction of public–private partnerships as add-ons to area-based renewal initiatives in order to strengthen local community support. Such interpretations are not only in stark contrast to BIDs implemented elsewhere, but also require a significant reconfiguration of the model to fit local needs. However, despite the strong social focus, the potential negative consequences of implementing BIDs, such as privatisation and commodification of public space, are barely discussed in the current initial stage of translating the BID model into a Danish context. This raises serious concerns about to what extent planners in Denmark unreflectively are copying a policy concept from elsewhere, with little regard to how the concept should be adapted and what it has to offer in a Danish context.

Keywords

Business improvement districts neoliberalisation retail planning spatial planning urban policy mobility

Introduction

Business improvement districts (BIDs) have mushroomed around the globe in the last couple of decades. Since its genesis in 1970 in Toronto, Canada (Wiezorek, 2004), the model has spread to around 2500 locations around the globe (Realdania, 2015), including a number of European countries (Cook and Ward, 2012). There are significant differences in how BIDs have been implemented locally, but generally a BID refers to a geographically delimited area, typically a centrally located business district, in which the majority of commercial property owners or business owners decide to impose a mandatory extra tax. That is, a BID levy, on themselves, in order to finance additional public services within the BID area, such as street cleaning, security measures and area marketing. The end goals vary according to how the BID is constructed. In the USA, BIDs are usually established by commercial property owners with the aim of boosting property values (Ward, 2006, 2007) whilst in the UK, BIDs are more often constructed by business owners seeking to promote increased turnovers of their businesses (Lloyd and Peel, 2013; Ward, 2006). Local authorities predominantly see BIDs as an opportunity to attract inward investments and generate economic growth.

BIDs often play key roles in revitalising trade environments and supporting urban regeneration. The proliferation of BIDs has received substantial criticism for supporting privatisation and commodification of public space in the quest for economic growth (Hoyt and Gopal-Agge, 2007). Labelled as ‘malls without walls’, BIDs are often argued to possess the same exclusionary properties as shopping malls (Eick, 2012), contributing to what Graham and Marvin (2001) have coined as ‘splintering urbanism’. In fact, the spread of public–private partnerships such as BIDs is often considered one of the key indicators of the turn towards urban entrepreneurialism (Harvey, 1989) and neoliberalisation of urban planning and policy-making (Peck and Tickell, 2002; Ward, 2006). Nevertheless, interest in this market-oriented model for urban intervention is growing around the globe, including in the Nordic countries (Cook and Ward, 2012).

Recently, momentum has been built up as reports and analyses have been carried out, and networks and alliances have been formed to push for the introduction of BIDs in Denmark. This paper explores the initial phase of translating the BID model into a Danish context. In our analysis, we draw on two distinct theoretical approaches to shed light on the introduction of BIDs in Denmark. Firstly, following Eick (2012), Sager (2011) and Ward (2006), we conceptualise BIDs as a neoliberal planning instrument, which is being translated into Denmark as part of a wider shift towards entrepreneurial urban governance (Andersen and Pløger, 2007; Hansen et al., 2001) and neoliberalisation of spatial planning discourses and practices (Carter et al., 2015; Olesen, 2014; Olesen and Carter, 2018). We conceptualise BIDs as a case of ‘actually existing neoliberalism’ in planning practice (Brenner and Theodore, 2002).

Secondly, we understand the introduction of BIDs in Denmark as a case of mobile urbanism (McCann and Ward, 2011). Following Tait and Jensen (2007), we conceptualise BIDs as a ‘travelling idea’, which is actively promoted by networks of actors in particular spatial settings. We interpret the BID as a policy concept or idea, which can be translated into local contexts in many ways – ‘“microfitted” to suit local conditions and needs’ (Steel and Symes, 2005: 325). In this way, the BID can be interpreted as an urban assemblage (McCann and Ward, 2011), composed and structured by extralocal as well as interlocal forces (Peck and Tickell, 2002). Inspired by Callon (1986) and Tait and Jensen (2007), we adopt the concept of ‘translation’ from actor-network theory (ANT) in our analysis of the moments or stages in which the BID model is being translated into a Danish context. We acknowledge that policy ideas and concepts do not simply diffuse from one context to another. Actor-networks and the construction of these play an important role in translating ideas and concepts into local settings. In this paper, we explore how actor-networks are formed (Callon, 1986; Tait and Jensen, 2007), and how human actors or transfer agents (Cook and Ward, 2012; Stone, 2004), as well as non-human intermediaries (reports, analyses, etc.), play an important role in translating the BID model into a Danish context.

Our analysis builds on document analysis of planning documents, reports and legal documents (intermediaries) prepared as part of the introduction of BIDs in Denmark. In addition, semi-structured interviews have been carried out with key private and public sector actors involved in promoting the BID pilot scheme, in order to gain insights into these actors’ perception of the BID model, and how this model can be translated into a Danish context. Furthermore, one of the authors of this paper has been actively involved in preparing one of the reports, documenting the potential economic benefits of introducing a BID scheme in a Danish town. This paper thus combines a practice-based and academic perspective on the translation of BIDs into a Danish context.¹

We conclude that the translation of the BID model into a Danish context still is in the phase of ‘problematisation’, in which the actor-network seeks to reframe the BID model in order for it to address relevant challenges in Danish spatial planning. In many ways the BID model is an illustrative case of the inherent contradictions which characterise contemporary processes of neoliberalisation (Tasan-Kok and Baeten, 2012). On the one hand, the model is argued to support progressive planning goals in Danish spatial planning of supporting town centre shopping environments in competition with out-of-town shopping centres. On the other hand, the model is promoting shopping mall-like features in town centres, such as commoditisation and privatisation of public space. The introduction of BIDs in town centres comes with the risk of producing exclusionary and elitist urban environments, in which public space is turned into a commodity for consumers, whilst contributing to an increasing splintering of urban space. So far, this critical issue has been worryingly absent from the Danish debate on BIDs, which raises concerns about the extent to which Danish towns and cities will experience the full magnitude of the negative side-effects of introducing BIDs which have been documented elsewhere.

Mirroring similar development trends as elsewhere, the Danish variant of the BID is being customised and discursively framed to fit local needs and values, while maintaining its inherent neoliberal characteristics. The BID model is integrating and mutating with existing policy concepts, such as urban renewal schemes, which partly contribute to the legitimisation of the model. What is most striking is perhaps that the BID model is being translated into Danish spatial planning without any discussion of the potential negative consequences of introducing BIDs. In this way, the Danish case mirrors Cook and Ward’s (2012) findings from Sweden. This does not mean, however, that the BID model is being adopted unreflectively, as considerable work is being put into integrating the model with existing policy schemes. However, the level of reflection is rather one-sided (or strategic!), in the sense that the primary focus has been on how to adopt the model rather than questioning what the model has to offer. The relevance of the model in a Danish context is simply taken for granted in a policy environment, which in the last couple of decades has become increasingly neoliberal.

The recent liberalisation of the Danish Planning Act has made out-of-town shopping developments possible, and as a consequence a decline in centrally located shopping centres is expected. Meanwhile, it is the very same (neo)liberalisation of Danish spatial planning that promotes the demand for BID-like planning instruments. The BID model therefore constitutes a neoliberal fix to a neoliberal problem. In this context, the BID model seems to represent a more politically legitimate model for supporting the economic vitality of town centres in comparison to traditional top down planning regulation, which increasingly has come under pressure in Denmark (Olesen and Carter, 2018). In many ways, the BID model represents the latest common-sense policy concept to be promoted in Denmark as part of the continuous neoliberalisation of urban governance and policy-making.

The paper is structured as follows. Firstly, we discuss the widespread adoption of BIDs across the globe, and argue that this phenomenon can be understood as part of a wider neoliberalisation of urban governance and policy-making. Drawing on Callon (1986), Tait and Jensen (2007), Ward (2006, 2011) and others, we then build a framework for analysing the translation of BIDs into a Danish context. Secondly, we set the context for the analysis by introducing key challenges in Danish spatial planning, and describe how retail development traditionally has been regulated in the Danish Planning Act. Thirdly, we analyse how the BID model is being translated into a Danish context, drawing on Callon’s (1986) sociology of translation. We end the paper by discussing the Danish variant of the BID model, and argue that this model represents an illustrative case of ‘variegated neoliberalism’ in practice.

Business improvement districts, neoliberalisation and translation

The genesis of the BID model can be traced back to Bloor West Village in Toronto. At the end of the 1960s, the establishment of a metro line and shopping areas located outside the city centre challenged retailers in central Toronto, as commuters now travelled underground, and consumers increasingly did their shopping in the new externally located malls. Retailers in the Bloor West Village encouraged the local authorities to pass legislation enabling a local tax in the city centre, in order to finance marketing and physical upgrades of the area. The local authorities supported the initiative and the first BID was created (Realdania 2015; Ward, 2007; Wiezorek, 2004). In a similar way, the first BIDs in the USA were established in New Orleans in 1975 (Ward, 2007). Since the 1990s, the number of BIDs has increased dramatically in North America. It is estimated that two-thirds of the several thousand BIDs in the USA were established after 1990 (Peyroux et al., 2012; Ward, 2007). In particular, the BIDs established in Manhattan, New York, have been highlighted as success stories, contributing significantly to New York’s urban renaissance during the 1990s (Ward, 2011). One of these success stories is the transformation of Bryant Park in Manhattan from a park plagued by crime and anti-social behaviour into a vibrant public space (Madden, 2010; Zukin, 1995). In the beginning of the 2000s, the BID model spread to Europe (Lloyd and Peel, 2013). Today, BIDs are established in countries as diverse as Albania, Australia, Canada, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Serbia, South Africa, the UK and the USA (Cook and Ward, 2012; Peyroux, 2012; Peyroux et al., 2012; Ward, 2006).

The implementation of BIDs has been most widespread in the neoliberal heartlands of North America and Western Europe, and the highest concentrations of BIDs can be found in global cities, such as New York and London (ACTM, 2013), which Peck and Tickell (2002) argue function as centres for the neoliberal ideological rationalisation of competitive globalisation. Following Harvey (1989) and Peck and Tickell (2002), we interpret the spread of BIDs as part of a wider shift towards urban entrepreneurialism, and as part of the continuous process of neoliberalisation in urban governance and policy-making. The BID model itself can be interpreted as a neoliberal planning instrument, as it seeks to transfer service delivery from the public to the private sphere, focuses on the promotion of economic growth, entails private management of public space and includes several policing and surveillance mechanisms with the aim of creating ‘clean and safe’ shopping environments (Lippert, 2012; Lloyd and Peel, 2013; Sager, 2011).

Despite some similarities, BIDs have often been implemented differently in different contexts. Germany is a case in point, where BIDs have been implemented in housing areas in the form of housing improvement districts (HIDs) and in mixed-use neighbourhoods in the form of neighbourhood improvement districts (NIDs) (Brenner, 2010; Eick, 2012).

In our conceptualisation of the spread of BIDs as result of an ongoing neoliberalisation of urban governance and policy-making, we take a point of departure in Peck and Tickell’s (2002) understanding of policy transformations as being structured by extralocal as well as interlocal forces. This implies a recognition of the ‘roll out’ of neoliberalism and neoliberal planning instruments as being constrained by time and space. Larner (2003: 511) highlights the importance of recognising that neoliberalism ‘arrives in different places in different ways, articulates with other political projects, takes multiple material forms, and can give rise to unexpected outcomes’. Peck (2004: 403) makes a similar point, that ‘neoliberalism does not, and cannot, exist in pure form, but only manifests itself in hybrid formations’. ‘Actually existing neoliberalism’ comes in variegated forms shaped by previous policy regimes (Brenner and Theodore, 2002; Brenner et al., 2010). BIDs will not be adopted in their pure and generic form locally, but must meet local needs and challenges. We can expect BIDs in practice to be hybrid constructs, as the generic features of BIDs mutate with existing policy concepts. Likewise, we can expect the governance logic of BIDs to travel into other spaces and policy arenas, as highlighted in the case of Germany.

The speed and intensity by which ideas, concepts and models spread have increased drastically as a result of globalisation (Peck and Tickell, 2002; Tait and Jensen, 2007). As Cook and Ward (2012) point out, policies do not automatically appear in a particular locations. It takes a significant amount of labouring and lobbying to create the conditions in which a new policy can be introduced. Tait and Jensen (2007: 112) hold a similar perspective, arguing that ‘the travel of ideas and their effects has less to do with the ideas themselves and more to do with the actions of numerous actors to import, change and embed the idea in different contexts’. McCann and Ward (2011: xxi) refer to these actors as transfer agents, who seek ‘to take policy models from their own cities and promote them as “best practices” elsewhere or to tap into a global field of expertise to identify and “download” models of good policy’. In this labouring and fertilisation of the ground before a policy concept or idea can be introduced, informational infrastructures and the industry of policy tourism, including conferences and study trips, play important roles in terms of transferring (and translating) mobile policies across time and space (Cook and Ward, 2012).

In our analysis of how the BID model is translated into a Danish context, we take a point of departure in Tait and Jensen’s (2007) conceptualisation of the BID model as a travelling idea. Drawing on ANT and discourse analysis, Tait and Jensen (2007: 114) suggest a two-dimensional framework for exploring ‘how ideas are translated across diverse spaces and into diverse places’. Inspired by ANT theorist Callon’s (1986) sociology of translation, Tait and Jensen (2007: 112) understand ‘translation’ as ‘a far wider process than the adoption (or take-up) of an idea’. For Tait and Jensen (2007: 112), ‘translation’ brings into focus ‘the array of actors, objects and actions that serve to transform the social and natural world’.

Firstly, when an idea is translated into a different context, the idea must be reframed in order to address the relevant challenges and priorities of actors embedded in power-relations in the different context (Callon, 1986). This ‘problematisation’ does not entail a reconfiguration of the idea or model itself, but rather a change of the representation of the model and the problems it is to address. Secondly, a stage of ‘interessement’ follows. During this stage, actors are dis-embedded from existing networks and enrolled in a new network. Thirdly, during a stage of ‘enrolment’, actions are carried out that further stabilise new identities and relationships, ensuring that future actions take place in coordination. Fourthly and finally, a stage of ‘mobilisation’ takes place, which signifies that the network has reached a high degree of cohesion. This situation is characterised by actors, who speak on the behalf of other actors (Callon, 1991). According to Tait and Jensen (2007), a policy idea or concept undergoes these four stages of translation, as it travels from one context to another. While these four stages provide an overview of the mechanics of translation, Callon (1991) also points to ‘intermediaries’ as important constituents of actor-networks. In fact, intermediaries, such as texts, technical objects, embodied practices and money, often allow ideas or models such as BIDs to spread without significant alterations of the idea itself (Callon, 1991).

Drawing on discourse theory, as discussed by Jensen and Richardson (2004), Tait and Jensen (2007: 114) argue in the second dimension of their framework that ‘travelling ideas are articulated within discourses that re-present particular notions of space and place, and which carry certain rationalities and normative assumptions about social life in the sites of the materialisation of these ideas.’ Here, Tait and Jensen (2007) draw on Flyvbjerg’s (1998) dialectic understanding of the relationship between rationality and power to illustrate how travelling ideas carry a baggage as they move across time and space. This suggests, as mentioned above, that we can understand the BID model as a neoliberal policy concept, which includes an understanding of public space as a commodity that can be governed in a certain way in order to maximise profit, and that carries the normative (and even ideological) assumptions that market mechanisms, such as a BID levy, represent a better model for revitalising the economy of city centres.

In terms of transferring the BID model into Denmark, we can expect that a significant amount of translation will be needed, which is where we turn our attention now.

Why business improvement districts in Denmark? Key challenges in Danish spatial planning

The Danish Planning Act prioritises retail development in the town centre and retail planning is regulated strictly, both in comparison to other fields of planning in Denmark and retail planning internationally (Ministry of the Environment, 2011). The current retail regulation was, by and large, introduced in the Planning Act in 1997, in order to prevent the development of retail centres and hypermarkets outside of towns (Ministry of the Environment, 2007). Recently, the retail regulation and the Planning Act in general have been subjected to considerable critique (Olesen and Carter, 2018). The liberal Government elected in 2015 transferred the spatial planning administration from the Ministry of the Environment to the Ministry of Business and Growth as part of a wider (neo)liberalisation agenda (Olesen and Carter, 2018). More recently, the Government has adjusted the Planning Act, including a (neo)liberalisation of retail planning that unbans out-of-town retail centres in order to ‘promote competition’ (Danish Planning Act, 2017: §11e, 3) and ‘well-functioning markets with an efficient retail structure’ (Ministry of Business and Growth, 2017: 9). One of the most significant changes to the new Planning Act is the addition that spatial planning now also should ‘create good conditions for business development and growth’ (Danish Planning Act, 2017: §1, 2). These changes should be understood in the context of a larger shift in Danish politics towards more neoliberal political agendas (Andersen and Pløger, 2007; Carter et al., 2015; Hansen et al., 2001; Olesen and Carter, 2018; Olesen and Richardson, 2012).

Meanwhile, many central town areas in small and medium-sized towns in Denmark are in decline or stagnation, as customer flows decrease and retail businesses close. This is in part due to the expansion of residential suburbia in the 1960s and 1970s and the subsequent development of external retail areas until 1997, followed by edge-of-town developments as well as the ongoing resettlement from rural parts of Denmark to urban areas. However, it is also the result of more recent events.

The financial crisis from 2007 to 2010, followed by a debt crisis from 2010 to 2013, resulted in decreased consumer spending on comparison goods of up to 25% (COWI, 2014). Furthermore, up until the financial crisis, large investments were made in the expansion of sales areas resulting in a surplus of building stock, which today poses a significant challenge, as retail areas are fragmented between out-of-town or edge-of-town retail areas and historic town centres. The retail structure is sprawling and shops are resettling from central areas to greenfield sites in connection to distribution roads (ICP, 2017). This decentralisation is partially the result of the rise in the discount sector, which has increased its market share drastically in recent years (COWI, 2014). Likewise, a growth in the number of so-called large ‘box shops’ has further decentralised retail businesses (ICP, 2014). Finally, internet trade continues to boast yearly turnover growth rates of more than 10%, reducing the demand for physical shops (COWI, 2014; Ministry of Business and Growth, 2015).

In summary, these pressures generate stagnation or decline in many Danish town centres. The challenges are, in principle, similar to the challenges reported in North American and British cities. Looking at these challenges in isolation provides some insights as to why the BID model is promoted as a planning tool for supporting progressive Danish planning goals of resisting decentralisation of retail businesses from the urban core to external locations. In times of neoliberalisation of spatial planning and liberalisation of retail planning, the BID model seems to offer a market-based approach to manage market failures, which previously were managed by the Planning Act.

Translating the business improvement district model into a Danish context

The translation of the BID model into a Danish context is in its early stage. In this section, we analyse two initiatives: (i) the implementation of one of Denmark’s first BID-like projects in Copenhagen, and (ii) the construction of an actor-network promoting the idea of introducing a nation-wide BID pilot scheme.

Towards Denmark’s first BIDs

It is only recently that the BID model has received significant attention outside academia in Denmark. The increased interest can, as mentioned, be attributed to a series of challenges in many Danish town centres, as well as an increasing political interest in more market-based planning instruments as part of a wider neoliberalisation agenda.

The sudden interest in the BID model in Denmark should also be understood in connection to an urban renewal project in central Copenhagen in close proximity to landmarks, such as the opera house, the royal palace, the waterfront and the entertainment district Nyhavn. The urban renewal project has resulted in two refurbished public squares that are operated and maintained by the nearby property owners who have formed a ‘voluntary BID’ overseen by the Municipality of Copenhagen. The organisational setup has been inspired by the Bryant Park Corporation in New York.

During the period of 2011–2016 the pier, Kvæsthusmolen, was refitted with an underground parking garage and aboveground high quality urban space (Realdania By & Byg, 2016). The urban space of approximately 13,000 m² includes a pier planned to host concerts and other cultural events, a main square designed for cafes and an outdoor swimming pool in the harbour. The pier project has been carried out as a public–private partnership and is now managed by a BID-like organisation, Ofelia Beach. One of the three actors making up Ofelia Beach is a subsidiary company of Realdania, Kvæsthusselskabet. Realdania is a Danish philanthropic organisation and a byproduct of the fusion of the largest bank in Denmark and a mortgage bank. Realdania’s stated mission is ‘to improve the quality of life and benefit the common good by improving the built environment’ (Realdania, 2016a). The second actor is the private property management company, Jeudan, which invests in and manages a vast portfolio of office and retail buildings and luxury apartments in central Copenhagen (Jeudan, 2017). The third actor is the Royal Danish Playhouse, which is part of the Ministry of Culture. Simultaneously to the pier project, a second public space along an adjacent street has been upgraded functionally and aesthetically. This second project is also inspired by the BID model (Realdania By & Byg, 2016: 33), and has been carried out by Realdania in collaboration with the Copenhagen Municipality and Jeudan. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the two BID-inspired projects in central Copenhagen.

Figure 1.

The area included in the voluntary business improvement district (BID) scheme in Copenhagen. To the east is the pier Kvæsthusmolen and the Royal Danish Playhouse and to the west the street Sankt Annæ Plads. An obligatory BID levy would require new national legislation. At this point, two property owners (Jeudan and the Ministry of Culture) have set up a BID with a voluntary BID levy in collaboration with the Copenhagen Municipality and Realdania (Google Map Satellite Image adjusted with data from Jeudan, 2015).

The idea of redeveloping the two areas in Copenhagen, through a BID-like concept that involves property owners, local authorities and other actors pooling their investments, was originally conceived by Jeudan. As a major company in Copenhagen, it is part of Jeudan’s business strategy to take part in the development of the city. The property management company presented the BID model to Realdania as a potential model for financing the subsequent maintenance costs of the two public spaces (Kvæsthusselskabet, 2015, interview). Subsequently, Realdania has become a strong advocate for introducing BIDs in Denmark. The director of Kvæsthusselskabet, the subsidiary company of Realdania, explains how Realdania sees it as its role to

…support and facilitate organisational forms that allow the local area to develop itself without someone from the outside intervening and helping with a lot of money. It’s the role of Realdania to make municipalities and private actors understand that you can do this by making a BID. (Kvæsthusselskabet, 2015, interview)

Whilst Realdania has an explicit philanthropic agenda of improving the built environment for the common good, it also operates an investment company, which in 2015 made a profit of over 660 million DKK, thereby increasing its asset value to over 25 billion DKK (Realdania, 2016b: 12). According to the director of Kvæsthusselskabet, there is a clear economic agenda behind introducing BIDs in Denmark. The BID levy should be understood as

…an investment for the businesses. It’s an investment which must have a return in the form of rising property prices or a more attractive area in order for more people to work and shop in the area. […] There’s a private sector which must make profit, and not just a private sector which is to provide extra funding for the public sector to take on those tasks which it no longer can afford. It’s not about privatisation, it’s about understanding this concept. (Kvæsthusselskabet, 2015, interview)

The seemingly contradictory goals of boosting investments and property prices in the name of the public interest seem to be a characteristic feature of the BID model, which seeks to ‘secure the high quality of urban space’, whilst ‘securing the long-term positive development of property values’ (Wulf, 2016: 2). In this regard, the BID model fits within the strand of third-way politics, synthesising right-wing economic policies and left-wing social policies.

In the beginning of 2015, Realdania released a report investigating the legislative possibilities for BIDs in Denmark (Realdania, 2015). The report concluded that although BID-like models are possible in Denmark, an obligatory BID levy is not legally possible. For this reason, a BID pilot scheme holds most promise for the realisation of the BID model in Denmark (Græsdal, 2013; Holck, 2014). As in the case of Sweden (Cook and Ward, 2012), the investigation report was followed by a conference on the topic of BIDs later that year, and several municipalities expressed an interest in the model and in collaborating with Realdania. In the long term, the aim is to enrol the Ministry of Business and Growth in this collaboration and thereby initiate a formal BID pilot scheme in order to test the model’s merits in a Danish context (Kvæsthusselskabet, 2015, interview). In the meantime, the Ministry of Immigration, Integration and Housing has offered funding to selected actors interested in testing BID-like concepts. However, a real BID pilot scheme is yet to be announced and the public sector’s interest in the BID model seems primarily to be at the municipal level.

Establishing a network – Problematisation

A network of actors interested in promoting BIDs in Denmark has been formed around Realdania and the association of Danish municipalities, Local Government Denmark. So far, six or seven municipalities from different parts of the country (urban and rural) have entered the network. At first hand, the municipalities seem to be facing very different challenges; however, this might also constitute an opportunity for showcasing the variety of challenges which the BID model can address. As a prerequisite for joining the network, the municipalities have been tasked to specify their plans for the BID and involve private actors from their respective local settings (Kvæsthusselskabet, 2015, interview). At this point, the municipalities’ preliminary ideas and plans range from implementing BIDs in mixed-use central town areas characterised by a trade environment to single-use business areas. The private actors invited into the BID network are predominantly in the sectors of property management, construction, utilities provision and business and trade networks (Kvæsthusselskabet, 2015, interview). As part of setting up the network, the actors involved went on a study trip to the UK to learn from the British experiences with BIDs. This illustrates the important role of study trips in the process of stabilising new identities and relationships that guarantee that future actions take place in coordination (Cook and Ward, 2012; Lloyd and Peel, 2013).

While the BID model predominantly is implemented to revitalise shopping environments, inspired by the administrative and organisational practices in private shopping malls, this aspect has not been the centre of attention for the local actors in the network. Instead, the BID model’s organisational strength is of interest and functions as the overarching theme, bringing the different actors together. The organisational framework that the BID model provides is seen as key in solving many challenges, including those related to retail planning. For example, the director of Kvæsthusselskabet sees the BID model as a tool to involve citizens in the development of local areas. However, in this perspective citizens are conflated to property owners.

Public dialogue between municipalities and citizens is today done in public meetings and workshops etc. No matter how one might look at these processes, it’s essentially the municipality who sits with the final decision… The municipalities are looking for […] ways to strengthen public dialogue about urban development, and I think that if you have an organisation which is put together in a smart way to represent the local citizens, then you have a new player for the municipality to communicate with – a teammate and an opponent, which might give the public debate about local area development a whole new depth and meaning. (Kvæsthusselskabet, 2015, interview)

This view resonates with the perceptions of the BID model expressed by planning staff in Hjørring Municipality – one of the six or seven municipalities in the actor-network. In Hjørring Municipality, a BID is seen as a potential add-on to the plans for area renewal in a small harbour town and as a tool for citizen involvement – and thereby as a means to fulfil the requirements for state grants for area renewal. Simultaneously, area renewal is seen as a way to increase the democratic legitimacy of the BID. A planner from Hjørring Municipality sees BIDs as a way for the local community to

…take responsibility for those investments that are made in an area. In this way, there’s synergy between areal renewal and BID. It’s an interesting combination, in that we as a municipality make large investments in an area. Then you’ve got the problem: What will happen the day the program ends? Here this model [BID] is quite interesting for anchoring those investments and extending their lifetime. (Hjørring Municipality, 2015, interview)

Therefore, the organisational framework is of particular interest, while the particular purpose of the BID is to be defined later (Hjørring Municipality, 2015, interview). In this way, the public–private partnership dimension in the BID model is perceived as a viable supplement to urban renewal schemes, as it does not burden public finances, whilst still providing an anchoring for investments. Another planner from Hjørring Municipality sees this as an advantage and although the effects of public austerity are felt in Hjørring Municipality, she does not recognise cost savings as the primary goal

Of course it’s expensive and the budgets are tight. So sharing expenses – besides through ordinary taxes – is also of relevance. But it’s actually not the economic aspect that’s driving this. That’s not the way I see it. It’s more that if you have ownership, you also take greater care and you’re taking part in developing new initiatives. So it’s about starting a snowball effect. (Hjørring Municipality, 2015, interview)

In Aalborg Municipality, another municipality in the actor-network, a BID will be introduced as part of place-making efforts to attract investments and rebrand a socio-economically challenged neighbourhood (Aalborg Municipality, 2015, interview). Historically, it has been difficult to attract private investments to the area in which planners in Aalborg Municipality envision a BID. The residential area was previously listed on the official register for ‘particularly vulnerable public housing areas’ also referred to as ‘the ghetto list’ (Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing, 2016). The plans for the BID are part of a wider regeneration effort that is being carried out by Aalborg Municipality in collaboration with Realdania. The municipality hopes that the establishment of the BID will encourage property owners in the area to take a strong social responsibility and collaborate with housing associations and the municipality on the future development prospects of the area (Aalborg Municipality, 2015, interview).

Summing up

With the support of local authorities and property owners, Realdania has set up a ‘voluntary BID’ in Copenhagen in order to showcase the merits of the BID model in a Danish context. The testing of the BID model has received nation-wide attention from actors interested in implementing BID-like approaches. Furthermore, the BID-like model in Copenhagen serves as a springboard for further initiatives, including the publication of a report and a webpage with information on BIDs, leaflets targeted at property owners, a conference with the participation of international BID experts, a study trip to BIDs in the UK and a detailed marketing strategy (Copenhagen Municipality, 2017). The translation of the BID model into a Danish context is still at an early stage and considerable work is being undertaken to match the BID model with the diverse challenges that the different actors face. A network consisting of Realdania, a number of municipalities and partners from the private sector plays a central role in the push for BIDs in Denmark. As this network matures, the actors’ practices become more streamlined and a common understanding of the BID model will emerge. At that point Realdania may, together with Local Government Denmark, request a formal BID pilot scheme based on the early experiences of the actor-network. The network’s persuasiveness may very well determine whether the necessary legislation for BIDs will be adopted in Denmark, and the network’s particular understanding of the BID model may likewise define how the model is translated into a Danish context.

Conclusions: Business improvement districts as variegated neoliberalism

The adoption of BIDs in the UK, and subsequent adoption in countries such as Germany, suggests that BIDs, as a neoliberal planning policy concept, travel to settings that have undergone some form of neoliberalisation, and therefore naturally are more receptive to the strong neoliberal logic that underpins the BID model. Currently, the BID model is being translated into the Nordic countries, which recently have undergone significant processes of neoliberalisation (Ahlqvist and Moisio, 2014; Baeten, 2012; Carter et al., 2015; Mäntysalo and Saglie, 2010; Olesen and Carter, 2018). In Denmark, planning reforms have, since the 1990s, resulted in a gradual shift away from redistributive planning policies towards a more entrepreneurial and market-oriented focus (Andersen and Pløger, 2007; Hansen et al., 2001; Majoor, 2008; Olesen and Richardson, 2012). The current liberal Government’s deregulation agenda must be understood as a further neoliberalisation of Danish spatial planning.

As with other neoliberal policy concepts, BIDs are implemented in variegated forms (Brenner et al., 2010), as the policy concept manifests itself in hybrid formations (Peck, 2004) and mutates with existing policy concepts and agendas. The translation of BIDs into Denmark has been shaped by how planning challenges are perceived and problematised locally. So far, the translation process has been spearheaded by the philanthropic organisation Realdania, which has become a strong advocate for the introduction of BIDs. Realdania’s powerful role in Danish spatial planning is not unproblematic. Recently, the organisation has been criticised for having strong economic interests in the projects it promotes, despite its self-proclaimed philanthropic agendas (Grange, 2014). Furthermore, Realdania seems to play a powerful role in promoting a more neoliberal planning culture in Denmark through its generous funding schemes.

As is usually the case in Danish spatial planning, when Realdania promotes a topic, municipalities follow suit in the hope of securing funding. In this early stage of problematisation, it is interesting that municipal planners first and foremost highlight BIDs’ organisational framework as a useful concept for introducing public–private collaboration in area-based planning initiatives. BIDs are seen as an ‘add-on’ to urban renewal schemes and as a means for anchoring the subsequent maintenance of physical upgrades locally. In short, BIDs are perceived as a planning tool for activating the local community to take responsibility for its own neighbourhood, and for strengthening the social dimension of urban renewal schemes. In this way, the BID model is not only being microfitted to address local challenges, but it is also being dressed up in a ‘progressive cloak’, which effectively depoliticises the BID model as a non-controversial organisational framework. At its current stage, the Danish variant of the BID model seems thus to be more in line with the German BID variations, such as HIDs and NIDs, than the more traditional BIDs implemented in the USA and the UK.

We argue that the particularities of how the BID model is being translated into the Danish context should not be misread as a case in which the strong Danish social welfarist tradition has mitigated the ‘neoliberal aggressiveness’ of the BID model. We believe that such a conclusion is too simplistic and insensitive to the complexities of how neoliberal policy concepts are translated and mutate with existing policy schemes conceived under previous policy regimes. If anything, the planning tradition of supporting town centres as commercial centres seems to allow for an easy co-optation of the well-known Danish pedestrianised public spaces by a BID rationality.

In this context, we find it striking that the BID model is being translated into Danish spatial planning without any discussion of the potential negative consequences of introducing BIDs. This does not mean, however, that the BID model is being adopted unreflectively, as considerable work is being put into integrating the model with existing policy schemes. However, the level of reflection is rather one-sided (or strategic!), in the sense that the BID model is being promoted as a common-sense market based planning instrument to solve market failures. This reflects the strong neoliberal ideology of solving market failures with more market-based initiatives. This raises serious concerns about the extent to which Danish towns and cities will experience the full magnitude of the negative side-effects of introducing BIDs documented elsewhere.

The idea that public space can be commoditised and capitalised is (still) controversial in the Danish context. Furthermore, the exclusionary characteristics of BIDs are in stark contrast to the Planning Act’s aim of securing equal access for all citizens to public and private services in the town centre. In these respects some translation of the BID concept is needed, if BIDs are to gain traction in Denmark. So far very little attention has been paid to these aspects in the BID debate. However, this might be about to change. The Kvæsthusmolen project in Copenhagen has recently been criticised in the national newspaper Politiken for its exclusionary properties, as a delegation of French mayors and urban planners improvising a picnic at the pier were told to leave the premises (Astrup, 2016). Such incidents bring the notion of ‘the public’ into question, and how ‘the public itself is being decoupled from discourses of democratization, citizenship, and self-development and connected ever more firmly to consumption, commerce, and social surveillance’ (Madden, 2010: 188).

Regardless of the form and motivations for implementing BID-like schemes in Denmark, the policy concept is still grounded in a firm belief in the market’s ability to provide public services in a more efficient and attractive manner than the public sector. The introduction of BIDs in Denmark represents yet another example of the continuous neoliberalisation of planning policies and practices in the Nordic countries.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

ORCID iD

Kristian Olesen

References

Aalborg Municipality (2015) Interview with planners in Aalborg Municipality, 6 December.

ACTM (2013) London’s Business Improvement Districts – A Report Prepared for the GLA by Shared Intelligence and the Association of Town & City Management. London: Shared Intelligence and the Association of Town & City Management.

Ahlqvist

Moisio

(2014) Neoliberalisation in a Nordic state: from cartel polity towards a corporate polity in Finland. New Political Economy 19(1): 21–55.

Andersen

Pløger

(2007) The dualism of urban governance in Denmark. European Planning Studies 15(10): 1349–1367.

Astrup

(2016) Det er en offentlig plads – I skal holde jer væk. Politiken, 25 September. Available at: http://politiken.dk/indland/kobenhavn/ECE3399208/det-er-en-offentlig-plads—i-skal-holde-jer-vaek/

Baeten

(2012) Normalising neoliberal planning: the case of Malmö, Sweden. In: Tasan-Kok

Baeten

(eds) Contradictions of Neoliberal Planning. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 21–42.

Brenner

(2010) Private initiatives in German urban development policy. Urban Research & Practice 3(2): 219–228.

Brenner

Theodore

(2002) Cities and the geographies of “actually existing neoliberalism”. In: Brenner

Theodore

(eds) Spaces of Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in North America and Western Europe. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 2–32.

Brenner

Peck

Theodore

(2010) Variegated neoliberalization: geographies, modualities, pathways. Global Networks 10(2): 182–222.

10.

Callon

(1986) Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In: Law

(ed.) Power, Action and Belief. London: Routledge, pp. 196–233.

11.

Callon

(1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In: Law

(ed.) A Sociology of Monsters. London: Routledge, pp. 132–164.

12.

Carter

Larsen

Olesen

(2015) A planning palimpsest: neoliberal planning in a welfare state tradition. European Journal of Spatial Development 58(June): 1–20.

13.

Cook

Ward

(2012) Conferences, informational infrastructures and mobile policies: the process of getting Sweden ‘BID ready’. European Urban and Regional Studies 19(2): 137–152.

14.

Copenhagen Municipality (2017) Koncept for Business Improvement District (BID) (2014-0090045). Available at: https://www.kk.dk/indhold/teknik-og-miljoudvalgets-modemateriale/16062014/edoc-agenda/233e62e6-4e2d-498d-bfc2-2f9b11dadf41/ddbaf641-c96a-4bf9-a572-bf7fd130d345

15.

COWI (2014) Detailhandlen i Provinsbyerne. Report prepared for the Danish Town Planning Institute. Copenhagen: Danish Town Planning Institute.

16.

Danish Planning Act (2017) Lov om ændring af lov om planlægning, lov om naturbeskyttelse og lov om aktindsigt i miljøoplysninger. Available at: https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=191766

17.

Eick

(2012) The co-production of purified space: hybrid policing in German Business Improvement Districts. European Urban and Regional Studies 19(2): 121–136.

18.

Flyvbjerg

(1998) Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. Chicago, IL and London: The University of Chicago Press.

19.

Græsdal

(2013) Notat - Om Etablering Af BID I Danmark Og Forslag Til Bid-modeller. Copenhagen: LETT Advokatpartnerselskab.

20.

Graham

Marvin

(2001) Splintering Urbanism. London: Routledge.

21.

Grange

(2014) In search of radical democracy: the ideological character of current political advocacies for culture change in planning. Environment and Planning A 46(11): 2670–2685.

22.

Hansen

Andersen

Clark

(2001) Creative Copenhagen: globalization, urban governance and social change. European Planning Studies 9(7): 851–869.

23.

Harvey

(1989) From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation in urban governance in late capitalism. Geografiska Annaler, Series B: Human Geography 71(1): 3–17.

24.

Hjørring Municipality (2015) Interview with planners at Hjørring Municipality, 17 December.

25.

Holck

(2014) Business Improvement Districts i Danmark? Copenhagen: Realdania.

26.

Hoyt

Gopal-Agge

(2007) The business improvement district model: a balanced review of contemporary debates. Geography Compass 1(4): 946–958.

27.

ICP (2014) Analyse af detailhandelsudviklingen på Fyn. Rødovre: Institut for Centerplanlægning.

28.

ICP (2017) Detailhandlen og bymidterne – Udvikling og udfordringer. Rødovre: Institut for Centerplanlægning. Available at: http://icp.dk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Detailhandelen-og-bymidterne-Udvikling-og-udfordringer-ICP-maj-2017-1.pdf

29.

Jensen

Richardson

(2004) Making European Space: Mobility, Power and Territorial Identity. London: Routledge.

30.

Jeudan (2015) BID conference Odense. Available at: https://realdania.dk/-/media/Realdania-By/Dokumenter/Realdania-By/5-Peter-Spoer-Jeudan.pdf?la=da

31.

Jeudan (2017) Jeudan koncernen. Available at: http://www.jeudan.dk/om-jeudan/jeudan-koncernen/

32.

Kvæsthusselskabet (2015) Interview with the director of Kvæsthusselskabet, 11 December.

33.

Larner

(2003) Neoliberalism? Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 21(5): 509–512.

34.

Lippert

(2012) ‘Clean and safe’ passage: business improvement districts, urban security modes, and knowledge brokers. European Urban and Regional Studies 19(2): 167–180.

35.

Lloyd

Peel

(2013) International policy transfer: business improvement districts and enterprise zones in the UK. In: Leary

McCarthy

(eds) The Routledge Companion to Urban Regeneration. New York: Routledge, pp. 56–66.

36.

McCann

Ward

(2011) Urban assemblages: territories, relations, practices, and power. In: McCann

Ward

(eds) Mobile Urbanism: Cities and Policymaking in the Global Age. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. xiii–xxxv.

37.

Madden

(2010) Revisiting the end of public space: assembling the public in an urban park. City & Community 9(2): 187–207.

38.

Majoor

(2008) Progressive planning ideals in a neo-liberal context, the case of Ørestad Copenhagen. International Planning Studies 13(2): 101–117.

39.

Mäntysalo

Saglie

(2010) Private influence preceding public involvement: strategies for legitimizing preliminary partnership arrangements in urban housing planning in Norway and Finland. Planning Theory and Practice 11(3): 317–338.

40.

Ministry of Business and Growth (2015) Redegørelse om Detailhandelsplanlægning 2015, December 2015. Copenhagen: Ministry of Business and Growth.

41.

Ministry of Business and Growth (2017) Vejledning om detailhandelsplanlægning: 9. Available at: https://hoeringsportalen.dk/Hearing/Details/60717

42.

Ministry of the Environment (2007) Spatial Planning in Denmark. Copenhagen: Ministry of the Environment.

43.

Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing (2016) Liste over ghettoområder pr. 1. december 2016. Copenhagen: Ministry of Housing, Urban and Rural Affairs.

44.

Olesen

(2014) The neoliberalisation of strategic spatial planning. Planning Theory 13(3): 288–303.

45.

Olesen

Carter

(2018) Planning as a barrier for growth: analysing storylines on the reform of the Danish Planning Act. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 36(4): 689–707.

46.

Olesen

Richardson

(2012) Strategic planning in transition: contested rationalities and spatial logics in twenty-first century Danish planning experiments. European Planning Studies 20(10): 1689–1706.

47.

Peck

(2004) Geography and public policy: constructions of neoliberalism. Progress in Human Geography 28(3): 392–405.

48.

Peck

Tickell

(2002) Neoliberalizing space. In: Brenner

Theodore

(eds) Spaces of Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in North America and Western Europe. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 33–57.

49.

Peyroux

(2012) Legitimating business improvement districts in Johannesburg: a discursive perspective on urban regeneration and policy transfer. European Urban and Regional Studies 19(2): 181–194.

50.

Peyroux

Pütz

Glasze

(2012) Business improvement districts (BIDs): the internationalization and contextualization of a ‘travelling concept’. European Urban and Regional Studies 19(2): 111–120.

51.

Realdania (2015) Business improvement districts - nye samarbejder øger livskvaliteten i byerne. Copenhagen: Realdania By.

52.

Realdania (2016a) Who we are. Available at: http://www.realdania.org/who-we-are/who-we-are

53.

Realdania (2016b) Realdania Årsrapport 2015. Copenhagen: Realdania.

54.

Realdania By & Byg (2016) Kvæsthusmolen og Sankt Annæområdet. Et enestående område midt i København. Copenhagen: Realdania By & Byg.

55.

Sager

(2011) Neo-liberal urban planning policies: A literature survey 1990–2010. Progress in Planning 76(4): 147–199.

56.

Steel

Symes

(2005) The Privatisation of public space? The American experience of business improvement districts and their relationship to local governance. Local Government Studies 31(3): 321–334.

57.

Stone

(2004) Transfer agents and global networks in the ‘transnationalization’ of policy. Journal of European Public Policy 11(3): 545–566.

58.

Tait

Jensen

(2007) Travelling ideas, power and place: the cases of urban villages and business improvement districts. International Planning Studies 12(2): 107–128.

59.

Tasan-Kok

Baeten

(eds) (2012) Contradictions of Neoliberal Planning. Dordrecht: Springer.

60.

Ward

(2006) ‘Policies in motion’, urban management and state restructuring: the trans-local expansion of business improvement districts. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 30(1): 54–75.

61.

Ward

(2007) Business improvement districts: policy origins, mobile policies and urban liveability. Geography Compass 1(3): 657–672.

62.

Ward

(2011) Policies in motion and place: the case of business improvement districts. In: McCann

Ward

(eds) Mobile Urbanism: Cities and Policymaking in the Global Age. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 71–95.

63.

Wiezorek

(2004) Businesss Improvement Districts – Revitalisierung von Geschäftszentren durch Anwend ung des nordamerikanischen Modells in Deutschland? Berlin: Technische Universität Berlin.

64.

Wulf

(2016) Antrag auf Einrichtung des Neuer Wall Hamburg business improvement disctrict - Innovationsbereichs Neuer Wall in Hamburg - Maßnahmen- und Finanzierungskonzept. Hamburg: Neuer Wall BID.

65.

Zukin

(1995) The Cultures of Cities. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.