In the 1960s, flexibility was often seen in planning literature as a negative feature, whereas today it is perceived by planners and policy-makers as a positive asset to cope with the challenges of growing complexity, opportunism and diversity in cities. The discussion seems to rest between two approaches. While planning should be flexible to facilitate a non-linear and multi-layered decisionmaking system, implementation should not be too flexible as the public sector might lose the controlling power and the private sector might gain increasing influence in urban development. This paper uses empirical data from case-based research on British, Spanish and Dutch urban regeneration projects, and provides an analysis of the effects of an important feature of flexibility on public-value capturing. Public-value capturing is the level at which public bodies manage to make developers pay for public infrastructure-infrastructure provision, public roads and space, public facilities and buildings, affordable and social housing-and eventually capture part of the economic value increase. This important aspect of flexibility is the level of certainty about future development possibilities before negotiations between developers and local planning bodies take place.

The economic crisis that started in 2009 has negatively impacted in the Netherlands the available financial resources for urban development. Dutch municipalities struggle since then with falling local financial sources, especially since active public land policy, traditionally an important additional financial source, became not so profitable anymore. One supposed effect is the limited degree to which municipalities can nowadays finance public infrastructure that serves wider areas, thus more than one specific development site (i.e. 'large' public infrastructure). Until now, however, there are no data available that support this claim. In this paper, we explore this and the role that developer obligations can play as an alternative, compensating financial source. Developer obligations are in many countries a growing popular public value capturing instrument, but in the Netherlands, a relative new phenomenon. On the basis of surveys, interviews and policy analysis, we conclude that at least a quarter of Dutch municipalities use developer obligations to obtain financial sources for large infrastructure. This seems, however, so far not to compensate for the diminishing of other municipal financial sources. The paper ends with some speculation about the future evolvement of developer obligations in the Netherlands. ARTICLE HISTORY

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Land Readjustment (LR) is often presented as an alternative 'third way' among public and private approaches to governance in urban development. Unfortunately, not much literature analyzes the effectiveness of LR, which depends on its ability to capture land value increases to finance public infrastructure. LR can capture land value increases with taxes and contributions to be levied after the readjustment, and/or with developer obligations. This paper focuses on how non-negotiable developer obligations function within the Spanish LR, and whether they succeed in delivering public infrastructure. The findings also feed into the debates about the effectiveness of public and private governance approaches and the limits of public value capture instruments.

No abstract

No abstract