Vibrant Places

Column by Pim Buijs

Many large cities in the Netherlands have their own anthem. Think of Oh oh Den Haag by Harrie Jekkers and Geef mij maar Amsterdam by Johnny Jordaan. Although I have been visiting Utrecht all my life and even work for the city now, I didn’t know that Utrecht also had such an anthem. This is Utereg m’n stadsie by Herman Berkien, sung in dialect just like the other city anthems. The Utrecht anthem starts on top of the Dom, looking down at the city. But the lyrics that stick with me the most are these:

"Utereg m'n stadsie, daar gebeurt van alle hand

Het bruist aan alle kant in het hartsie van het land"

These two lines describe what attracts me, and many others, to Utrecht: its central location, the diversity of places, and its liveliness. Herman says it clearly: it’s buzzing everywhere. But what makes a place vibrant?

Vibrant places are public spaces where there is a lot to do, where many people come together, and where interactions naturally happen. Think of Neude in the evening, Hoog Catharijne on weekends, or the city parks on a warm day. The ability of a place to be vibrant depends on many factors—both social and physical. These factors are described in a recent TNO report: Spatial Design for Social Cohesion (TNO, 2024). Social cohesion is the feeling of being connected to one’s environment and the people in it. A sense of social cohesion contributes to vibrancy: when people feel connected to a place and to those around them, the place naturally becomes lively.

Whether someone feels connected to a place and its people depends on personal factors such as education, culture, and socioeconomic status. But there are also physical aspects that influence social cohesion, such as accessibility, safety, diverse space usage, and attractiveness. As a municipality, we can influence this by shaping public space through design, management, and regulation.

When considering public space for social cohesion, the focus is often on design: more seating areas, oversight, more greenery, space for cyclists and pedestrians, and an emphasis on accessibility. While this is important, conserving public space is just as crucial for social cohesion and, therefore, for a place’s vibrancy. As TNO also points out, well-maintained, functional, and clean spaces enhance social cohesion. Uneven paving, dying greenery, and litter certainly do not contribute to vibrancy. In fact, according to the ‘Broken Windows’ theory in criminology, a poorly maintained public space leads to further deterioration and minor crimes like vandalism, which in turn negatively impacts vibrancy. In short, design determines how vibrant a place can be, but proper management keeps it truly vibrant.

What is missing here, is the role of people in making a place vibrant. The people and how they use the space are the crucial elements. No matter how well a place is designed and maintained, without people, it will never truly buzz with life. This shows the importance of the use of public spaces in its vibrancy.

Public spaces are not always used as intended. Think of swimming in public waters where it’s not allowed, parking in non-designated areas, or causing disturbances. As a municipality, we often try to regulate behavior by placing signs indicating what is and isn’t allowed and by enforcing rules when necessary. We also try to encourage certain behaviors through signs, subsidies, and other initiatives, such as promoting the use of rain barrels or reporting inappropriate behavior.

Sometimes, efforts to regulate behavior in public spaces go quite far. For example, the Partij voor de Dieren in the Utrecht city council proposed enforcing a ban on the use of "elephant paths" (informal shortcuts created by pedestrians) (DUIC, 2023). At the same time, people have their own opinions on how public space should be used. They express this through their voting behavior, by engaging with the municipality, council members, and aldermen, participation, filing complaints, and organizing themselves into interest groups. Sometimes, they take matters into their own hands—for instance, by planting greenery on a lawn near a Gamma store in Utrecht (DUIC, 2024). This was done without municipal approval, and since the plants used were non-native species, they were ultimately removed.

Figure 2: contrast between top-down influence of use and bottom-up guerilla action. Source: DUIC 2023 & 2024

These two examples illustrate a clear tension in public spaces: the top-down planning and maintenance of public space, including the desired behavior, versus the bottom-up needs of certain users. Both aspects are necessary. The municipality of Utrecht, as the legal owner of public space, is responsible for ensuring it is safe and well-maintained. At the same time, public spaces should reflect the needs of society, making it essential for communities to have a say in shaping them. However, changing public space is not a simple process—redesigns and policy changes take time. Additionally, not every individual request can be accommodated; the municipality must balance all interests, not just those who speak the loudest or are first to express their wishes.

One way to bridge this gap is by allowing for modular or temporary use of public space. Currently, public spaces are designed and maintained with the assumption that their use remains constant. For some functions—such as sewage systems, transportation infrastructure, and other vital services—this makes sense. However, there is often room for temporary uses, such as summer terraces, modular green spaces, or small event areas. By incorporating flexible use, we can better adapt public spaces to the needs of users while also encouraging desired behaviors from a municipal perspective.

This creates a dynamic public space. Or, in other words: vibrancy. Because something can only truly be vibrant if it has the freedom to move.

Sources

DUIC. (2023, September 23). Partij voor de Dieren is tegen olifantenpaadjes en wil dat de gemeente Utrecht optreedt. Opgehaald van DUIC.nl: https://www.duic.nl/algemeen/partij-voor-de-dieren-is-tegen-olifantenpaadjes-en-wil-dat-de-gemeente-utrecht-optreedt/

DUIC. (2024, Mei 8). Gemeente Utrecht verwijdert opnieuw door bewoners geplaatste planten uit openbare ruimte . Opgehaald van DUIC.nl: https://www.duic.nl/algemeen/gemeente-utrecht-verwijdert-opnieuw-door-bewoners-geplaatste-planten-uit-openbare-ruimte/

TNO. (2024). Ruimtelijk ontwerp voor sociale cohesie. Leiden: TNO. Opgehaald van https://publications.tno.nl/publication/34643757/zUjM2Xl8/TNO-2025-P10290.pdf