You have one foot in the world of real estate and the other in culture. Has that worked for you?
For me, yes. The worlds of culture and real estate speak different languages. When one talks about “value”, they might mean artistic or social value; the other thinks in terms of financial return. I am trained as a cultural scholar, but I now understand how property works as well, and that allows me to build bridges.
In the end, both worlds are striving for the same thing: creating places that matter. What I see is that if you bring the right parties together from the outset and have an open conversation, you can build something that works for everyone.
What is the importance of culture in area development?
Without culture, a city becomes little more than a collection of buildings. Think of creative spaces where people meet, where music is heard, where young people rehearse with their dance group or older residents attend a painting class. These are the places that give a neighbourhood colour and meaning.
If we focus only on housing numbers, financial returns and functional mixing without thinking about lived experience, we risk producing dull, mono-functional districts. And by now we know that those simply do not work.
But we are facing a housing crisis. Can we really afford to allocate space to culture?
Especially then.
A housing crisis is not an excuse to abandon other values. You can build homes and still think carefully about the place as a whole. Where do people meet? How do children cycle safely to school? Where is there space for a local dance school or a community kitchen?
If you fail to address those questions, you compromise liveability and, in the long term, property value as well.
So culture as value creation?
Exactly. Increasingly, commercial parties see it that way too. Not because they are altruistic, but because they recognise that an attractive, vibrant place performs better over time.
A strong example is CBRE Investment Management, the investor behind Amsterdamse Poort. They deliberately allocate space to cultural functions. Not because it generates immediate revenue, but because it strengthens identity, vibrancy, visitor numbers, dwell time and, ultimately, turnover for local businesses.
What are the main barriers you encounter?
Timing is the biggest one. Often a building is delivered first, and only afterwards someone says, “We should probably do something with culture.” By then, it is usually too late.
You need to think from the outset about functions, about identity, about who you want to attract.
Another barrier is the price per square metre. Cultural organisations often cannot afford market rates, especially if they are handed an empty shell and still have to invest heavily to make it usable.
How do you solve that?
By solving the puzzle together from the beginning.
In Amsterdam-Zuidoost, we brought cultural organisations, a developer and an investor around the same table and asked: how do we make this viable? That requires openness on both sides. Cultural organisations must be clear about what they need. Property parties must be willing to look beyond direct cash flow.
In that case, we agreed that space could be offered at affordable rates to cultural organisations that demonstrably add value to the wider area.
Does that happen often?
More and more.
STEKK, a collaboration between Synchroon and Stadmakersfonds, deliberately reserves part of its square metres for social entrepreneurs at cost price. After five or ten years, those organisations can purchase their space and become co-owners of the neighbourhood.
It may not maximise short-term return, but it creates a strong community and a lively place. That is value too.
How do you explain this internally to investors or developers?
You can approach it intelligently. Alongside KPIs, introduce KVIs: Key Value Indicators. These measure softer values such as connection to the neighbourhood, social safety or reputation.
It helps to demonstrate internally that a function contributes to long-term objectives, even if it does not immediately show up in euros on the balance sheet.
What role do municipalities play?
Municipalities can make a real difference. For example, by adjusting ground lease conditions, by being crystal clear in tenders about desired functions, by prioritising quality and content over the highest financial bid, or by actively connecting parties.
Cities are becoming more complex and roles are shifting. That requires a different stance from government and different instruments, such as selecting partners first and developing plans together, rather than tendering purely on the basis of a fixed proposal.
You sound hopeful. Do you genuinely see change?
Yes.
A few years ago, I still had to defend this position. Now there are dozens of examples of parties simply doing it. Whether it is Schipper Bosch, CBRE IM or Synchroon, they demonstrate that it is possible.
That matters, especially for the next generation. Recently a property student asked me why developers would invest in social value if their primary objective is profit and they often leave an area afterwards. I realised then that there is still work to be done.
But it can be done differently. And I hope he learns that in time.
What would you like to achieve in the coming years?
I would love for this approach to become normal. For it no longer to be exceptional when a project intelligently combines culture, sport, social interaction and housing.
For students to learn that real estate is also about social value and about making a good place. And that through thoughtful collaboration you can create something that makes everyone stronger.