In Praise of Empty Spaces: Can Semi-Public Space Replace What We Lose?

A major new development is on the horizon in Lloydskwartier, Rotterdam — a plan for 700 to 1,000 new dwellings on the large open site along the dike. Today, this area is home to the VORM office and a vast temporary field that has long served as a flexible urban void. Twice a year, it transforms into the colorful kermis fairground; occasionally, music festivals take over the space, and the rest of the year motorcyclists use it for practice. Just next to it are one baskteball and four football pitches — one of the few remaining places in central Rotterdam where people can play freely, under good lighting, and without cost.

Since the announcement of the development, concerns have been growing over the fate of these pitches. Spaces like this are increasingly rare. Most sports facilities, due to their large spatial footprint, have been pushed to the edges of the city — far from the daily life of those who live in the center.

In September 2022, a Rijnmond article by Denise Bouwmeester highlighted residents’ concerns that Lloydskwartier was becoming increasingly built-up, with too little greenery and too few genuine gathering spaces. Two years and several high-quality developments later, most of those issues still stand. The neighbourhood has new architecture, new housing, and renewed attention — but the fundamental absence of open, public space has not been resolved. If anything, with the next development phase, these spaces may shrink even further.

As architects, we are trained to propose compensations when such public grounds are lost. We design inner courtyards, green roofs, and shared gardens as replacements for the open spaces our projects occupy. The logic is solid: inner courtyards are perceived as safer — especially for children who can play without constant parental supervision. They offer a sense of ownership and privacy, encouraging residents to take part in their maintenance and improvement. Financially, they also shift the responsibility from the municipality to the residents, reducing public costs while keeping spaces well-kept.

Yet a fundamental question persists: Can semi-public spaces, no matter how well-designed or maintained, truly replace those that belong to everyone?

Amid the growing trend of densification and the repurposing of neglected or leftover urban spaces into new developments, this question feels more pressing than ever. We may have forgotten the reason we began to reuse these so-called “negative spaces” in the first place. Should we fill or define every empty corner of the city, even when those spaces are already functioning well?

If we keep replacing public paces with semi private/public ones we are monopolizing the usage of public spaces. The spaces that used to be accessible for people to play football, walk, attend to a festival, etc., shrink in size and are surrounded by apartment blocks that might have in the best case enough semi-private open space only for its residents. Even though these spaces could offer a lot, we need to remember that these offerings are limited and only within the range of your neighbours. This is necessary but is it enough?

Conclusion:

To interweave different parts of society, to bring people together, and to make the city a home for everyone, we must create spaces that allow for spontaneous "happenings" and we must preserve the ones that already function as such. It is important to not define every inch of the spaces in the city. 

This does not mean we should stop building new housing. The housing shortage is a national issue that must be addressed. The question is how, and to what extent. Solving the housing crisis does not justify removing public spaces that form part of a neighbourhood’s — and a city’s — identity.