Affordable Housing, Housing Strategies and

Growth Management in Flanders (Belgium):

Facts, Policy and Discourses

Jef Van den Broeck, Professor

Institute of Urban and Regional Planning
University of Leuven

Han Verschure
Institute of Urban and Regional Planning
University of Leuven

Paper prepared for:

International Planning Symposium on
Incentives, Regulations, and Plans –
The Role of States and Nation-States in Smart Growth Planning
National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education, University of Maryland
Habiforum Foundation, The Netherlands
Maryland Department of Planning
September 30 – October 1, 2004
 Affordable Housing, Housing Strategies and
Growth Management in Flanders (Belgium):
Facts, Policy and Discourses

1. Introduction

Affordable housing and growth management are both key issues in Flanders, the
Dutch-speaking region of Belgium. Owing to Belgium’s federal structure, each of the
federal regions (Flanders, Wallonia, Brussels) have full political and legal competence in
matters such as spatial planning including growth management, urbanisation, housing and
the environment.
The surface of the Region is about 13.522 sq. Km. It has approximately 5,94 million
inhabitants(2000) and a density of 439 inhabitants/sq. km. The Belgian Central
Area(about 4000 sq. km) is a dense ‘galaxy’(1100 inh./ sq. km) with three main cities
Brussels (the European Capital), Antwerp and Ghent and about 4 million inhabitants. We
can call it an ‘urban region’ comparable with other polycentric regions as there are the
‘Ruhr area’ and Rijn- Mainz in Germany, the ‘Randstad Holland’ and Lille- Roubaix-
Kortrijk, a cross- border region in France and Belgium.

Fig. 1: Flanders in Belgium and Europe

2
 In the paper we describe the current position with regard to housing and spatial
planning, and in particular the relationship between these issues. This connection is
neglected which is strange because housing besides economical development, nature and
infrastructure, is influencing the structure of space fundamentally. The policies on the two
issues are not directly related to each other and are not integrated, partly due to the sector-
based institutional organization of the regions (which means they are the responsibility of
different departments and different ministers). We describe the current status,
characteristics and policy in relation to these two issues and the present strategies trying to
ensure a supply of affordable housing. We will raise the issue in how far the spatial
policy, expressed in the Spatial Structure Plan for Flanders, is giving an answer to the
‘affordable’ housing needs taking into account the specifics demands of different
population groups and the characteristics of the housing stock. In our view ‘affordable’
refers not only to the cost of housing to individual households, but also the cost to society
as a whole. Affordable housing also means sustainable housing as part of a sustainable
spatial planning context.
Unfortunately few empirical research about the relationship is existing today and only
few statistical data are available. This means that this paper will be partially based upon
qualitative interpretation of the reality. However the present policies and strategies
concerning planning and housing are clear: (a) a policy and strategy to concentrate
housing in chosen settlements served by public transport (de -concentrated bundling), (b) a
policy and strategy to promote housing in main centres by developing strategic urban
projects in existing urban areas, (c) a policy and strategy to realise public housing projects
in urban areas, (d) a policy and strategy supported by the EU for the protection of valuable
natural areas and landscapes, and (e) the ‘real’ policy and strategy to give a direct answer
to the demand by creating plo ts in rural and ‘new’- rural areas, a policy which could be
considered as contradictory with the spatial policy and the principles of sustainable
development.
A key question is in which way these different policies are influencing each other and
possibly can be integrated/ incorporated. The paper will try to illustrate facts, policies and
strategies with some cases.
Finally the paper will formulate some suggestions for the improvement of the
relationship between the housing policy and the goals, objectives and concepts of the
Structure Plans on the different policy levels (region, city). These plans which can be

3
 considered as the expression of what sustainable development spatially means in Flanders.
Hereby we have to mention that the concept ‘smart growth’ is not usual in Belgium nor in
Europe and even is criticised.

2. Spatial C haracteristics, Dynamics and Policies

2.1 A Fragmented Space

A glance at a satellite picture (fig.2) is sufficient to understand the fragmented and

splintered character of Flanders, a tight patchwork of smaller and larger settlements,
villages, towns and cities and their connecting built-up strip developments.

Fig. 2: B uilt up area in Flanders/ Belgium

The historical town pattern dating from the Middle Ages can still be identified on the
picture but the background - many growing smaller towns and rural villages and most of
all a galaxy of sprawled buildings - is becoming increasingly prominent and resulting in a
kind of peripheral condition with little regard for spatial coherence(De Meulder et al,
1999) (Loeckx, 1999) (Kesteloot, 2001) (Van den Broeck, 1994) . An explanation for this
situation can perhaps be found (fig. 3) in the historic structure of Flanders, the libertarian
attitude of Belgian society and the ‘laissez-faire, laissez-passer’ policy (Van den Broeck,

4
1994, 2003). But as in many places, of course, a number of global trends and dynamics
also influence this sprawl and fragmentation: changes in transport modes and attitudes, the
growing network society and the footloose economy and the changing factors governing
choice of location, changing lifestyles influencing housing conditions and choice of
housing location, and last but not least the metamorphosis of the countryside (Gulinck et
al, 2001) (Meert, 2002) (Borret, 2002) (Ryckewaert, 2002).

Fig.3: Origins of sprawl

Growing individual mobility influenced the structure and functioning of urban areas; it
multiplied people’s personal activity range around a hundredfold. According to Harvey
(1989) the permanent revolution in the world of transport is leading towards a shrinking
world or a ‘destruction of space by time’.

5
 Fig. 4: Travel time in different cities in different periods
(Ausubel, Marchetti, Meyer, 1998)

The historical hierarchical relationship between central places (Christaller, 1933) is

eroding, older central locations are losing importance while new centres, sometimes
referred to as urban ‘fragments’, with a totally different character are developing
spontaneously at alternative locations related to infrastructure networks: close to
motorways, main access roads, railway stations, airports, etc. Increased mobility has
meant greater freedom in decisions about the location of dwellings and business areas,
resulting in a kind of ‘nomadic’ lifestyle (Mitchell, 2001). Here the notion ‘nomadic’ may
not be understood as people regularly moving from one place to the other. On the contrary
the dwelling place of families remain quite stable but the mobility pattern of each family
member is more flexible and directed towards many different places in an urban area,
sometimes characterised as a ‘criss-cross’ use of space. Certainly in urban regions as the
Belgian central area this phenomenon is happening (Spatial Structure Plan Flanders,
1997:36-45).
On the other hand, businesses with specific activities will always opt for specific
locations. This choice, either for a more suitable setting or for an urban peripheral or rural
location, is often taken on pragmatic grounds where the cost of land or road accessibility
is important. Despite the present vastly increased mobility opportunities, the choice of
settlement location by households is not entirely free. Their choice depends on several
factors: the socio-demographic characteristics of the family, the presence of certain
amenities and services - schools, shops, nursery schools, babysitting facilities, etc. - or

6
 even emotional aspects. There is also a demand for a wide range of different residential
environments. It is interesting that households tend to be ‘home-fast’: people prefer not to
move house and would rather travel to work or to visit relatives and friends. This is made
possible by the fairly dense road network and the short distances involved.
The rural regions are also undergoing a fundamental transformation. The traditional
production function (agriculture, forestry, etc.) is losing significance while new functions
are gaining importance and vying for space: nature protection, water management,
recreation, tourism, even housing and the landscape (Gulinck et al, 2001).

2.2 Policy

In 1997 a Spatial Structure Plan (SSP) for Flanders was passed (Albrechts 1999). It
was a reaction against the degradation of space characterized by sprawl and fragmentation
caused by the uncontrolled spatial dynamics. The existing land-use plans (1/25 000), a
type of legal master plan for the whole country legalised in the seventies, had proved
inadequate to stop the sprawl and fragmentation (Van den Broeck, 2003) (Spatial
Structure Plan, 1997). The SSP is a plan formulating the directive policies/ strategies and
contains also a part which is binding for all authorities. The core principles of the SSP
(fig. 6) focus on more sustainable development and are aimed at the concentration of
development in urban areas, the protection of nature and open areas, and the concentration
of industrial activities around main ports and optimum access routes.

Fig. 6: Principles of the Spatial Structure Plan for Flanders

7
 It is too early to assess the performance of the Plan, although certain results have been
achieved. The classification of the road network for instance was introduced and became a
basis for infrastructure planning on all policy levels (region, province, municipality) (fig.
7).

Fig.7: Classification of the road network (SSP)

On the other hand, some actors are already calling for changes or adaptations to the
Plan; some of these calls are motivated by a desire for a better and faster response to the
need for more housing and industrial areas and more flexibility in the choice for locations.
Indeed the policy is based on concentration of development in urban areas and
densification. Others are motivated by more speculative tendencies. Recently a more
fundamental critic is raised by Saey and Van Nuffel. Using recent research they argue that
the reading of the dynamics and the urban structure of Flanders possibly is correct but
based upon wrong grounds and misinterpretations. They agree that the Christaller theory
indeed doesn’t represent anymore reality and that the dichotomy between urban and rural,
remaining more or less a basic principle of the spatial policy, should not be anymore a
leading spatial principle. They plead for the introduction of a new spatial structuring
principle in spatial policy: the ‘regionalisation of the dwelling market’ referring to the
complex process of and the need for the differentiation of the dwelling environments in
an interweaved urban and rural space(Saey, Van Nuffel, 2003). If this principle should be

8
 accepted as well as a different definition of the notion ‘urban area’, which in the SSP as
said before remain a bit ‘Christallian’, a much more differentiated structure could appear.
Question remains if a policy founded exclusively upon the housing market and for
instance not upon the protection of nature, the natural and landscape structure and the
structure of public transport will be sustainable.

3. Characteristics of the Housing Stock and Housing Policies

3.1 A decent house with a garden in the rural area

Historically, housing policy in Belgium has always been based on promoting home
ownership by providing subsidies and cheap, state-guaranteed loans for the building of
new homes. Inexpensive season tickets for train and tram were introduced to make
commuting to rural areas and smaller towns and villages easy. The objective behind this
anti- urban policy was the creation of social, political and, in the past, even religious
stability by tying people to their family, land and house.
Almost 74% of the housing stock today is owner -occupied (44.7% detached), with
only 19% being rented housing (55.7% in apartments) from a private person or firm and 6
% rents from a public housing company. Our close neighbouring country, the
Netherlands, for example, has the opposite proportion: 65% rented and 35% owner-
occupied. About 80% of the Flemish households is living in a one family house and 20%
in apartments.
There is no denying that this policy has over the years led to the creation of a housing
stock that is quite young – 25% dates from the last 20 years and 67% is build after 1960-
spacious and of good quality. The average amount of rooms(living/ sitting/ sleeping
rooms and kitchen) per dwelling is 4,8. The comfort of the dwellings is improving year by
year : 71% have central heating and 96,5% a bathroom. The majority (60%) of the
dwellings doesn’t need any reparation. In 13% a minor problem exist and in 10% an
important reparation is necessary (Pickery, 2004).
Compared with our neighbours France, Germany and the Netherlands, the building
costs - which are related to floor area - remain modest. The average cost (total private and
public housing, excluding exclusive villas) for a dwelling is around EUR 100,000 (2003)
(fig. 8).

9
 Fig.8: E volution of the selling price of dwellings and building plots in Flanders
Source NIS, DS Infografiek

According ERA, an international real estate co-operation, the average cost of a

dwelling in Belgium (2003) was EUR 117 700 which is rather low compared with France
(EUR 157 000), Germany (164 000), The Netherlands (206 300) and UK (233 300).
On the other hand, the figure of around 300,000 substandard dwellings is not
decreasing, demand for affordable housing (including public housing) is growing and the
costs of both building plots and dwellings are rising. According to the construction
industry, the rising costs are caused by an overly strict spatial planning policy based on
urban renewal objectives and the concentration of housing development in towns and
central villages with good public transport access. The protection of areas of natural value
is of course another factor that restricts development. A further reason may be that the
changing face of the construction industry, with an increasing number of larger
contractors and developers taking over the building production from individual
commissioners (private households), fewer building activities being carried out by the
commissioners themselves as has traditionally happened in the past, etc.
It is interesting that recent statistics relate housing data with spatial categories. In the
SSP a difference is made between major city-regions, regional city-regions, small cities,

10
 structure supporting cities and the rural area. Obviously ownership is predominant(about
81%) in the rural area and less present (about 60%) in major cities. Tenants in the private
and public sector are mainly living in main city regions. Dwellings with shortcomings are
mostly situated in private rented buildings in main cities. In these buildings also Moroccan
and Turks are concentrated. The general satisfaction with the dwelling environment is,
also obvious, quite larger in the rural area and smaller cities. On the other hand the
availability of services is appreciated more in main, regional and smaller cities (Pickery,
2004).
Possibly the spatial policy already has a certain effect. The internal (Belgians)
emigration from the major cities (Antwerp, Brussels) to the rural area decreased between
1995 and 2001. In Ghent it stopped even. The external (foreigners) immigration gives a
positive result in the three cities. In the periphery of the major cities there was since years
a considerable immigration. To date their is a balance between emigration and
immigration which seems logic because building areas become scarce (Pelfrene, 2004).

3.2 A Continuing Policy

The present policy continues the promotion of home ownership. In its recent policy
statement the new Flemish government (June 2004) espouses the same policy:
a. more citizens should have access to affordable ownership; therefore more building
plots should be created;
b. public agencies will be encouraged to bring the land they own on to the market;
c. taxes on building plots will be reduced on the condition that a dwelling is built on
it in the short term;
d. public housing agencies must step up their activity; they will receive more
resources for this; where possible they should sell their stock to incumbent tenants;
e. subsidies for home rental and grants for renovation will be increased.

Obviously this a hybrid policy promoting development in the rural area on the one
hand and stimulating urban renewal on the other. Certainly for weaker population
categories, including immigrants, but also for singles and one parent families, mainly
woman with children, this policy will not be an answer to their needs. As well the SSP, as
the official urban policy on Flemish, Federal and European level(see 4) and the ‘Habitat
Platform’- a forum of organisations dealing with housing and society- are pleading for a

11
 more affordable housing policy much more related with the spatial and urban policy. The
SSP calls for a larger and divers housing offer in well equipped and accessible urban
areas. The urban policy focuses on the realisation of urban pr ojects in major cities. The
‘Habitat Forum’ (2004) recommend a powerful and efficient policy with following
objectives:
a. an active land policy directed to payable housing in mixed surroundings;
b. differentiation of housing typology;
c. stimulation of the renewal of private housing stock;
d. the protection of specific population categories;
e. an integrated housing policy related to sustainable development, urban
development and social services;
f. a more adequate financing and organisation of the public housing sector (Platform
Wonen, 2004).

4. The Notion of ‘Affordable Housing’

As stated earlier, affordable housing was and is an important social and political issue.
In the ‘Housing Code’ affordable housing is described as a right for every citizen. But the
question of what ‘affordable housing’ really means in this context is not sufficiently
explored.
In our paper we distinguish between three dimensions of ‘affordability’. The most
common dimension is the cost of the dwelling for an individual or household. Looking at
the present situation in Flanders, it could possibly be said that 85% of the population can
afford a decent dwelling. To do this, however, they have to pay back a loan over a period
of 20 or 25 years, something which in many cases is only possible in households with two
persons earning a regular income. Divorce or illness or unemployment on the part of one
of the partners could logically mean that many households would eventually be unable to
afford the loan repayments.
A second dimension concerns the capacity of our society to ensure decent housing for
everyone. Here we have to address the question of what ‘decent housing’ means in
today’s circumstances, and of whether the state (either directly or indirectly from the
public coffers) can afford it, especially as the trend during the last 40 years has been
towards a demand for ever larger homes (sometimes to house a shrinking household) on
larger plots (average size of new plots in 1994: 1350 sq.m), preferably in a rural area but

12
 close to all services. In the current situation the state is on the one hand delegating the task
to individual members of the public by making available building plots and encouraging
them to build. On the other hand, the government is increasingly looking to the private
sector to build affordable owner-occupied and public housing - by no means an obvious
solution given the high quality - and costs - of private-sector developments. The quality of
the present public housing stock is high - possibly too high in the light of the fina ncial
capacity of households and the state. More and more households are finding they can no
longer afford the rents and are having to look for substandard solutions in the private
sector or even moving to campsites.
Although the private sector is the main direct actor (and claims to be ‘better’ in the
provision of housing), the state is generally expected to provide the necessary
infrastructure. With such a division of tasks, the private sector reaps the benefits, while
the public carries the burdens. This is of course only possible with a high indirect tax base
to fund all these public investments.
A final dimension usually left out of the fundamental discussion that have taken place
so far in Flanders, concerns the sustainability of housing developments: their location,
environmental impact, typological diversity, their economic use of energy, water, land,
etc. It is already being argued that our spatial utilisation capacity(spatial footprint) has
reached its limits, that we have to conserve energy in order to achieve the Kyoto norms,
and that water is becoming an increasingly scarce resource. Several of these issues have
been raised and modest remedial steps have been initiated, but as yet a fundamental
rethink, let alone the real political will to solve long-term problems, has still to emerge
and be placed on the agenda as a top priority for society. The same applies in many other
countries, of course.

5. Strategies for the Provision of Affordable Housing

In practice, several different - sometimes contradictory - strategies are employed. Part

of the reason for this is of course the existence of different views and basic attitudes
among the public.

13
 Fig 9. Strategies for the provision of affordable housing

5.1 De-Concentrated Bundling, Task-Setting, Boundaring and Bookkeeping

The Spatial Structure Plan for Flanders is a legal document that tries to put forward an
integrated vision of spatial development and that deals with housing needs and the
desirable location of developments. The Plan espouses the provision of housing at
‘sustainable’ locations. It aims to achieve this through the implementation of different
strategies mentioned in the above tittle. However, the Plan lacks an implementation
strategy which is related to budgets and financial means.
De-concentrated bundling means in practice that the SSP indicate the settlements were
development can be stimulated within a certain boundary. As mentioned above the list is
criticised and in practice the Flemish government decided, hereby adapting the SSP, to
give more possibilities for plot creation in almost every existing settlement. This is
contradictory with the ‘task-setting’ for settlements which is also a strategy from the SSP.
It means that each settlement depending of its cate gory(main, regional, small city or main
village), should realise a specific amount of dwellings within the period 1992- 2007. The
bigger cities couldn’t realise this objective because to build in urban areas is more

14
 complex than in rural even if land is available. Indeed many actors are needed to develop
an urban project and often a nimby reaction is raising against concentration and
densification. All this is a reason for a more pragmatic policy : the creation of plots in the
rural areas, villages and smaller cities.
Boundaring was and remains a main strategy however it is also criticised. The
essential objective of this strategy was to concentrate and stimulate development in urban
areas and to protect natural and agricultural valuable areas. To date this operation is
almost finished as for the main and regional cities(fig.9) . In our view the critics are not
fundamental except for the arguments raised by Saey and Van Nuffel. These arguments
however are not related to the concept of boundaring but concern the intended spatial
structure. In many cases boundaring was stimulating the debate about the future of the city
and leading to an integrated vision and even the choice of strategic urban projects.

5.2 Urban Projects

A promising strategy is the ‘Stedenbeleid’ or ‘Urban Policy’ on Flemish level, which

has been in place for eight years. The policy objectives fit in with the Spatial Structure
Plan and envisage the development of mixed, multifunctional and integrated urban
projects, mainly on brow nfield sites, abandoned railway yards (urban voids), neglected
urban neighbourhoods, etc. The strategy, which is backed by sound scientific research,
appears to have a major influence on urban planning policies. The strategy is also in line
with the Federa l policy and the EU ‘Urban’ programme, which has the same objectives. A
‘Withe Book’ (Boudry, et al, 2003) recently published gives a conceptual frame as well
for an urban policy, as for decision making and for research. It is meant ‘to give a
direction to a broad palette of actors and activities’ (Uitermark, 2004:61). Within the
scope of this policy the Flemish government installed different groups of experts to guide
thirteen cities in their effort to realise complex urban projects. Another initiative of the
responsible administration is the organisation of a series of master classes(September-
December 2004) bringing all involved administrations together with the project managers
of the chosen projects in the different cities.
The European ‘Urban’ programme has a longer tradition already and can present
results on the field as for instance in the city of Antwerp.

15
5.3 Area-Specific Integrated Approach

More and more areas are adopting an ‘area-specific integrated approach’, initiated by
provinces or groups of municipalities. This initiative is being taken because of the need to
address urgent problems needing a direct solution or because some opportunities demand
fast intervention. The approach is based on co-operation between the actors involved and
is intended to help create a long-term perspective for the area concerned and to establish a
concrete action plan committing the actors to its implementation. ‘Urban pacts’ - binding
contracts between the stakeholders - are used as a tool to guarantee their real (financial)
involvement. In Flanders we find a success story in this field: the ‘Ghent Canal Area
project’(Van den Broeck, 1996, 2001)( Albrechts, Van den Broeck, 2004).

5.4 Public Housing

With about 135 000 dwellings for rent, public housing never was a priority in
Flanders. Our neighbouring countries have about 10-15% instead of 6,1%. Of course the
‘ownership’ policy is a main reason: cheap land, cheap loans guaranteed by the state,
fiscal advantages, self-building, etc. For a long time public housing was meant for the
average labourer and the lower employee. The allocation policy applied by the housing
companies which were strongly influenced by political parties (social-democrats and
socialists) was based on ‘clientism’ by favouring party members. A turn came in the
nineties when a ‘Dwelling code” was accepted in the parliament and from then public
housing was seen as a way to house weaker population groups(De Decker, 2002).
Unfortunately this turn has negative financial consequences for the budget of the housing
companies because the present group of tenants often cannot pay the rents anymore while
land and building costs are rising. Another consequence is the growing need because the
housing companies doesn’t have the means anymore to enlarge their stock which is also
ageing.

5.5 The Real Policy: a Compromise

To date, however, the reality of the present Flemish spatial and housing policy and
strategy as described earlier in many ways contradicts both the newer strategies mentioned
above. In response to the demand on the part of the construction industry and also the
apparent ‘needs’ of people, the creation of building in the countryside is continuing, as is

16
 the policy of sprawl and invasion of open areas. Private car mobility and road transport is
still highly favoured, despite efforts and incentives to promote public transport.

5.6 Conclusions

The strategy for the realization of public housing is under discussion. The government
wishes to work together with the private sector in PPP structures to meet the obvious
needs. To date the results have been poor, however, and governmental housing agencies
have claimed this task. The standards to be aimed for also remain an issue: should the aim
be minimum standards, as at present or maximum standards, a more diverse typology,
mixed programmes, etc.
An even greater challenge will be to redirect policies towards more sustainable spatial
living patterns, for example with a return to the tradition of fairly dens e urban living
accessible for public transport with more modest individual dwellings, but enhanced by
contemporary comfort norms and adequate public amenities.
The strategy for reducing energy consumption will have to focus not only on more
energy- efficient constructions, but also on a more fundamental lifecycle analysis-based
assessment of the entire construction sector, with a rethink of conventional road-
dominated transport systems, consolidation and regrouping of open spaces, reusing
reconversion areas, etc. In fact it will have to be directed towards a search for ‘another’
(not a ‘new’ urbanism).
What can the notion ‘smart growth’ in Flanders mean (Van den Broeck, 2003)? The
answer is based upon in-depth interviews of different actors:
a. Improving the accessibility through the connection of the different public transport
networks on the different levels (local-local, regional- local) and the co-ordination
of the management;
b. development of mixed housing projects linked with public transport nodes;
c. protection of valuable natural areas in order to strengthen the natural structure;
d. landscaping as a mean to create a new coherent and agreeable image and better
living environments;
e. a sustainable energy production and use.

Using our definition of ‘affordable’ housing in short term their will not be enough
supply at all. Their should be developed an active integrated policy to create a larger offer

17
of housing of different types at the right locations. The principles of the SSP can be kept
except from the intended spatial structure which should be revised taking into account
new knowledge about the regionalisation of the housing market. The ‘urban policy’,
standing for an integrated approach, also is a good model for sustainable development and
affordable housing.

18
6. References

Albrechts, L., Coppens,T., Van den Broeck,J., Verachtert,K., (2003), Netwerken en

netwerking als uitdaging voor de ruimtelijke planning, Research report for the Flemish
Community, ARP, Brussels

Albrechts, L., (1999), Planners as catalysts and initiators of change: the new Structure
Plan for Flanders, European Planning Studies, 7, p. 587- 603

Albrechts, L., Van den Broeck, J., (2004), From discourse to facts, The case of the ROM
Project in Ghent, Belgium, in Town Planning Review, 75 (2)

Ausubel, J.H., Marchetti, C., Meyer, P., (1998), Towards green mobility: the evolution of
transport, European Review, Vol 6, No 2, 137- 156

Borret, K., (2002), Nevelstad spotting: analyses vanuit concreet- ruimtelijke invalshoek ,
in Ruimte en Planning, jg. 22

Boudry,L., Cabus, P., Corijn, E., De Rynck, F., Kesteloot, C., Loeckx, A., (2003), De
eeuw van de stad. Over stadsrepublieken en rastersteden. Witboek in opdracht van het
Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Brussel

Christaller,W., (1933), Die Zentrale Orte in Süddeutschland, eine untersuchung über die
Gesetzmässigkeit ihrer Anzahl, Verteilung und Grösse, , Gustav Fisher, Jena

De Decker, P., (1999), Wonen Onderzocht, 1995 - 1999: een overzicht van de resultaten
van de recente onderzoeken , Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Brussel

De Decker, P., Kesteloot, C., De Rijck, T., Geurts, V., (1996), On the housing history of
labour migrants in the cities of Flanders, Belgium, paper prepared for the ENHR/ SBI
Conference ‘Huosing and European integration, Helsingor, Denmark

De Meulder, B., et al, (1999), Sleutelen aan het Belgische stadslandschap, Oase nr 52
Harvey (netwerking)

Kesteloot, C., (2001), Verstedelijking in Vlaanderen: problemen, kansen en uitdagingen

voor het beleid in de 21 e eeuw, Task Force Stedelijk Beleid, Witboek Stedenbeleid,
Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Brussel

Gulinck,H., Muys,B., Hermy,M., (2001), Concepts for multi- functionality in the Flemish
Park- City, paper for the international expert meeting on ‘Open Ares’, Ghent

Harvey, D., (1989), The Condition of the post- modernity, An inquiry into the origins of
cultural change, Basil Blackwell, London.

Meert, H., (2002), Erop of eronder: bestaans (on) zekere boeren en hun
overlevingsstrategieën, research report for the Koning Boudewijnstichting, Brussel

Mitchell, W.J., (2001), Planning and design for the information age, paper presented at
the 37th IsoCaRP Congress, Utrecht, Nl

19
Pelfrene, E., (2004), In- en uitwijking in Vlaamse steden en gemeenten: analyse van d e
interne en externe migratie naar leeftijd en ruimtelijke structuren voor de periode 1995-
2002, Stativaria 33, Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Brussel

Pickery, J., (2004), Woonkwaliteit en tevredenheid met de woonomgeving in Vlaanderen.

Een analy se van de Algemene Socio - Economische enquète 2001, Stativaria 31, Ministerie
van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Brussel

Ruimtelijk Structuurplan Vlaanderen, (1997), Integrale versie, Ministerie van de Vlaamse

Gemeenschap, Brussel

Ryckewaert, M., (2002), Woonpatronen in de nevelstad, in Ruimte en Planning, jg. 22

Saey,P., Van Nuffel, N., ( 2003), Nevels over Christaller: regionalisering van de
woningmarkt als structurerend ruimtelijk principe, in Ruimte en Planning, jg. 23-3

Uitermark, J., (2004), Uitdagingen voor een pro -stedelijk beleid in anti- stedelijk
Vlaanderen, in Ruimte en Planning, jg 24, nr 2

Van den Broeck, J., (1994), Deelstudie 3 Antwerpen- Brussel in het kader van het
Ruimtelijk Structuurplan Vlaanderen, Studiegroep Omgeving, Mortsel

Van den Broeck, J., (2003), Central Belgium, a Park City?: a policy based on de-
concentrated clustering, in

20