Geoforum 46 (2013) 16–24

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Geoforum
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum

Making things irreversible. Object stabilization in urban planning and design

Martijn Duineveld a,⇑, Kristof Van Assche b,c, Raoul Beunen d
a
Cultural Geography Group, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands
b
Communication & Innovation Studies, Wageningen University, The Netherlands
c
ZEF/Center for Development Research, Bonn University, Germany
d
Land Use Planning Group, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Based on a detailed reconstruction of the planning process of a controversial major building in the Dutch
Received 6 July 2011 city of Groningen, we develop a theoretical and conceptual framework for studying object formation and
Received in revised form 26 November 2012 stabilisation. We argue that the many forms of resistance against the object itself triggered a variety of
Available online 11 January 2013
counter-strategies of object formation. We make a distinction between sites, paths and techniques of
object formation. To study object formation in more detail we distinguish three techniques: reification,
Keywords: solidification and codification. The techniques of object formation are accompanied by three techniques
Object formation
that produce a relative stability of the object, that increases its irreversibility, the likelihood of object sur-
Foucault
Actor-Network Theory
vival: objectification, naturalisation and institutionalisation. We conclude that complete irreversibility is
Governance an illusion in governance and planning processes.
Civil resistance Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Urban planning
Irreversibility

1. Introduction
According to Nigel Thrift the spatial turn in Geography ‘has
proved to be a move of extraordinary consequence because it ques-
tions categories like ‘material’, ‘life’ and ‘intelligence’ through an
emphasis on the unremitting materiality of a world where there
are no pre-existing objects’ (Thrift, 2006). His words echo those
of Michel Foucault who in 1969 claimed ‘the object does not await
in limbo the order that will free it and enable it to become embod-
ied in a visible and prolix objectivity; it does not pre-exist itself,
held back by some obstacle at the first edges of light. It exists under
the positive conditions of a complex group of relations’ (Foucault,
1972: 44–45). In line with these quotes we will articulate a non-
foundational theoretical and conceptual framework, which is
firmly rooted in Foucault’s oeuvre, for studying object formation
in a planning and governance context. Acknowledging that ‘noth-
ing is necessarily fixed’ we are ‘looking for (. . .) [techniques] that
might lead to relative stability’ (Law, 2009) of an object, that in-
crease its irreversibility.
We develop the framework by means of a detailed reconstruc-
tion of the discursive activity surrounding a controversial plan
for a major cultural centre, destined to be a new icon for the city,
in the Dutch city of Groningen (cf. Flyvbjerg, 1998). For 12 years,
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: martijn.duineveld@wur.nl (M. Duineveld), raoul.beunen@
wur.nl (R. Beunen).
the intention of the local government has been to redesign the
eastern side of this square (Gemeente Groningen, 2009; Duineveld,
2011). Over the years, the most important and most controversial
element of this plan proved to be the Groninger Forum. Different
designs emerged over the years, but the one that was chosen
(see below for the procedure) is a ten storey building, 45 m high,
with an angular, modern appearance, pierced in such a way that
it looks like a keyhole (see: Groninger Forum, 2011b). In order to
make room for the Groninger Forum some post-war buildings on
the east side of the market would need to be demolished. The For-
um would command a second square, adjoining and connecting
with the Big Market (Grote Markt), but in order to make it work,
the eastern facade of the Market would have to be pushed forward,
effectively shrinking the historic square (see Groningerforum.nl,
2011a). This aspect of the plan, as much as the Forum building it-
self, triggered resistance among a majority of citizens residents and
political parties. Nevertheless it came ever closer to implementa-
tion (Duineveld, 2011).
The variety of actors and strategies in Groningen, the lavish
media and political attention, as well as the richness of the applied
expertise make this an excellent case for the study of object forma-
tion (Duineveld and Van Assche, 2011). The many forms of
resistance against this object itself triggered a variety of counter-
strategies of object formation. This pallet of strategies renders
the case significant for the study of object formation elsewhere,
as it renders it useful for the analysis of design-governance rela-
tions and implementation studies. The analysis of such processes

0016-7185/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.11.026
 M. Duineveld et al. / Geoforum 46 (2013) 16–24
can explain why some plans are implemented and others are not,
why some objects become enacted as ‘real’ and others disappear
from the realm of the real, after a short life in the limelight (cf.
Latour and Woolgar, 1986; Latour, 1999; Law, 2004).
We will argue, in our analysis of planning and design amidst ci-
vic resistance, that several techniques can be distinguished that
make an object increasingly irreversible, and thus ‘real’ in its impli-
cations. After the outline of our theoretical and conceptual frame-
work, we will describe the origin of the ideas and designs in
Groningen in detail. We will then describe the process and ex-
pound on a number of specific techniques that can contribute to
irreversibility. We will subsequently relate these techniques to
our theoretical framework, and refine it.
2. Method
In order to map out the policy and planning environment in
Groningen, and to reconstruct the trajectory of conceptualisation,
negotiation, design and promotion of the urban reconstruction
project, we combined personal observations and discourse analy-
sis. For the discourse analysis, we relied on interviews, policy
documents, plans, scale models and local media. We conducted
30 in-depth interviews with administrators, architects, people
working in Groningen’s cultural sector and other stakeholders of
the Forum plans (Duineveld, 2011). We also spoke with 25 other
residents of the city, people without any involvement with the pro-
ject or with planning in general. Over the course of the study (sum-
mer and fall 2010, early 2011 and early 2012), we spent a total of
4 weeks in Groningen so we could follow the discussions up close.
Our presence enabled direct observation of all the sites and the ur-
ban fabric. Part of the interviews as well as many conversations in
informal settings (pubs, libraries, shops and one or two clubs) took
place on site. We triangulated observation and interviews with re-
ports, plans, newspaper articles and books we could find, sources
directly and indirectly pertaining to this plan. We published a
booklet (Duineveld, 2011) and made a movie (Duineveld and
Eerkes, 2011b) to present some of the outcomes of our study,
which received considerable attention and triggered responses in
the local press, on blogs, websites and in personal emails (see
Duineveld, 2011 for an overview). The flood of comments on and
critiques of the movie and the report brought the discursive coali-
tions, evolutions and fault lines in sharper focus, and helped us to
nuance some of our initial findings.
2.1. Object formation and stabilisation
Based on the works of Foucault (Foucault, 1972, 1994a, 1979,
1998) and strengthened by Actor-Network Theory (Mol, 2002;
Law, 2004, 2009; Latour and Woolgar, 1986; Latour, 1999), the dis-
cussions on the spatial/material turn in Geography (Thrift, 2006;
Hinchliffe et al., 2005; Hinchliffe, 2007; Whatmore, 2006) and
the works on power in planning and governance studies (Phelps
and Tewdwr-Jones, 2000; Flyvbjerg, 1998, 2002; Flyvbjerg and
Richardson, 2002; Hillier, 2002; Hajer and Versteeg, 2005; Van
Assche et al., 2012), we will outline a conceptual framework to
study the process of object formation and stabilisation in gover-
nance practices.
Following Foucault we define power as: ‘the multiplicity of
force relations immanent in the sphere in which they operate
and which constitute their own organization; as the process which,
through ceaseless struggles and confrontations, transforms,
strengthens, or reverses them (. . .)’ (Foucault, 1998: 92). Power is
operative everywhere and that is exerted from various positions
(Foucault, 1998: 93). Contrary to its everyday use, power is neither
good nor evil. It can have both oppressive and creative conse-
17
quences. It produces some discourses, realities, knowledge and val-
ues and pushes others into the background (Foucault, 1998,
1994c). This relational conceptualisation of power leaves no room
for hegemonic ways of conceptualising power. Since power rela-
tions can constantly change, the whole idea of a pre-established
stable hegemonic system should be abandoned (Rose, 2002). This
implies that ‘domination and resistance are conceptually the same.
Every enactment emanating from social life is a force’ (Rose, 2002,
cf. Foucault, 1998: 96).
In addition, for Foucault ‘[p]ower relations are both intentional
and non-subjective. (. . .) [T]here is no power that is exercised with-
out a series of aims and objectives’ (Foucault, 1998: 94) Yet, on the
level of the subject or organisation it is very difficult, if not impos-
sible, to make a distinction between intentional and unintentional
power techniques and we will not attempt to do so (Bourdieu,
1988). Intentions are often ascribed afterwards to events, which
are then reframed to be intentional (Fuchs, 2001). So we will ‘not
look for the headquarters that presides over its rationality; neither
the caste which governs, nor the groups which control the state
apparatus, nor those who make the most important economic deci-
sions direct the entire network of power that functions in a society
(and makes it function)’ (Foucault, 1998: 95).
In line with Foucault, many authors have studied the process of
object formation and applied his perspective to various practices
and domains of object formation, such as laboratories, hospitals,
local economies and nature conservation policies (Latour and
Woolgar, 1986; Mol, 2002; MacKenzie and Muniesa, 2007;
Hinchliffe et al., 2005; Whatmore, 2006; Abrahamsson, 2010; Hicks
and Beaudry, 2010). In these studies, facts, truths and objects are
thought to be constructed (or: produced, created, enacted, formed)
in complex interactions between humans, sites, texts and instru-
ments. In the Foucault-based actor-network theories (ANT) of Law
(2004) and Mol (2002), an object does not precede but is the result
of practices in which it is produced (cf. Thrift, 2006). In this line of
reasoning Mol makes a distinction between the construction or for-
mation of objects and the enactment thereof: ‘The term ‘construc-
tion’ was used to get across the view that objects have no fixed
and given identities, but gradually come into being. During their
unstable childhoods their identities tend to be highly contested,
volatile, open to transformation. But once they have grown up ob-
jects are taken to be stabilized’ (Mol, 2002: 42). Enactment means
that an object is only real when it enacted as real in actual practices,
in constant interactions between humans and non-humans (Hinch-
liffe, 2007). ‘Enactment and practice never stop, and realities de-
pend upon their continued crafting – perhaps by people, but more
often (. . .) in a combination of people, techniques, texts, architec-
tural arrangements, and natural phenomena (which are themselves
being enacted and re-enacted)’ (Law, 2004).
2.2. Modes of object formation
We make a distinction between sites, paths and techniques of
object formation (or enactment, in Mol’s terms). In our analysis
we focus on the techniques and we will therefore classify them
more precisely. Sites of object formation refers to what Foucault
calls ‘the surfaces of emergence’: the contexts, surroundings or
environments in which objects are formed and enhanced
(Foucault, 1972: 41, cf. Mol, 2002). Each site can have unique
knowledge/power relations, influencing the formation of objects
(Law, 2004). Informal settings such as conversations and parties
can be sites and so can formal settings such as bureaucratic organ-
isations and academic contexts. In our society, some sites function
as authorities of object formation, like universities. These sites are
more influential in the object formation process than others
(Foucault, 1972: 41–42, Foucault, 1979, 1994b).
18 M. Duineveld et al. / Geoforum 46 (2013) 16–24
A path of object formation is a series of decisions and/or sites
within which an object is formed (cf. Laclau and Mouffe, 1985;
Law, 2009). With each step of this process the irreversibility can
be increased or decreased (cf. North, 2005). An object can be ‘un-
done’ or fortified. Depending on the path taken, a dependency on
the path can evolve, increasing the level of irreversibility. This is
to say that some options in the process of object formation become
more likely than others, because of the decisions made in an earlier
stage of the process (Duineveld and Van Assche, 2011; Callon,
1991).
Techniques are all power/knowledge relations in the process of
object formations that can be used to explain the process of object
formation. We distinguish three techniques that enable us to study
object formation in detail. Firstly reification, a concept which we
will use without its Marxist connotations. This is the representa-
tion and acknowledgement in a discourse or network of an object,
as a unity, separate from the environment. It is a dividing practice
(Foucault, 1994b: 326). The second technique is solidification, by
which we refer to the assembling, the linking up of concepts that
make up the object (In Foucault’s terms: ‘a grid of specification’
(Foucault, 1972: 42, cf. Foucault, 1973). The third technique of ob-
ject formation is codification by which we understand the simpli-
fying and clarifying the boundaries of the object. This is the process
in which it gets to be decided what constitutes the object and what
does not (cf. Foucault, 1998: 65).
The techniques of object formation are accompanied by stabil-
ising techniques: the techniques of irreversibility. They increase
the likelihood of object survival. We distinguish three techniques
that increase the irreversibility of the enacted object. The first of
these techniques is objectification. Objectification is the processes
in which an object is constructed as an objective truth, as a fact, as
something that seemingly exists independent of observation
(Foucault, 1998: 33; Foucault, 1972: 40–49). In modern society,
science, law and bureaucracy are the dominant sites and sources
of objectification.
The second technique is naturalisation. Naturalisation refers to
all the processes, within a network, discourse or system, in which
the object is depicted as part of the natural order of things
(Foucault, 2006: 189; cf. Fuchs, 2001; Barthes, 1957). In this pro-
cess the constructed character of the object is hidden or masked
and the process from which the object originated is forgotten.
The object’s contingency (something different could also have been
constructed) is masked. Once constructed, all references to the
genesis of the objects and facts disappear and the ‘new’ objects
can be presented as objective, natural or factual (Latour and
Woolgar, 1986).
In this process of masking, objects solidify gradually and take up
their final shape. The distinctions and controversies between real-
ity and subjective interpretation, what is perceived as real and
what as fiction or artefact and fact, disappear (Latour and Woolgar,
1986) and the object becomes part of the ‘warehouse of unques-
tioned commonplaces’ (Duineveld, 2011; cf. Fuchs, 2001). In mod-
ern societies, mass media, literature but also organisational
cultures contribute to the naturalisation of objects.
The third technique is institutionalisation: the codification of
the object or the discourse within which the object was con-
structed in organisations, policies, politics, regulations, techniques
and plans (cf. Foucault, 1979, 2007; North, 1990). This enables an
increased irreversibility of the object in a specific practice or dis-
course. The object, as a distinctive, ‘natural kind’, is recognised as
such by a growing number of institutions. Institutionalisation in-
creases the path dependency in the formation of an object, but
not necessarily its irreversibility.
In this paper we will mainly focus on the last three techniques,
which contribute to the increased irreversibility of an object. The
environment of contestation made their application more impor-
tant for the proponents of the plan, and at the same time it made
them more visible, amenable to analysis. We recognise that an ob-
ject is never entirely stable. Since it has a limited lifespan in time
and conceptual space, and because it adapts to shifting discursive
environments, pure irreversibility does not exist. Because of the
same reasons, object formation and techniques that lead to relative
stability will be reshuffled and re-bundled regularly during the life
of the object, with stabilisation techniques taking primacy at one
time, formation techniques on other occasions.
In the following sections, on the Groningen plan, we intend to
focus on the techniques of object stabilisation, but in order to dis-
tinguish the role and impact of these techniques, it is important to
reconstruct not only the discursive environment in which the plan
emerged, but also the relation with the techniques of object
formation.
2.3. How the Groninger Forum became ‘real’
On the website of the municipality of Groningen it is said that
the Groninger Forum will be built ‘to enliven the eastern side of
the Grote Markt and to stimulate the economy of this part of the
city centre. (. . .) It will attract the crowds. In a spectacular building,
history, information, film and debate will be presented in a new
concept’ (Gemeente Groningen, 2009, translated by the authors).
The whole project, including the new buildings on the eastern side
of the Grote Markt has an estimated cost of 190 million Euros. ‘The
municipality of Groningen will pay 31, 25 million. 35 Million
comes from compensation money (‘Zuiderzeelijngelden’) the re-
gion received because of a broken promise by the national govern-
ment, a cancelled railway between Amsterdam and Groningen.
There is also 10 million from the European Regional Development
Fund’ (Gemeente Groningen, 2009). The remaining estimated bud-
get comes from the profits of selling the land and the car park.
During our research in 2010, 2011 and 2012 the plans had some
strong advocates, including the municipality, and the local
branches of political parties like the social democrats (PvdA), the
green party (Groen Links), the liberal democrats (D66), and the so-
cialist party (SP). The Forum Foundation (Stichting Groninger For-
um) is also an explicit supporter of the plans. This foundation was
established to support cooperation among the different potential
users of the proposed building, to discuss and coordinate the pallet
of uses, and to promote the Forum and the urban design it is
embedded in. Opponents include the liberal party (VVD), the local
party (De Stadspartij), the Christian democrats (CDA) and a major-
ity of the local population.
The main arguments of the opponents in 2010/2011 are that the
plan is too expensive, especially in times of crisis, that there will
not be any new amenities, since for now the plan merely brings
existing organisations together in one building, even when most
of these already have proper accommodation (Duineveld, 2011).
The current scattering of cultural organisations in the historical
centre is seen as a positive, as a better, cheaper and more natural
way to keep the place lively. Opponents also argue that revenues
are overestimated. At the time of our study about two thirds of
the people in Groningen seemed to oppose the municipality’s plans
(Duineveld, 2011). In the years before that, the Forum plans at-
tracted widespread criticism. Despite the political opposition and
the resistance in the traditional media, on the Internet and among
the public, the Groninger Forum is inches away from being built.
Its irreversibility is virtually undisputed.
2.3.1. A history of social-democratic urbanism
To render this puzzling evolution more understandable, we
briefly sketch the broader history of urban planning in Groningen.
This city, now with approximately 190.000 residents, has been the
only major city in the northern part of the Netherlands since the
 M. Duineveld et al. / Geoforum 46 (2013) 16–24
middle ages (obtaining city rights in 1040). Situated on the cusp of
a sandy elevation amidst low and wet agricultural areas, it was a
natural marketplace, a unique location serving a large hinterland.
This, in combination with the old university, created a strong civic
identity since the late middle ages, a strong feeling of distinctive-
ness, a rich tradition of self-organisation and substantial public
investment in high-quality public spaces (Duineveld, 2011). With
the decline of agriculture and the associated decline of agricultural
market places, the peripheral location of Groningen began to prove
economically disadvantageous, and in the course of the 20th cen-
tury, the city became more and more dependent on government
investments and services (Ashworth, 2001; Tsubohara, 2010).
Politically, the period after WWI has been dominated by the so-
cial-democratic party (PvdA). In Groningen, local pride, a strong so-
cial-democratic majority and civic traditions reinforced the
interest in spatial planning, made it easier to implement plans
and added a flavour of urban design. After WWI, the reconstruction
plans for Groningen by Granpre Moliere (Heide and Van der, 2003),
an eminent figure in Dutch city planning, emphasise tightly knit
urban spaces in an architectural and urban design style that was
already considered neo-traditionalist in his day.
Since the 1980s the preservation and revitalisation of the centre
has become a dominant discourse in Groningen’s policy and plan-
ning (Provoost, 1992). Much attention and investment has been
lavished upon the urban core, with a pre-dominance of post-mod-
ern additions embedded in the old city fabric and even the smallest
detail of street-scaping adapted to the historic environment. The
Groningen museum (by Alessandro Mendini) being the major
exception, a post-modern building without references to local his-
tory, in the interstice between the railway station and the old town
(Duineveld, 2011). The museum drew a lot of attention to the city,
even internationally, and locally, among the cultural and political
elites, it became an icon of enlightened policy, an example to be
built upon where possible.
In the following paragraphs, we will give more detail to this first
description of the local planning tradition, based on our interviews
with local architects, planners, politicians and other insiders.
2.3.2. The planning tradition in terms of networks
The plans for the eastern side of the Grote Markt and the Gron-
inger Forum fit well within this urban planning tradition (Tsuboha-
ra, 2010). In specialist literature this tradition is described as a
success story, and most of the civil servants, urban planners and
architects we interviewed also considered it as such (interviews,
Provoost, 1992; Duineveld, 2011). In the local insider narrative,
the success story originated in the mid-1980s, when Ypke Gietema
was appointed alderman (wethouder) in charge of spatial planning.
He surrounded himself with a small group of like-minded people:
the city architect, a few urban design specialists and planners and a
handful of local and other Dutch architects (Duineveld, 2011). The
following years are portrayed as a break with the 1970s, when the
municipality and the housing corporations pulled all the strings in
Groningen, together with the local architects (Provoost, 1992). The
main topic then was the urban renewal of the suburbs. With the
arrival of Gietema, the urban character of the city became the cen-
tral focus. It is said that he realised ‘the turn’ in the policy of urban
planning and many things suddenly became possible. The then rel-
atively unknown architect Rem Koolhaas designed two buildings,
internationally renowned designers and architects, like Natolini,
Libeskind, Grassi and Mendini, were attracted and investors were
enticed to come to the city (Ashworth, 2001). The museum was
built, as were a public library, a new train station and a large mall
behind the old town hall, on the same location where the modern
council offices were realised no later than in the 1970s.
In the 1970s, the urban planners in Groningen started to give
explicit attention to the involvement of citizens in spatial planning,
19
especially with the urban renewal projects (Tsubohara, 2006,
2010). Urban designers at the city planning department prepared
the plans, citizens were given the opportunity to respond, and
the experts adjusted the plans if deemed necessary. Experts, so it
was (and is) thought, knew what was best for the city and its res-
idents, who did not always agree with the plans (interviews). In
fact, there always has been significant resistance against the plans
of the local government (Tsubohara, 2010; Duineveld, 2011).
Squatters, organised groups of citizens and other so-called ‘conser-
vatives’ tried to get in their way. Still, many projects were imple-
mented. According to most of our respondents, the urban design
successes, of which especially the Groninger Museum is often
mentioned, are the result of an influential local network, a conge-
nial group with a shared vision for the city (Provoost, 1992). A deci-
sive factor for the influence of the group was the fact that they
covered many of the departments and roles involved in the plan-
ning process. With regards to spatial planning, politics, administra-
tion, the design professions and the cultural elite overlapped to a
large extent, and this network largely coincided with the sphere
of influence of the Social Democratic Party.
In the mid-1980s, the ideal of social democratic spatial planning
was reinvigorated in Groningen (Tsubohara, 2010, 2006). The city’s
post-war urban designers, architects and planners already believed
that social problems required spatial answers, specifically: plan-
ning answers. In the network that emerged in the 1980s, and often
under the leadership of Gietema, this ideal was revived and rein-
vented, with a stronger focus on design quality, embedding in his-
tory and density to enhance urban functions. It was thought that
problems like social deprivation and decay in working-class areas
could be solved through large-scale urban renewal. But that re-
newal had to be compatible with the idea of the compact city
(Pirart, 2008). Minimising the sprawl of the city and focussing on
infill development instead would lead to a lively and multifunc-
tional city rich in amenities (e.g. Gemeente Groningen, 2010b).
Let us now take a look at the emergence of the concept and form
of the Groninger forum in this context.
2.3.3. The emergence of the Groninger Forum
In 2001 a plan to redesign the north side of the Grote Markt and
build an underground parking lot there was brought to a halt by a
referendum. The local planning system then shifted the focus of
their ambitions to the eastern side of the Grote Markt. An urban
design proposal for the neighbourhood was made by an urbanist
after a series of participatory meetings. In this 2002 plan the build-
ing we now know as the Forum first appeared. The plan was sub-
jected to a second referendum, in 2005. A small majority voted
in favour of the plans, but the referendum was declared invalid be-
cause of insufficient attendance (Duineveld, 2011). The plans could
proceed. By 2007, the Forum building had become the centrepiece
of the urban design scheme now presumed accepted, and seven de-
sign options were presented to the citizens of Groningen. The firm
NL-Architects won the competition. In the following years, 2008
and 2009, the first preparations were made for the implementation
of the urban design scheme and the building of its centrepiece. At
the end of 2010, however, the province of Groningen withdrew
some of the informally granted subsidies and the plan’s future be-
came uncertain. For our study of object formation a more detailed
reconstruction of the evolution of the Forum building is necessary.
2.3.4. The forum, its proponents and its discontents
According to the spatial planner and resident of Groningen Prof.
Greg Ashworth, the northern and eastern sides of the Grote Markt
are seen by local planners as the remaining problem areas in the
historic centre (Ashworth, 2001). The plans for these remaining
problems follow up the successful implementation of a series of
other plans, like a traffic circulation plan to create a more or less
20 M. Duineveld et al. / Geoforum 46 (2013) 16–24
car-free inner city, the construction of the Groninger Museum and
a large-scale redevelopment on the western side of the Grote
Markt (Ashworth, 2001; interviews). Most of those local planners
would agree (interviews).
The northern and eastern sides of the Grote Markt were rebuilt
after their destruction in WWII but by the 1990s there was wide-
spread dissatisfaction with both form and function. Neither the
architectural style nor the exclusive commercial functions con-
formed to the architectural fashion of the time or the way the cen-
tral city was increasingly being used. In addition, behind the
market the back lots were a jumbled chaos of loading bays, storage
areas, and parking both permitted and illegal: ‘The idea of demol-
ishing all or part of the north side in particular and rebuilding in
styles more in keeping with the conserved historicity of most of
the rest of the inner city was a logical step in a progression of such
developments’ (Ashworth, 2001).
In 2002, the website of the protest group Comité Geen Gat in de
Grote Markt (opposing the plan voted in the 02 referendum) read:
‘Groningen voted No! And saved the Martinitoren!’ The Martinito-
ren is the iconic medieval belltower of the Martini church, and the
protest group tried to associate adoption of the new plan with
undermining the historic character and identity of the place and
the potential collapse of the Martinitoren, due to the digging of
the underground parking garage. The results of the referendum
on the plans for the north site of the Grote Markt read: ‘81.973
enfranchised citizens and turnout 56.51%. Yes: 18.79%, 15.579
votes. A clear no: 81%, 66.394 votes.’’ (Duineveld, 2011: 9).
As said, in reaction to the failed plans for the northern side of
the Grote Markt, the municipality contemplated a possible trans-
formation of the eastern side. This time, the municipality was pro-
active from the start. The intention was to develop and unveil the
plans incrementally. ‘Not to lay out the plans at once, but mollify
the inhabitants gradually,’ as a high-ranking civil servant put it.
The choice was made to let the citizens contribute to the new
plans, to make them more part of the process, in the hope that this
would create a collective investment in the project (Duineveld,
2011, interviews). It had to be an ‘open and transparent’ planning
process (Gemeente Groningen, 2007). With this aim, the munici-
pality founded the Grote Markt Forum, an advisory board that
seated around fifty people from diverse interest groups, residents’
associations, civil servants and councillors. In parallel, public meet-
ings were organised, surveys ordered. A website tried to bring new
constituencies into the planning discussion and was used to collect
ideas from the citizens.
Nearly all actors agreed that something had to be done about
the eastern side of the Grote Markt (Duineveld, 2011). The partic-
ipatory process resulted in ideas and visions, which were turned
into six urban development models, with the help of architects.
After the municipal elections in 2002, a plan based on one of the
development models was made part of the political program of
the new coalition (PvdA, Groenlinks, CDA and VVD). The plan in-
cludes ‘a new cultural centre on the eastern side of the Grote
Markt, which in time will replace the existing cultural centre
Oosterpoort’ (Boogers and Tops, 2005; Duineveld, 2011). The
mayor worried about public support for the plan.
In 2003 the Grote Markt Forum advises the city council commit-
tee to develop four alternative plans and one that combines ele-
ments of the four alternatives. The alternative include a cultural
centre, a historical museum, a ware house with cultural functions
and a library. The fifth option consists of smaller functions, like a
debating centre and art galleries. These alternatives were never
further developed (Duineveld, 2011). The municipality had invited
the Rotterdam architect Neutelings to elaborate the suggestions of
the Grote Markt Forum into four urban design options. Neuteling
did not completely stick to the assignment. ‘In stead of the re-
quested spatial interpretation of the selected ideas, he made one
overall urban design plan for the eastern side of the Grote Markt’
(Boogers and Tops, 2005; Duineveld, 2011). The opposition in city
council was not amused and wondered again if the local executive
(mayor and aldermen) was really interested in a democratically
legitimate planning process. The SP (socialist party) announced it
wanted to request a referendum, so the inhabitants of Groningen
could finally have their say.
In contrast with the first referendum, the city council did every-
thing in its power to be prepared for this one. The alderman initi-
ated a citizens’ committee of proponents named: ‘Grote Markt Ja’
(Yes, to the Main Market). The new committee, was deliberately
presented as a grassroots initiative, embarked on a fundraising
campaign to support a pro-Forum campaign (Duineveld, 2011).
The chosen strategy was inspired by that of the opponents before
the first referendum (interviews). At the height of the campaign
they had posters with a smiling and winking Martini tower all over
the city centre. The proponents used the library and the local mu-
seum for modern art as campaign bases. The opponents received
some financial support from the local government, but no funds
from local entrepreneurs and their campaign was largely paid by
the Socialist Party (SP).
When the second referendum was declared invalid, and the lo-
cal executive saw this as a green light for the Market and Forum
plans, a competition was organised for the building we now know
as the Groninger Forum. Seven national and international architec-
tural firms were selected and the models were presented in the
Martini church from 19 January 2006 to 1 Februari 2007. 31.500
People visited the exhibition and 21.656 of them voted for their
favourite design. Both the public and an expert jury favoured the
NL-architects’ building and the firm was invited to elaborate their
design (Duineveld, 2011). Meanwhile, the Stichting Groninger For-
um (Groninger Forum Foundation) was created to consider the
best mix of uses, to facilitate the cooperation between the various
involved institutions and to promote the Groninger Forum. The fi-
nal design and user mix for the Groninger Forum were announced
on the city’s website in June 2009 (Gemeente Groningen, 2009).
That year, municipal elections were held as well. The Groninger
Forum was an important issue, and all parties took a clear stand
in support of or against the plans. Groen Links (the green party)
and PvdA (the social democrats) supported the plans. As did the
SP (socialist party) and the CDA (Christian democrats), but they
were very clear on the fact that they did not want the budget to
be exceeded. The VVD (liberal party) was a supporter during the
last elections, but changed its mind because it did not feel confi-
dent that the Forum’s exploitation would be a success. They would
only vote in favour if private sector parties got involved. The local
city party was completely opposed to the plans. All the parties sup-
porting the Forum lost seats in the city council, and for all these
parties, the Forum was seen as a major cause of this loss. The city
party went from 2 to 5 seats. After the elections, the parties in fa-
vour of the Forum formed a left-wing coalition and the Forum
plans could proceed.
In November 2010 ‘the provincial council of Groningen agreed
to contribute 35 million Euros from the compensation funds for
the realisation of the Groningen Forum. ‘The ‘temple of culture’
on the Grote Markt is seen as an economic impulse for both the city
and the region, which on top of that will create 200 new jobs’
(Dagblad van het Noorden, 2010). At this point it seemed practi-
cally impossible to reverse the plans. In December 2010, 3 months
before the provincial elections, however, the province seemed to
back out. As it turned out, the majority of the PvdA members on
the provincial council no longer wanted to grant the Forum the
35 million Euros. Their arguments: the economic crisis and the lack
of support among residents and within the party. This created a
majority for the opponents of the subsidy in the provincial council.
The municipality was highly indignant and threatened to take the
 M. Duineveld et al. / Geoforum 46 (2013) 16–24
province to court. When the tempers subsided, an agreement was
made between the city counsel and the province to install an inde-
pendent commission of ‘wise men’ to think about the future of the
Forum. The members were former politicians and directors of large
cultural institutions, such as the Amsterdam public library. They
were to advise the municipal and provincial councils on the con-
cept and the added economic value of the project Grote Markt-For-
um. The commission was established before the provincial
elections of 2011, but did not give its advice before the end of April
2011, after the elections.
In the meantime, the supporters of the Forum actively lobbied
to get people to sign a pro-Forum petition. Cultural institutions,
including the ones already involved with the Forum, were asked
to sign the online petition (Go For’um, 2011). It was debated, with-
in the administrations, whether civil servants should be allowed to
sign such a petition, since they’re involved in the whole project.
Some signed, others did not. The Stichting het Groninger Forum
organised a Forum supporters evening under the motto: ‘Say it
loud, I’m Forum and I’m proud’ (Groningerforum.nl, 2011b).
In May 2011 the commission published their report. Some cri-
tiques were raised, but the main conclusion is that the show must
go on. As a result the PvdA fraction of the province indicated that
they would back the Forum plans.
3. Object formation and irreversibility
In the following section, we analyse and reinterpret the process
described above. We revisit the concepts on object formation pre-
sented earlier, to understand better how the Forum emerged and
persisted as a discursive object. As said, we are particularly inter-
ested in the techniques that lead to relative stability of an object
that increases its irreversibility, in an environment of persistent
opposition.
In our case, the path of object formation and stabilisation is
decidedly convoluted. The concept developed in and through vari-
ous sites, such as architectural firms, meetings at the planning
department, political gatherings, events where the cultural elite
was present, discussions in local media. One can also link the
emergence of the forum idea to the history of resistance to previ-
ous plans, calling for a more charismatic and ambitious concept
for the symbolic market location. In our analysis of object forma-
tion and stabilisation, we thus consider not only the positive con-
tributions as formative, but also the history of resistance and
critique (Rose, 2002; Butler, 1997). We now revisit the techniques
introduced earlier, and circumscribe their role in the Forum case.
The frame renders the case more understandable, while the case
study contributes to the refining of the conceptual frame.
3.1. Reification and paradoxical reification
The Groninger Forum is the result of a process of reification, in
which the Forum became increasingly recognisable as a separate
object, distinguishable from its environment. After the failure of
the first Market plan for the North side of the Grote Markt, it
emerged as the centerpiece of a new plan for the Eastern side. In
and through discussions on the role of tourism in economic devel-
opment, in constant reference to the Museum and earlier urban de-
sign successes, it looked like a showpiece was needed (cf.
Ashworth, 2001). Since no clear function was available for a new
‘crowd magnet’, the idea emerged to combine pre-existing func-
tions currently scattered over the city. Thus the idea of a prominent
building with tourist potential, and the idea of a combination of
cultural functions reinforced each other, and slowly came to imply
each other. After the second referendum this process gained
momentum, since the price tag of the Forum and the visual impact
21
on the Market caused the public discussion to focus increasingly on
the Forum and less so on the whole urban design plan. When both
proponents and opponents focused policy discussion on the Forum,
and when the seven design options for the Forum were presented
to the public, the Forum became firmly embedded in public dis-
course as something distinct from its environment, as something
clearly delineated. The creation and dissemination of a form (the
design) made it easier to conceptualise the building as something
distinct. The form made it also easier for critics to attack the For-
um, since critique of the concept could now acquire the character
of a critique of the form. Form thus simplified dissemination and
promotion of the Forum idea, but it also created openings for cri-
tique (see various discussions on the web, e.g.: SkyscraperCity,
2011)
With regards to reification, the Forum case also reveals how
substantial the formative role of critique can be in object forma-
tion. Critiques not only shape the discursive object as selective
resistance; they also contribute to its reality, in a paradoxical man-
ner, by making it more visible and thus important in various dis-
courses. We call this technology paradoxical reification. Without
using this term, Foucault also pointed out ‘resistance is never in
a position of exteriority in relation to power’ (Foucault, 1998:
95), so the object of resistance, because of the resistance, is not
external to the power relation but acknowledged as an existing
identity, thus making it quite difficult to think outside of it (Fou-
cault, 1998, cf. Butler, 1997).
3.2. Solidification
In the Forum case, solidification of the object came about when
the idea of a prominent building and the idea of a combination of
cultural functions were linked. The Forum emerged in public de-
bates as a powerful magnet of pro and contra only when these
two elements came together. Evidently, it would be harder to sell
the idea of ‘something prominent’, if there is no concept of use,
of functionality. One can say that in the Groningen case, reification
and solidification took place almost simultaneously, since the For-
um only became something distinct when its conceptual elements
formed a unity. One of the things that solidified the Groninger For-
um as an object were the studies consultancy firms conducted for
the municipality, producing very positive projections for future
revenues of such mix of uses (e.g. Briene and Wienhoven, 2009;
Consultancy.nl, 2011; Groningerforum.nl, 2011a). These studies
legitimised the Forum as a destination for public money, and
simultaneously reinforced the links between its conceptual ele-
ments -cultural institutions could be brought together in an ambi-
tious architectural form to draw tourist revenues.
3.3. Codification
The codification (simplification and clarification of boundaries)
of an architectural object is a double process of delineation: delin-
eation of spatial boundaries and of conceptual boundaries. For the
public reception and political fate of an architectural object, it is
relevant how the two relate. In the case of the Forum, the spatial
delineation mainly resulted from the production and reproduction
of the seven design options, their public display, and the dissemi-
nation and discussion of the winning model. In the models,
sketches and animations of the Forum, both the current buildings
on the Forum site and the front on the eastern side of the Grote
Markt were depicted somewhat vaguely, without details. This
strengthened the Forum as an isolated, clear object. The Forum’s
codification was also the result of the debate, which focussed
mostly on the Forum building and less on the reconstruction of
the East side of the Grote Markt and adjoining neighbourhood.
Few denied something needed to be done about that. Because of
22 M. Duineveld et al. / Geoforum 46 (2013) 16–24

this, the Forum even more became a separate identity in relation to reads that it ‘is hard to think of any other project in the Nether-
the whole project. lands, in which the citizen is more involved than in the plans for
Interestingly, the Forum case also revealed a slowing down of the Groninger Forum’, an assertion that is often disputed by the
the codification process. At the second referendum, residents were opponents (Duineveld, 2011). The plan’s history is slightly rewrit-
asked to assess the urban design proposal for the East side of the ten: ‘Nearly forty percent of the voters went to the polls for the ref-
Market. The building that would be built behind the new facade erendum on this plan on 29 June 2005. (. . .) A vast majority – 53,4
of the market square, a building that by then was known to plan- percent – voted in favour of the plan in 2005 and thus supports the
ning insiders as tall and massive enough to visually dwarf that fa- Groninger Forum, an inextricable part of the proposal’ (Gemeente
cade was, according to the opponents, intentionally kept vague Groningen, 2010b). That the referendum was declared invalid
(Duineveld, 2011). It was mentioned in the written version of the due to a low turn-out, is left out of the press report and was hardly
plan, but remained indistinct in the few visualisations which were mentioned in the interviews with the supporters. The proponents
made. The size of the parking lot, the precise height and costs of also failed to mention that the Forum was hardly distinguishable
the building, and the plans for its exploitation were (kept) unclear in the referendum plan that focused on the redevelopment of the
(Boogers and Tops, 2005; interviews). According to a local politi- eastern side of the Main Market. The appearance of democratic
cian ‘many people thought they voted for the eastern side of the legitimacy is enhanced in this manner, and thus the irreversibility
market square, but with that, they also voted for (. . .) [what later of the Forum as object.
has become known as] the Groninger Forum’. One can say then
that a group of planning insiders tried to enhance the chances of
3.5. Institutionalisation
materialisation by slowing down the codification of the object in
public discourse.
In governance contexts, some institutions are ‘safer’ than others
With regards to the link between form and function, it can be
for increasing the irreversibility an object (Foucault, 1979 Fuchs,
said that part of the critiques developed along that line. It was per-
2001). The plan was institutionally embedded from the beginning
ceived by many, after the seven options were presented, that the
of the process, as the Forum originated within the city’s political
building was too big and modern for the scale, style and atmo-
and administrative institutions. For the promotion and detailed
sphere of the historic centre, and it was often observed that cul-
planning of the Forum a project organisation (the Forum Founda-
tural organisations ought not to be combined in one building,
tion) was established and financed, by the local Government, that
and certainly not in a such modern and massive design object. In
could operate formally independently of the city department of
other words, these functions ought not to be combined in such a
spatial planning/economics (RO/EZ). This newly created institution
building in such a place. As soon as the Forum became conceptu-
formed a safer, nominally non-governmental and ‘apolitical’ envi-
ally and spatially codified, the linkage between the two aspects
ronment to further naturalise the object by placing it outside of
of codification became a crystallisation point for further critiques.
the political order. While the Forum and the Forum foundation
were clearly political projects, supported by a coalition of actors
3.4. Naturalisation
in and outside the administration, the new foundation could func-
tion as a figurehead for that coalition, circumvent some of the
After the Forum was created as a new object, the contingent his-
checks and balances in the standard planning process and reduce
tory of its creation was immediately veiled in a constant process of
the pressures from other political actors (Duineveld, 2011). Rela-
naturalisation. When the elections were over, the Forum was con-
tively isolated from the pressures of the planning department,
tinuously brought to the attention in newspapers, on the Internet
and visible as a separate entity, it was destined to calm down the
and on local television. With that, the object increasingly became
discussions and smoothen the naturalisation of the Forum. The
an object of which the existence was not questioned. Repetition
foundation was also expected to become an ‘independent’ actor,
of the idea in various media had the character of an acknowledge-
promoting the forum from an assumedly neutral, apolitical, per-
ment; it made it harder and harder to discern that the Forum was
spective. Illustrative for this strategy of depoliticisation is the role
the result of decisions that were contingent and could be ques-
of the director of the Forum foundation. Among other occasions, he
tioned, that it was not built yet and thus could be stopped. The
defended the Forum plans in a discussion with the opposition
opposition against the building also helped naturalise it as an
party VVD (Groninger Internet Courant, 2009). In the official per-
existing entity. Because of the opposition, the object was fre-
spective, ‘The Forum’ already existed, and was represented by
quently reproduced, mostly on the web. Science had a relatively
the Forum foundation, so that organisation, nominally indepen-
small role in this process of naturalisation; only the visitor-progno-
dent, nominally representative of the community, had to do the
ses and revenue projections came up regularly in the discussions.
work. The potential implications of that debating work were fur-
We want to clarify that the naturalisation in this case did not come
ther restricted by the other strategies already discussed.
out of resistance as such, but resulted from a specific resistance
An influential debating society in Groningen (Groninger Forum,
strategy, focusing on the opposition of one concept, rather than
2011a) also became part of the Forum and this centre organises the
conjuring up new concepts.
public debates on the Groninger Forum. These discussions are care-
By organising activities such as debates, film festivals and par-
fully prepared. Opponents of the Forum are allowed to voice their
ties, the Forum Foundation also contributed to the naturalisation
opinion, but the invited speakers are selected with care. Members
of the Groninger Forum, to establish the name and the concept of
of the city party, the most vocal and powerful opponent in the city
the future building as a fact of life in the local community (e.g.
council, are never invited, because ‘they only speak nonsense’. The
Gemeente Groningen, 2010a). A form of naturalisation involving
Forum foundation also organised a special evening for the support-
organised forgetting of the disputed and contingent process of
ers to celebrate the Forum (Groninger Forum, 2011a).
emergence can be recognised in the reinterpretation of that pro-
cess as democratically legitimate, ‘forgetting’ the history with the
two referenda and the absence of an urban design option without 4. Conclusion
the Forum later on. Both local administration and some of the local
political parties (such as SP) enabled this forgetting of a disputed Objects are never finished, never entirely stable, never entirely
process, and contributed thus to the construction of the Forum as ‘objective’, ‘natural’ and never perfectly institutionalised (Fuchs,
a fact. The website of the municipality of Groningen, for example, 2001; Mol, 2002; Abrahamsson, 2010; Hicks and Beaudry, 2010).
 M. Duineveld et al. / Geoforum 46 (2013) 16–24
All this applies to the Groninger Forum. The Groninger Forum as an
object seemed never complete, never unambiguous. Although we
mainly focussed on the enactment in the ‘dominant’ discourse
and its dominant counter discourse, it is enacted differently or ab-
sent at different sites, different times, in language, in discourses,
practices, networks and social systems. The Groninger Forum in
this respect can stand in for every other object that has to be sus-
tained as an object day in, day out in a world that knows no univer-
sal consensus and no timeless semantics.
The process of object formation in governance contexts is
simultaneously a process of object stabilisation and de-stabilisa-
tion, a continuous confrontation of discursive powers in which a
wide array of strategies and tactics is deployed. A variety of tech-
niques aimed to undermine the object, others neutralise these ef-
fects, in order to guarantee its continued existence. These
techniques are applied within different sites and know different
pathways, marked by path dependencies with varying degrees of
hardness. Within a governance context one rarely encounters lin-
ear and clearly visible paths of object formation and once-applied
techniques of stabilisation. The sites of formation and stabilisation
are multiple, not always visible, sometimes unexpected, and the
nature of governance as a site of polyvocality and confrontation
makes it a context that reshapes power/knowledge formations
continuously. In other words, truth and power are simultaneously
redefined in ongoing confrontations in governance, and thus it is
not strange to see continuous recombinations and re-applications
of the techniques of object formation and stabilisation we de-
scribed. Objects are continuously enacted through mechanisms
that sometimes work simultaneously, sometimes overlap, and
sometimes disappear into the background.
The political and controversial character of the Groninger For-
um makes it susceptible to a variety of power techniques influenc-
ing its stability and instability as an object, hence limiting its
irreversibility. With each step in the process, the irreversibility of
the plan, of the building can be increased, just as it can be de-
creased. Therefore, complete irreversibility is an illusion in gover-
nance and planning processes. Yet, even if the object is
embedded materially as well, in this case when it is built, irrevers-
ibility cannot be taken for granted (cf. Latour, 1999; Law, 2009). A
fire, a storm, or for instance an extension or reconstruction of the
building can shift the spatial boundaries of the object, undo it, split
it into several objects or merge it with another object. Cultural,
economic, political shifts, a bankruptcy of some users or the collec-
tive, can reshape the conceptual boundaries of the object. Concep-
tual boundaries can shift with the coming and going of uses and
users, and with a reinterpretation of activities still in place. Shifts
in conceptual boundaries can trigger changes in spatial boundaries
and vice versa, and each boundary shift can influence the stability
of the object. Irreversibility can thus be increased or decreased at
any point in time; it can never be absolute.
Planning processes and governance issues are special contexts
to use and refine theories on object formation (Duineveld and
Van Assche, 2011, cf. Asdal, 2008). Their complex character, involv-
ing interactions between politics, economy, science and law, and
interactions between a variety of stakeholders marked by different
perspectives and diverging interests allows us to think about rela-
tions between power, knowledge and reality – something that
faded into the background within the actor-network theories that
currently dominate debates on object formation (Duineveld and
Van Assche, 2011). In the other direction, our perspective on object
formation enabled us to demonstrate that resistance and opposi-
tion against a planned object are not merely obstacles for a suc-
cessful implementation. Resistance also shapes the object and
can even increase the chances of implementation by making it
more real, for more people, within more and different networks
(cf. Fuchs, 2001).
23
Our perspective on object formation and stabilisation reveals
the persisting instability of objects, the complex pathways and
techniques enabling and disabling irreversibility and the vulnera-
bility of plans as instruments expected to steer and thus co-create
reality. With that, our conceptual frame can help to nuance both
overstated steering claims for planning (embodied in persistent
modernist ideologies in planning (Scott, 1998), and overblown dec-
larations of its demise (represented by certain versions of post-
modern planning theory and neo-classical economics). Plans have
effects, spatial governance can create objects, but the outcomes
are never entirely predictable, never entirely stable, and never
the result of blue-print planning or the straightforward ‘implemen-
tation’ of designs.
Acknowledgement
We would like to thank Guus Dix and the anonymous reviewers
for their helpful comments and suggestions.
References
Abrahamsson, S., 2010. Something Happening – on the Geographies of a
Mummified Body. University of Oxford.
Asdal, K., 2008. Enacting things through numbers: taking nature into account/ing.
Geoforum 39 (1), 123–132.
Ashworth, G., 2001. Planning by referendum: empowerment or anarchy in
Groningen, the Netherlands. Local Environment 6 (3), 367–372.
Barthes, R., 1957. Mythologies. Éditions du Seuil, Paris.
Boogers, M., Tops, P.W., 2005. Hoe het referendum werd ‘gewonnen’. Een evaluatie
van het Groninger referendum van 29 juni 2005. Dongen: Pijnenburg uitgevers.
Bourdieu, P., 1988. Homo academicus. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Briene, M., Wienhoven, M., 2009. Effectanalyse ontwikkeling Grote Markt
(oostzijde). Update ruimtelijk-economische impact voor de stad Groningen.
Rotterdam, ECORYS.
Butler, J., 1997. Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. Routledge, New
York.
Callon, M., 1991. Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In: Law, J. (Ed.), A
Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination.
Routledge, London, pp. 132–165.
CONSULTANCY.NL, 2011. Groningen Betaalde Berenschot 115k voor Plan. <http://
www.consultancy.nl/nieuws/groningen-betaalt-berenschot-115-duizend-voor-
plan-van-aanpak-van-groninger-forum> (accessed 15.05.11).
Dagblad van Het Noorden, 2010. Provincie Groningen schuift 35 miljoen naar het
Forum. <http://www.dvhn.nl/nieuws/groningen/article6553221.ece/Provincie-
Groningen-schuift-35-miljoen-naar-het-Forum>.
Duineveld, M., Eerkes, B., 2011. De nuloptie. Een film over Stadjers en de
maakbaarheid van het Groninger Forum. BeMedia/Grasuitgevers, Arnhem en
Groningen.
Duineveld, M., Van Assche, K.A.M., 2011. The power of tulips: constructing nature
and heritage in a contested landscape. Journal of Environmental Policy and
Planning 13 (2), 79–98.
Duineveld, M., 2011. De Nuloptie. Over Stadjers en de maakbaarheid van het
Groninger Forum. Grasuitgevers, Groningen.
Flyvbjerg, B., Richardson, T., 2002. Planning and Foucault: in search of the dark side
of planning theory. In: Allmendinger, P., Tewdwr-Jones, M. (Eds.), Planning
Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory. Routledge, London and New York,
pp. 44–62.
Flyvbjerg, B., 1998. Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Flyvbjerg, B., 2002. Bringing power to planning research. One researcher’s praxis
story. Journal of Planning Education and Research 21, 353–366.
Foucault, M., 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge & The Discourse on Language.
Pantheon Books, New York.
Foucault, M., 1973. The Order of Things. Random House, New York.
Foucault, M., 1979. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Penguin Books,
Harmondsworth.
Foucault, M., 1994a. Power. Essential Works of Foucault 1954–1984, vol. 3. The New
Press, New York.
Foucault, M., 1994b. The subject and power. In: Faubion, J.D. (Ed.), Power. Essential
Works of Foucault 1954–1984, vol. 3. The New Press, New York.
Foucault, M., 1994c. Truth and juridical forms. In: Faubion, J.D. (Ed.), Power.
Essential works of Foucault 1954–1984, vol. 3. The New Press, New York, pp. 1–
89.
Foucault, M., 1998. The Will to Knowledge. The History of Sexuality, vol. 1. Penguin
Books, London.
Foucault, M., 2006. History of Madness. Routledge, London and New York.
Foucault, M., 2007. Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the College de France,
1977–1978. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Fuchs, S., 2001. Against Essentialism: A Theory of Culture and Society. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge.
24 M. Duineveld et al. / Geoforum 46 (2013) 16–24
Gemeente Groningen, 2007. Uitslag publieksenquete Architectenselectie Groninger
forum C.A. 2 Februari 2007. Gemeente Groniningen, Groningen.
Gemeente Groningen, 2009. Stad krijgt Groninger Forum. <http://gemeente.
groningen.nl/algemeen-nieuws/2009-06/stad-krijgt-groninger-forum> (acce-
ssed 01.10.10).
Gemeente Groningen, 2010a. B&W: Burger nauw betrokken geweest bij plannen
Groninger Forum 1. <http://gemeente.groningen.nl/b-w-besluiten/b-w-burger-
nauw-betrokken-geweest-bij-plannen-1.html> [accessed 04.10.10).
Gemeente Groningen, 2010b. Bestemmingsplan Forum. Voorontwerp, Groningen.
<http://gemeente.groningen.nl/ro-online/plannen/NL.IMRO.0014.BP469Forum-
/NL.IMRO.0014.BP469Forum-0001/t_NL.IMRO.0014.BP469Forum-0001_index.
html#begin> (accessed 01.10.10).
Go For’um, 2011. <http://go-forum.petities.nl/> (accessed 04.06.11).
Groninger Forum, 2011a. ForumDwarsdiep. Groningen. <www.groningerforum.nl/
forumdwarsdiep> [accessed 05.06.11).
Groninger Forum, 2011b. Groninger Forum. <http://www.groningerforum.nl/
groninger-forum> (accessed 12.06).
Groninger Internet Courant, 2009. ‘Groningen krijgt spectaculaire, wel degelijk zeer
druk bezochte voorziening!’, zegt Groninger Forum. <http://www.gic.nl/
nieuws/groningen-krijgt-spectaculaire-zeer-druk-bezochte-voorziening-zegt-
groninger-forum?actie=print> (accessed 08.04.11).
Groningerforum.nl, 2011a. FAQ. <http://www.groningerforum.nl/groninger-forum/
faq> (accessed 14.05.11).
Groningerforum.nl, 2011b. Forumsupportersavond – Say it loud, I’m Forum and I’m
proud. <http://www.groningerforum.nl/agenda/andere-activiteiten/forumsup
portersavond-say-it-loud-im-forum-and-im-proud/view> (accessed 12.05.11).
Hajer, M., Versteeg, W., 2005. A decade of discourse analysis of environmental
politics: achievements, challenges, perspectives. Journal of Environmental
Policy and Planning 7 (3), 175–184.
Heide, M., Van der, 2003. Een introductie van Groninger wederopbouw en
naoorlogse architectuur. In: Stichting Monument en Materiaal (Ed.),
Hervonden stad. Groningen.
Hicks, D., Beaudry, M.C. (Eds.), 2010. The Oxford Handbook of Material Culture
Studies. Oxford University Press, Oxford; New York.
Hillier, J., 2002. Shadows of Power: An Allegory of Prudence in Land-use Planning.
Routledge, New York.
Hinchliffe, S. et al., 2005. Urban wild things: a cosmopolitical experiment.
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 23 (5), 643–658.
Hinchliffe, S., 2007. Geographies of Nature: Societies, Environments, Ecologies. Sage,
Los Angeles, London.
Laclau, E., Mouffe, C., 1985. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical
Democratic Politics. Verso, London.
Latour, B., Woolgar, S., 1986. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts.
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Latour, B., 1999. Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Harvard
University Press, London.
Law, J., 2004. After Method: Mess in Social Science Research, first ed. Routledge,
London.
LAW, J., 2009. Actor network theory and material semiotics. In: TURNER, B.S. (Ed.),
The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 141–
158.
Mackenzie, D., Muniesa, F., 2007. Do Economists Make Markets?: On The
Performativity of Economics. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Mol, A., 2002. The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Duke University
Press, Durham.
North, D.C., 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
North, D.C., 2005. Understanding the Process of Economic Change. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Phelps, N.A., Tewdwr-Jones, M., 2000. Scratching the surface of collaborative and
associative governance: identifying the diversity of social action in institutional
capacity building. Environment and Planning A 32 (1), 111–130.
Pirart, F., 2008. Policies against urban sprawl in the changing Dutch planning
context. Groningen case: from a monocentric compact city policy towards a
new urbanisation path between intensification and expansion. (MSc).
University of Groningen.
Provoost, M. (Ed.), 1992. De omslag. Ypke Gietema en de stad Groningen.
Rotterdam: 010.
Rose, M., 2002. The seductions of resistance: power, politics, and a performative
style of systems. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 20, 383–400.
Scott, J.C., 1998. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human
Condition Have Failed. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Skyscrapercity, 2011. Groninger Forum. <http://www.skyscrapercity.com/
showthread.php?t=432312> (accessed 21.06.11).
Thrift, N., 2006. Space. Theory, Culture & Society 23 (2–3), 139–146.
Tsubohara, S., 2006. Democratic Nature of Urban Development in Groningen in the
1980s – PTT, Brink, Casino and Museum. University of Groningen, Groningen.
Tsubohara, S., 2010. Democracy Through Political Parties and Public Participation:
The Case of the Planning History of Groningen. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, The
Netherlands.
Van Assche, K.A.M., Beunen, R., Duineveld, M., Jong, H.C.de., 2012. Co-evolutions of
planning and design: risks and benefits of design perspectives in planning
systems. Planning Theory. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1473095212456771.
Whatmore, S., 2006. Materialist returns: practising cultural geography in and for a
more-than-human world. Cultural Geographies 13 (4), 600–609.