The just city e la nuova epoca dei mega-progetti

TERRITORIO ◽  
2012 ◽  
pp. 9-21
Author(s):  
Susan S. Fainstein
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Private Sector ◽  
Urban Development ◽  
Social Transformation ◽  
Public Private Partnerships ◽  
European American ◽  
Development Projects ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Asian Cities ◽  
Fair Distribution

In recent years large urban development projects (mega-projects) have become frequent in European, American and Asian cities. Surprising physical similarities can be seen between the types of project and in the orientation towards the market and the private sector. However, the ways in which the objectives of physical and social transformation are pursued are different. This paper investigates recent mega-projects in New York, London, Amsterdam and Singapore, cities which represent a wide range of variables in the capitalist ownership regime. The comparison shows that public-private partnerships can bring public benefi ts, but also that these mega-projects are risky for both parties and produce environments of poor urban quality. Further more the fair distribution of the impacts of these projects is the result of government commitment to the production of social benefi ts.

Calling upon the Genius of Private Enterprise: The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 and the Liberal Turn to Public-Private Partnerships

2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 165-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander von Hoffman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Private Sector ◽  
Urban Development ◽  
Public Housing ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Private Enterprise ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Private Partnerships ◽  
Housing Program ◽  
For Profit

President Lyndon Johnson declared the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 to be “the most farsighted, the most comprehensive, the most massive housing program in all American history.” To replace every slum dwelling in the country within ten years, the act turned from public housing, the government-run program started in the 1930s, toward private-sector programs using both nonprofit and for-profit companies. As a result, since its passage, for-profit businesses have developed the great majority of low-income residences in the United States. The law also helped popularize the idea of “public-private partnerships,” collaborations of government agencies and non-government entities—including for-profit companies—for social and urban improvements. Remarkably, political liberals supported the idea that private enterprise carry out social-welfare programs. This article examines the reasons that Democratic officials, liberals, and housing industry leaders united to create a decentralized, ideologically pluralistic, and redundant system for low-income housing. It shows that frustrations with the public housing program, the response to widespread violence in the nation's cities, and the popularity of corporate America pushed the turn toward the private sector. The changes in housing and urban policy made in the late 1960s, the article concludes, helped further distinguish the American welfare state and encourage the rise of neoliberalism in the United States.

scholarly journals Remaking Public Parks

2021 ◽  
pp. 95-132
Author(s):  
Benjamin Holtzman
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Private Sector ◽  
Public Private Partnerships ◽  
Public Parks ◽  
Community Residents ◽  
Late Twentieth ◽  
1960S And 1970S ◽  
Late Twentieth Century ◽  
Private Sector Involvement

This chapter examines the decline and subsequent revitalization of major parks through their control by public–private partnerships in the late twentieth century. The extensive private sector involvement in parks was far from the elite-initiated takeover that has been depicted. In contrast, this shift dates back to community residents’ organizing in the late 1960s and 1970s to revive degenerating greenspaces that had suffered municipal neglect. What first began as community park revitalization efforts in neighborhoods throughout New York spread to initiatives that involved broader elements of the private sector. Indeed, the subsequent involvement of businesses and corporations in the care and management of parks was spurred by years of campaigns by concerned residents, nonprofits, cultural institutions, and officials who had lost faith in the ability of local government to maintain parks, ultimately catalyzing the growth of public–private partnerships to manage city parks by the end of the century.

scholarly journals Experimental Governance and Urban Planning Futures: Five Strategic Functions for Municipalities in Local Innovation

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 183-194
Author(s):  
Erica Eneqvist ◽  
Andrew Karvonen
Keyword(s):  
Urban Planning ◽  
Urban Development ◽  
Triple Helix ◽  
First Century ◽  
Public Private Partnerships ◽  
Analytic Framework ◽  
Local Authorities ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The World ◽  
Sustainability Challenges

Experimental governance is increasingly being implemented in cities around the world through laboratories, testbeds, platforms, and innovation districts to address a wide range of complex sustainability challenges. Experiments often involve public-private partnerships and triple helix collaborations with the municipality as a key stakeholder. This stretches the responsibilities of local authorities beyond conventional practices of policymaking and regulation to engage in more applied, collaborative, and recursive forms of planning. In this article, we examine how local authorities are involved in experimental governance and how this is influencing their approach to urban development. We are specifically interested in the multiple strategic functions that municipalities play in experimental governance and the broader implications to existing urban planning practices and norms. We begin the article by developing an analytic framework of the most common strategic functions of municipalities in experimental governance and then apply this framework to Stockholm, a city that has embraced experimental governance as a means to realise its sustainability ambitions. Our findings reveal how the strategic functions of visioning, facilitating, supporting, amplifying, and guarding are producing new opportunities and challenges to urban planning practices in twenty-first century cities.

scholarly journals How do East and Southeast Asian Cities Differ from Western Cities? A Systematic Review of the Urban Form Characteristics

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 2423 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tzu-Ling Chen ◽  
Hao-Wei Chiu ◽  
Yu-Fang Lin
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Land Use ◽  
Population Density ◽  
Urban Development ◽  
Urban Form ◽  
Ghg Emissions ◽  
Southeast Asian ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Asian Cities

The Fifth Assessment Report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR5) revealed that the scale of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Asian cities is similar to those from developed economies, which are driven predominantly by economic growth. Due to variations in geographic and climatic contexts, culture and religion, living style and travel behavior, governance and institutions, and a wide range of density and land use mixes, there are significant variations in urban form patterns across Western and Asian cities. This paper uses a systematic review, which is a critical interpretive synthesis methodology, to review keywords of studies related to urban form among East and Southeast Asian cities. From 3725 records identified through database searching, 213 studies were included in qualitative analysis. The results show that, although the population density in built-up areas is higher, annual population density is declining significantly in East and Southeast Asia. In addition, there are various kinds of land use mixes including horizontal, vertical, and temporal forms. As a whole, the inconsistencies of urban form characteristics exist not only between Western and Asian cities, but also among Asian cities. Serious population density decreases in Asian cities might indicate that they are undergoing similar urban development processes to those of Western cities. We should be aware of the potential lock-in trends of urban development patterns in Chinese and Southeast Asian cities.

Contracting communities: Conceptualizing Community Benefits Agreements to improve citizen involvement in urban development projects

2016 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 205-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonie B Janssen-Jansen ◽  
Menno van der Veen
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Urban Development ◽  
User Involvement ◽  
Development Projects ◽  
End User ◽  
Community Benefits ◽  
Contractual Governance ◽  
Contractual Agreements ◽  
Community Benefits Agreements ◽  
End User Involvement

Contractual agreements are becoming increasingly important for city governments seeking to manage urban development. Contractual governance involves direct relations between the local state and different public and private actors and citizens. Although abundant literature exists on public–private partnerships related to urban development projects, agreements made between citizens, interest organizations and market parties, such as Community Benefits Agreements remain under-explored and under-theorized. While it may seem that the state is absent from contemporary forms of contractual governance, such agreements remain highly intertwined with government policies. The central aim of this paper is to better conceptualize Community Benefits Agreement practices in order to build understanding of how contractual governance caters for direct end-user involvement in urban development, and to yield insights into its potential as to render development processes more inclusive. Based on academic literature in planning and law, expert interviews and several case studies in New York City, this paper conceptualizes end-user involvement in urban development projects and innovates within urban planning and governance theory through the use of two new concepts—project collectivity and the image of a fourth chair.

Lessons from Canada's Housing R&D Experience

1992 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
G Hack ◽  
A Skaburskis
Keyword(s):  
Private Sector ◽  
Urban Development ◽  
Technological Innovation ◽  
Program Design ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Development Projects ◽  
Government Programs ◽  
Program Administrators ◽  
History Of ◽  
Subsidy Programs

In this paper the history of Canadian Housing R&D programs is reviewed and the strengths and weaknesses of these programs are assessed. Government programs that sought to promote innovation directly, subsidy programs for the private sector, and demonstration programs are looked at. Urban development projects as well as small-scale technological innovation dissemination efforts are considered, and the lessons that program administrators have gained from past programs and present guidelines for program design are presented.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document