《Contesting density: beyond nimby-ism and usual suspects in governing the future city》
打印
- 作者
- 来源
- URBAN GEOGRAPHY,Vol.41,Issue10,P.1294-1301
- 语言
- 英文
- 关键字
- Density,viability,urban movements,residents associations,London
- 作者单位
- a Department of Geography, University College London, London, UK
- 摘要
- Density is often a major focus of contestation in imagining the future city. The built form of the future city, including its height and density, is a crystallization of current and projected urban growth, as well as a realization of policy ambitions. However, also determinant of future built form are present capacities to extract value from urban development, on the part of both private and public actors. This tight ‘nexus’ of concerns and interests drives the specific heights, densities and public space provision of the future city. This paper considers, on what grounds today’s urban residents might be drawn into a battle for the quality of the future city?KEYWORDS: Densityviabilityurban movementsresidents associationsLondonAcknowledgmentsThe authors acknowledge funding from the ESRC Urban Transformations Grant (number ES/N006070/1) ‘Governing the future city: a comparative analysis of governance innovations in large-scale urban developments in Shanghai, London, Johannesburg’, with Phil Harrison (University of the Witwatersrand) and Fulong Wu (University College London). We are very grateful for the support we received from Sharon Hayward from the London Tenants’ Federation, our partners in the research project, Robin Brown of Just Space, and members of the Grand Union Alliance and Old Oak Neighbourhood Forum. We thank all interviewees and informants, who generously shared their experiences and challenges with us. We also thank the officers of the OPDC and members of the OPDC planning committee and board for their openness about and insight into their work. Any errors or omissions remain our responsibility.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council [ES/N006070/1].