AESOP Eprints
Not a member yet
1474 research outputs found
Sort by
Public perceptions of planning: unpacking resident perceptions and experiences of planning systems across Australia
No full textProceedings of the IV World Planning Schools Congress, July 3-8th, 2016 : Global crisis, planning and challenges to spatial justice in the north and in the southThe Australian planning system is in a state of unrest with each of the state planning systems implementing widespread reform programs over the past 5-10 years. Planning system reform is also being played out internationally as governments strive to deal with the perceived failings and inadequacies of planning (Campbell et al. 2014). What differentiates Australian planning system reform from that occurring elsewhere is the complexity and multiplicity of systems, agendas and instruments being implemented. Unlike some countries, the Australian planning system is not coordinated by the national government, with constitutional authority for planning resting with the states. For routine planning matters this authority is delegated to local government. Australian planning is also characterised by a combination of discretionary merit-based planning similar to the UK and increasingly a more codified land use planning model found in America.
At the centre of these reforms lie the objectives of improving efficiency of development assessment, thereby simultaneously increasing the economic performance of the property market and improving housing affordability via increased supply (Gurran and Phibbs, 2013). To these ends, the primary theme from planning system reform across Australia is the push for economic growth via so called simplification of the planning process. Often expressed as ‘cutting red tape’, the planning system is positioned as a barrier to the effective operation of market mechanisms responsible for delivering (primarily) urban outcomes. The second theme is the push for independence, transparency and de-politicisation. In some states, a trigger for reform has been concerns over corruption or undue influence by some development actors.publishedVersio
Cities and Memory: a history of memorials in urban design from the Renaissance to Canberra
No full textProceedings of the IV World Planning Schools Congress, July 3-8th, 2016 : Global crisis, planning and challenges to spatial justice in the north and in the southIn recent decades, there has been a significant revival of interest and growth in numbers of public memorials – sculptures and structures in public spaces that convey information and social attitudes towards past persons, events and ideas, sometimes on sites associated with them, but which are themselves not historic material. This renaissance has been most marked in national capital cities, and is often traced back to the 1982 Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington DC, a city which at that time had not erected any major new memorials in its key national space for almost four decades. By 2001, with increasing requests for new commemorative works, Washington’s National Capital Planning Commission found it necessary to produce a master plan for future memorials that set out key principles and identified 100 potential sites, and numerous other capitals have followed suit. There is at present very little comparative historical research that can guide such policy.
To better understand this recent revival of interest in memorials and the modes of contemporary planning for them, this paper examines the historical evolution of the role and form of memorials within the overall planning and development of capital cities, both existing and new, from the Renaissance to the beginning of Modernism. It explores the contributions that memorials have made to the role of the capital city as a diagram that defines and communicates national history, identity and politics. Four main historical periods are considered: the re-planning and enlargement of Rome in the Sixteenth Century, especially under Pope Sixtus V; Neoclassical planning in Enlightenment Europe such as that of London, Edinburgh, Berlin and Vienna; the planning of colonial and post-colonial capitals in the New World, including Richmond, Virginia, Washington DC and Mexico City; and the City Beautiful Movement in North America at the end of the Nineteenth Century, leading to Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahoney Griffin’s 1913 plan for Canberra.publishedVersio
How public are they? Evaluating the public accessibility of privately owned public space (POPS) in Taipei city, Taiwan
No full textProceedings of the IV World Planning Schools Congress, July 3-8th, 2016 : Global crisis, planning and challenges to spatial justice in the north and in the southIn modern society, public space plays an important role of the environmental quality of high-density urban areas. The quality of city life highly depends on the quantity, quality, and accessibility of public spaces. There are two types of public spaces from property right perspectives, public-owned and private-owned. The first initiative of privately owned public space (POPS) was taken place in city of New York in the 19th century. The rapid emergence of skyscrapers in the New York City resulted in enormous pressure to the surounding environment. To encourage private developers to provid more available public space, the New York City Government implemented incentive zoning with the legislation the 1961 Zoning Resolution (Kayden, 2000). This law became the precedent for what is now called privately owned public space (POPS). Similarly, to combat the difficulties with obtaining adequate funding and land for public space, the Taipei City Government provided additional floor area bonus as incentives in exchange for more POPS (Hsia, C. J., 1983) in the early 1980s. This new incentive zoning tool created 537 POPS between 1983 and 2010. At the same time, city of Berlin, Tokyo, Santiago de Chile, Melbourne, Hong Kong, and Bangkok have also utilized similar incentive zoning to create abundant POPS which are provided, planned, and managed by private sectors. According to Webster, under the market operation of Capitalism, land has always been scarce resources, and public space will inevitably become a part the private sphere because of the territorial fragmentation and the shrinking of the “public realm” (Webster, 2007). Predictably, POPS have become considerable sources of public spaces in many cities.publishedVersio
Getting insights into what really matters today: scenario approaches as communication tool
No full textProceedings of the IV World Planning Schools Congress, July 3-8th, 2016 : Global crisis, planning and challenges to spatial justice in the north and in the southCommunicating the future of periurban areas. Following the long lasting discussion on how periurban areas should be defined, eventually time has arrived to acknowledge them as “space in its own right”, as put forward by Rauws and De Roo (2011). This means to shift the discussion on “what it is” rather than on “what it is not”. Especially it has to be recognized that “periurbanity” is not only about gradients and densities of urbanization. It is a much more complex and diverse entity, manifesting itself not only trough a physical structure but also by articulation of activities and life-styles. Having this backdrop in mind, planning strategies for periurban areas need to be discussed, as available policy tools need to be questioned on its adequateness for this new type of spaces.
It is not novel: discussing future scenarios is mostly about discussing present conditions. Based on this assumption this paper aims to report on how scenario approaches can be a useful tool to get insights into the diversity of periurban areas by firstly identifying types and trough a downscaling procedure to identify plausible futures for each of those types, which serve as a trigger to discuss desirable futures with local communities. Using this methodological approach it becomes possible to confront the desired future with characteristics of each type of periurban area in order to capture what are the issues that really matter today in that community and that need to be addressed in the present planning process.publishedVersio
Convivial urban spaces: The case of Sakarya Street, Ankara(Turkey)
No full textProceedings of the IV World Planning Schools Congress, July 3-8th, 2016 : Global crisis, planning and challenges to spatial justice in the north and in the southThis study focuses on the necessity of socio-spatial experiences of people, which are gained from public space specifically from streets that are subject to urban design approaches. Besides analysis of geographical, physical and managerial dimensions of the place, that are associated to urban design and planning processes, it reveals the deficiencies about including the psychological effects on the place on people via their senses, in other words, the information gathered through experiences to design process. By this way, it aims to explain the structure of the relationship between daily experiences of people and spatial formation of a street, and public life and public place. Hence, this research is structured with Convivial Urban Design approach, which brings together the emotions and psychology of people along with these kinds of urban design.
In this context, Sakarya Street which is located in the centre of Kızılay, Ankara (Turkey) is investigated. Kızılay has gained importance as a new bureaucratic and politic centre after proclamation of the republic, however, the period after 1980, covers the course which is determinant for consumer policy. Although, people were actively spending their time at Kızılay, car centred design approaches had changed it into a place where the main transportation type is transformed from pedestrian to motor vehicles. The Sakarya Street, which is the one of the main arterial of the city centre, has conserved its importance as being one of the limited pedestrian streets that appealing to people of various portions of city with respects to different age and gender from past to present.publishedVersio
The role of non-governmental actors in the spatial development of flood risks in Flanders (Belgium): towards a co-evolutionary approach in flood risk management
No full textProceedings of the IV World Planning Schools Congress, July 3-8th, 2016 : Global crisis, planning and challenges to spatial justice in the north and in the southRecent challenges in flood risk management, call for the diversification of measures and the responsibilization of spatial planners and civil society in dealing with flood risks. Until recently it was the water managers’ responsibility to provide protection, but it is becoming clear that increasing risks due to climate change and urbanization make sole governmental responsibility and protection financially and technically untenable. The broadening of flood risk management is aimed at emergency planning on the one hand and spatial planning on the other. This paper focuses on the spatial development of flood risks, both in terms of properties at risk, as in terms of urbanization causing increased run-off and therefore increasing flood frequencies and intensities. The actors involved in this field include residents, architects, contractors, insurers, real estate agents, etc. Therefore, it is expected that including these stakeholders can make managing flood risks more effective and increase overall resilience to flooding.
However, water managers in Flanders (Belgium), the case study in this paper, are often not familiar with relational approaches that include non-governmental actors in their processes, especially in the implementation of measures. Also flood risk management research has mainly focused on the isolated study of (mostly technical) systems. Therefore, knowledge on the role of non-governmental actors in the development of flood risks and on how they can be involved in policy-making is lacking.publishedVersio
Focus on actors: the institutional structure and networks in municipal waste management. An exploratory analysis from the Rio de Janeiro metropolitan area
No full textProceedings of the IV World Planning Schools Congress, July 3-8th, 2016 : Global crisis, planning and challenges to spatial justice in the north and in the southAll over the world the management of wastes represent a main concern. The waste production has doubled along the last ten years and the coming years will experience an upward trend (McAllister, 2015), unless a radical change in the prevailing consumption and production patterns will occurs. Usually, the management of waste is a municipal government task; nonetheless it involves multiples actors and deserves a multilevel, cooperative, as well as well coordinated, organization among them. As a matter of fact, municipal solid waste management (MSWM) is a complex process, which entails subsequent and costly stages such as waste collection, transfer, treatment (Soltani et al., 2015) and final disposals. Often, especially, in developing world, the municipal government has no enough resources to perform these functions alone, especially those that require big infrastructures (e.g. treatment/incinerator plant). For this reason, each municipality may need to join to those neighboring to share costs and space, going beyond the municipal scale, to improve the environmental and economic performance of their own MSWM strategy. Furthermore, waste production occurs along a long cyclic path, which starts from row material producers to final consumers. Therefore, the MSWM policies and planning institutions ought to deal with business sector as well as with citizens and civil society organizations in order to promote sustainable behaviors at each stage of waste cycle.publishedVersio
Participatory budgeting practices across contexts: understanding how governance structures influence processes in Brazil and Chicago
No full textProceedings of the IV World Planning Schools Congress, July 3-8th, 2016 : Global crisis, planning and challenges to spatial justice in the north and in the southIn recent years, the “participatory turn” in urban planning has become popular around the world. Some of the most impressive and important examples of participatory democracy have come from Brazil, including participatory budgeting, municipal housing and health councils, and city master plan elaboration processes (Arvitzer, 2009). As these examples have become recognized “best practices,” they have been adopted and adapted in numerous other cities beyond South America (Peck and Theodore, 2015). Nonetheless, as these practices of policy mobility occur, so too occur processes of “translation” into the new social, political, governmental context of their deployment (McCann and Ward, 2011). Over the past four years a growing number of aldermen/alderwomen (councilmembers) have provided a portion of discretionary funding spending to be determined by localized participatory budgeting proceedings in their respective districts.
Building upon research previously conducted on forms of participatory democracy in Brazil, this research examines four years of participatory budgeting experiences in the North American city of Chicago, Illinois and compares how governance structures influence the participatory budgeting process and differ from those in the policy “origin” location of Brazil. At a macro level, Brazil’s federal structure differs greatly from that of the United States in terms of urban planning enabling legislation. At a specific level, municipal governance in Chicago is greatly influenced by its unique district-alderman system, with high levels of political power held at this sub-municipal level; whereas Brazilian municipalities’ systems of citywide councilmembers (vereadores) concentrate more power at the municipal level.publishedVersio
Reclaiming public green space: community gardens
No full textProceedings of the IV World Planning Schools Congress, July 3-8th, 2016 : Global crisis, planning and challenges to spatial justice in the north and in the southIsolation from nature and its prosperities, such as living in healthier environments with direct access to organic vegetation and benefiting from the calming effects of natural landscapes have been the main deficit of urban areas of our times. In today’s rapidly and radically transforming and growing urban areas, in contrast to enlarging diverse amount of good and services, many open public spaces has been shrinking and even lost for the sake of growth and transformation. Unfortunately, public green spaces are one of the most prominent examples of these spaces. This shrinkage in public green spaces results in environmental and social complications in urban dwellers’ lives and decreases the quality of life in urban areas. At the focus of environmental deficits lies the inability to cope with environmental sustainability. Along with the acceleration of global warming and its effects becoming visible at urban scale, public green spaces attain a vital role to cope with these issues while their conservation and revitalization needs further attention. In addition to decreasing chance of benefiting from the natural facilities of public green spaces and a way to cope with environmental crisis, urban dwellers also lose one of the main public spaces where they can meet, socialize, express themselves freely, engage with the other members of the society and create urban culture.
As a reaction to public policies that result with the shrinkage of public green spaces, many NGOs and urban dwellers started to reclaim their ‘common’ green spaces by making efforts to protect and vitalize these vulnerable areas that are under the threat of fast paced transformations and uncontrolled growth.publishedVersio
Spatial planning systems in Latin America: towards an international comparative perspective
No full textProceedings of the IV World Planning Schools Congress, July 3-8th, 2016 : Global crisis, planning and challenges to spatial justice in the north and in the southSpatial planning systems refer to the set of administrative, technical and juridical processes to manage urban and territorial dynamics within specific national contexts (Mazza, 1996; Healey, 1997). As such, spatial planning systems and policies influence spatial development through land-use planning and other regulatory means (CEC, 1997; Newman & Thornley, 1996). Their character is often described in relation to legally established objectives, tools and procedures that form part of national planning systems (Alterman, 2001; Nadin & Stead, 2008), which vary widely across national, sub-national and urban scales. Besides their technical, administrative and juridical dimensions within the public domain [i.e. planning as an institutional technology (Mazza, 1996)], spatial planning systems should also be addressed from their institutional dimension (Janin Rivolin, 2012). For the purposes of analysing and comparing planning systems from an international perspective, aspects such as the interaction between public and private spheres, economic development, social complexity and the diversity of stakeholder interests and values turn out essential. In other words, the diversity of spatial planning systems and policies that influence spatial development processes is not only shaped by the plurality of legal-administrative and technical arrangements, but also by an array of internal and external driving forces such as social models (Nadin & Stead, 2008), planning cultures (Knieling & Othengrafen, 2009) and governance traditions, amongst other dimensions.publishedVersio