Coordinating density; working through conviction, suspicion and pragmatism

Holman, Nancy; Mace, Alan; Paccoud, Antoine; Sundaresan, Jayaraj

doi:10.1016/j.progress.2014.05.001

Cited by 48 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This confirms critical readings of density as an abstract, superficial benchmark, and an outcome of a social engineering view of the world, rather than something that pays justice to the complexities of contemporary urbanization. So far this critical view is in line with recent attempts to understand density as a product of discourse (Holman et al, 2014).…”

Section: Conclusion: Density As a Constructed Entitysupporting

confidence: 74%

Raising sustainability/Mobilising sustainability: Why European sustainable urban development initiatives are slow to materialise/Territorial cohesion as a vehicle of sustainability/Sustainable urban development and the challenge of global air transport nodes and spatial integration/Distorted density: Where developers and non-governmental organizations on sustainable urban development agree/Overcoming politics with markets? The co-production of sustainable development in urban and regional planning

Carr

Becker

Evrard

et al. 2015

Planning Theory & Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a fantastic word in German: Aufheben. How this word captures the essence of dialectical social space was discovered by Schmid (2007), and his observation is worth repeating here:At the core of the dialectic lies a concept whose deeper meaning emerges only in German: das Aufheben des Widerspruchs (sublation of the contradiction). Aufheben signifies, on the one hand, negation and overcoming: on the other hand, preservation and placing at a higher level. This ambiguity is completely lost in most translations: for example, in the French (dépasser) or English ("transcend" or "sublate") (Schmid, 2007, p. 30) Further contradictory translations include to dissolve, to keep, to remove, to raise, to void, and to sustain. In this way, Aufheben captures the core contradictions of social space that define social reality (Schmid, 2007). It is exactly this dialectic that surfaces time and again at the interface between sustainable development policy and planning practice, and this is the central theme of this issue of the Interface. On the one hand, sustainable development signifies the normative ideal of generating a better world. On the other, in the process of addressing and resolving problems it often results in the realisation of other problems, if not also the preservation of current problems (e.g. capitalist relations). This contradiction is an unfortunate, if not depressing, observation given that over 25 years have passed since the World Commission on Environment and Development's (1987) declaration that sustainable development is a goal worthy of international attention. Recalling further Jordan's (2008, p. 17) remark that, "things have gotten worse -not better -since the publication of Brundtland's landmark report", one might wonder how progress will ever be achieved, given the numerous attempts that have been made so far at realising it.Across the wide palette of such attempts, one can see that the urban has surfaced as "the" site of sustainability interventions. Rydin (2010) cited several reasons for this. First, the idea that the planet's population is more than half urbanised renders urban places increasingly important nodes of human affairs and therefore logical starting points to intervene and invoke wide-reaching change. By extension, second, the reshaping of cities and neighbourhoods (through, for example, new infrastructure) can potentially generate new and sustainable ways of living. Third, negotiations over land use, building codes, and/or zoning, often unfold at the municipal level. Forums of local decision-makers are, therefore, logical venues to thematise and, hopefully, materialise sustainable development ideals. This consensus that the urban is the site of mediation has, in many places, been translated into a call to the planning profession to produce the twenty-first-century sustainable city, and one can observe a vast array of designs, approaches, and indeed, entire planning paradigms such as integrative spatial planning, which have emerged as tools to address this normative orientation....

show abstract

Section: Conclusion: Density As a Constructed Entitysupporting

confidence: 74%

Raising sustainability/Mobilising sustainability: Why European sustainable urban development initiatives are slow to materialise/Territorial cohesion as a vehicle of sustainability/Sustainable urban development and the challenge of global air transport nodes and spatial integration/Distorted density: Where developers and non-governmental organizations on sustainable urban development agree/Overcoming politics with markets? The co-production of sustainable development in urban and regional planning

Carr

Becker

Evrard

et al. 2015

Planning Theory & Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, driving forces are typically discussed in quite general and unspecific terms referring to macroscale processes, such as urbanization pressures, climate and climate change, energy scarcity, economic growth, and growing or declining populations (OECD 2012;Li et al 2017;Pili et al 2017). The compact city is thus typically idealized and dogmatized (Holman et al 2015), but without exploring the driving forces supporting its implementation. Such idealization is also favoured by the fact that the concept is heavily endorsed by international institutions such as the UN, the EU, and the OECD, all of which promote compact city policies (European Commission 2011; OECD 2012; UN-Habitat 2012).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nevertheless, the concept is too often taken for granted and its definition remains unclear and non-uniform (Churchman 1999;Burton 2002;Neuman 2005). This not only affects the understanding of compact city qualities (Boyko & Cooper 2011), but also becomes even more significant when the different driving forces behind compact city development are examined (Holman et al 2015). In response to this vagueness, in this paper we explore urban driving forces, divided into indirect/underlying processes (drivers) and more direct events, actions, and processes (pressures), and their diverse consequences for compact city development.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Disentangling the compact city drivers and pressures: Barcelona as a case study

Adelfio

Kain

Thuvander

et al. 2018

Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift - Norwegian Journal of Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The compact city is globally acknowledged as the most adequate urban model to encourage sustainable urban development. Its validity is often assumed, despite the lack of clarity on what such compactness entails. The knowledge gap is even wider regarding how different drivers and pressures influence the development of more compact cities. Therefore, the authors analyse indirect and underlying processes (drivers) and more direct events, actions, and processes (pressures) affecting compact city development. Since compact city driving forces are extensively influenced by local situations, their research focused on district-level case studies within the compact city of Barcelona Municipality. Mixed methods were used, and the authors used both qualitative and quantitative data. The results revealed that drivers and pressures can both support and counteract compact city qualities and therefore any intervention has to be tailored to local conditions. In particular, the results of the in-depth analysis of local pressures and their progression over time foster an understanding of context-related nuances, thereby shifting attention from taken-for-granted compact city qualities to the driving forces that produce beneficial compactness. The authors conclude that the diversity of drivers and pressures requires the involvement of a multiplicity of stakeholders and actors in urban planning, implementation, and management.

show abstract

“…Brownfield land and densification, including that of suburban areas, are options and governments have promoted both Brownfield and increased density. These have both been 'successful' insofar as Brownfield land has been built on and densities have increased, although whether the full range of aspirations for mixed, inclusive, stable etc.… communities have been achieved is less easy to measure and the outcome less certain (Holman et al 2015b). In London, a basic comparison of the permissions granted (without recourse to Green Belt land) and housing targets suggest that enough land is available.…”

Section: <Insert Table One About Here>mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Metropolitan Green Belt, changing an institution

Mace

2018

Progress in Planning

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Metropolitan Green Belt (MGB) was established in the 1930s and has expanded enormously since. Accompanying polices, including New Towns, have since been abandoned, leaving the MGB as an 'orphaned' policy which constrains land supply. Prioritising the reuse of Brownfield land and densification are now the counter to land constraint. However, it is argued that these are not sufficient to meet the housing crisis in London and the Wider South East. Moreover, academics have pointed out for decades that strong land constraint has led to chronic housing problems, including poor internal space standards and the high cost of housing in the 'mega-region'. However, despite decades of academic discussion concerning the chronic housing problems it contributes to, and the more immediate crisis, the MGB remains a bluntly applied planning tool and carries with it no serious political discussion of reform. Piecemeal change has taken and still takes place, but this has led to a series of battles that have not achieved the core task of signalling the intention to make a sustained and substantial change to policies of land constraint. In order to chart a possible path to reform the starting point is to approach the MGB as an institution, and this includes tracing the significance of how it developed historically, and in particular the confusion over the full extent of its purposes and, thus, the real range of its benefits. A second strand is a consideration of the different reasons why people commit to institutions, and how this differentially impacts the way in which they respond and/or seek to drive institutional change. Using these insights, existing proposals for change are critiqued and then an alternative is proposed that seeks to respond to the 'rational' and 'normative' drivers of support for the MGB.

show abstract

Coordinating density; working through conviction, suspicion and pragmatism

Cited by 48 publications

References 54 publications

Disentangling the compact city drivers and pressures: Barcelona as a case study

The Metropolitan Green Belt, changing an institution

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About