Planning 2020 - The Raynsford Review of Planning in England

Just yesterday, the Town & Country Planning Association (TCPA) of England released a review of the English planning system, called "Planning 2020". The review process was guided by the President of the TCPA, the former UK Minister of Housing Nick Raynsford, and was supported by a Review Task Force composed of professionals, representatives of related associations, and academics. The review gives an excellent overview of the current state of the English planning system, which was discussed against the background of its basic commitment to co-ordinate land use decisions in a way that provides better (sustainable) places for people. Over a total of 128 pages, the review demonstrates how this commitment has become difficult to achieve, for reasons that were situated both within the planning system and beyond, in framed in increasingly difficult conditions, and embedded in messy politics.

Even though the review assesses spatial planning in the rather specific English context, readers can nevertheless learn about the current state of planning in places characterised by deindustrialisation and rising services and tech economies, resulting in uneven development (pressure of growth here, and emptiness there), environmental degradation, a palate of mobility issues, and institutional inertia and blockades. In the light of such developments, planning is not only facing complexities of all sorts, but is also confronting massive lobbying and political pressure from processes of deregulation and neoliberalisation that has made planning officers appear as the "enemies of enterprises" (according to the former UK Prime Minister David Cameron, who is quoted by the report).

So, while the report is rather specific as to the overly centralised (and massively contested) political and institutional system of England, the review brings together some striking assessments concerning how healthy (or unhealthy) planning ought to be considered in more general terms. It is thus an exciting read, and actually a "must read" for anybody interested in spatial planning. For this purpose, the eight different sections of the report can also be read separately, and the same applies to the background papers that are provided on TCPA's website as well. There is a lot to learn from this, and to reflect upon: the fundamentals of planning (what is planning, and why should we care about it?); the institutional background and its evolution (why do we have a planning system? what went wrong with planning?); and, the kinds of recommendations that might make the planning system more effective.

I have already recommended this piece to the students of my planning class, as I believe that it is definitely worth taking into account. One might wish such an informed, fair and independent review of planning systems and practices could also be undertaken in other countries, such as some of those on the European Continent. (Any idea which one comes to my mind first?).

Markus Hesse

A manuscript on Adventures in Sustainable Urbanism goes into production

There is good news from Tim Freytag (University of Freiburg), Rob Krueger (Worcester Polytechnic Institute & Guest Professor at our institute), and Samuel Moessner (University of Münster). Their manuscript, Adventures in Sustainable Urbanism, was checked by State University New York Press and turned over to the production and marketing units. According to SUNY, the project was assigned a release date of November 1, 2019. I am humbled to count myself among a long list of esteemed contributors who include Tim Baird, I-Chun Catherine Chang, Susanne Frank, David Giband, Michael Hall, Trina Hamilton, Freya Kristensen, Michal Kohout, Marit Rosol, Cristina Temenos, and Winifred Curran.

This promises to be a good read!

Constance Carr

2HQ2 – Two new seats for the new Amazon.com Headquarters, not one

Screenshot of an article by J. David Goodman and  Emma G. Fitzsimmon published online 
at the New York Times, November 6 (2018). Photo by Hilary Swift

The race is over now. As the result of a widely communicated search for its new North American headquarters (HQ2) that began back in October 2017, Amazon.com announced last Tuesday that it would place its new basecamp in two cities: one in Long Island City in Queens, New York, and the other in Crystal City, Arlington, a suburb of Washington D.C. The search campaign was part of a massive orchestration by Amazon that turned out to be extremely clever, given that this campaign received wide spread media coverage for which the firm did not have to pay a cent. The campaign comprised of a public call for tender, which found almost global recognition; 238 municipalities and regions applied for the honor of being the host city/region; and this was followed by a months-long speculation as to who would eventually make it, and for what reason … By last week, well informed sources already assumed that there might be two localities – not one – to be chosen, and these two would be most likely located on the East Coast, close to major metro areas, and not in North Dakota or the sunny side of Phoenix, Arizona. The existing breed of “world-class talent”, so the company told us, was the decisive argument for choosing the two, not proximity to money (NYC) or politics (DC). Believe it or not. (-1-)

The search for HQ2 and the associated bid campaigns were run by city and county governments across the continent, supported by economic development boards, policy alliances and a broad range of planners and stakeholders, and even academics. Thanks to the Internet, even remote observers were able to follow this process and reconstruct the current state of urban-regional competition, which provided a perfect sense of how that game is played under today’s framework conditions. Much of this is already public, such as the contracts that Amazon agreed upon with the selected municipalities (which included the incentives and subsidies to be paid for every job created). Great stuff to read that probably offers more instruction on how places sell themselves and are being evaluated - and will thus be ‘produced’ - than any economic geography or planning textbook. (-2-)

Actually, one may wonder whether city managers and economic development board chairs could have afforded not to run for such an offer. (We know that a few decided in the very end not to apply, see our entry here). Obviously, the temptation and excitement about this opportunity – 50,000 jobs created, an overall investment of about US$5bn – and hence the desire to apply was much greater than any doubts and reservations might have been, which might have prevented public officials from bidding. No, almost everybody in charge of urban and regional policy and practice had to run for this: That is at least what the competition (and the way it was publicly framed and perceived) looked like. Whether the offer will indeed be a great chance for the selected cities, or whether it will make them even more overcrowded and divided, remains to be seen.

The benefits provided by the huge number of highly paid jobs that will be created (or moved there) will have to be balanced against public cost, i.e. the massive tax discounts that Amazon was successful in negotiating with the authorities of New York City and State, and the State of Virginia, respectively. “New York promised Amazon $1.525 billion in incentives, including $1.2 billion over the next 10 years as part of the state’s Excelsior tax credit. The state also pledged to help Amazon with infrastructure upgrades, job training programs and even assistance ‘securing access to a helipad’ — none of which came with a price tag. Virginia promised Amazon an incentive package worth $573 million, including $550 million in cash grants — $22,000 per job. The state also pledged $250 million to help Virginia Tech build a campus in Alexandria, near the Amazon site in Arlington, offering degrees in computer science and software engineering. (Virginia, too, offered to help the company get a helipad.)” (New York Times, 14 Nov 2018, p. B1)

In terms of the definitive location choice, the pros and cons of agglomeration were obviously carefully weighed and balanced – actually more carefully than one would have expected in the beginning. Even Amazon officials might have learned from the well disputed prospect of placing 50,000 employees at one single locale – a promise that quickly turned into a threat for many. Some commentators were also pointing at an earlier blogpost by Joe Cortright who expected nothing but a split of the big HQ into at least a few locations; otherwise cities wouldn’t be able to handle that injection of money, buildings, people and their demand. How is it possible to suddenly provide housing for that sheer number of people? How is it possible to add so many daily trips to transport networks that are already working far beyond limits? Seriously, why not take into these issues into account and dedicate a subway line for the exclusive use of Amazon staff, as The Onion has already suggested (thus evoking the Google-bus controversy from the SF Bay Area …)?

Now the cake is divided into two, with each city getting 25,000 jobs each, plus another 5,000 for a tech-fulfilment basis in Nashville, Tennessee. We will have to wait and see how this sort of massive place-making will work. Soon after the decision went public, Crystal City seemed already re-branded into the somehow superficial “National Landing”. There will be more of this coming up in the near future. Inserting a global player’s headquarters into actually existing urban life-worlds (i.e. places that already tend to suffer from having too much of everything…) will become a rather exciting experiment for urban studies. Current and future student generations are well advised to keep an eye on the framing, implementation and contestation of all of this.

Of course, the race is not over yet in more general terms as well. Amazon.com will likely continue to fight its “store wars”, trying to achieve hegemony in the retail business – not only through running its e-commerce platforms, but also with brick & mortar-outlets that are fully equipped with digital devices and algorithms, and almost no staff; in Seattle, this model has already proven to work quite efficiently. The company will also move on with trying to squeeze out as many tax rebates and subsidies from the public (state and local governments’) budgets as possible, when the next promise for investment will be made. The firm will continue to pursue its mission of becoming the one ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution for everything that customers need; driven by a first class combination of spaces and flows, thus becoming really hegemonic and leaving behind a devastated landscape of traditional retail (and in terms of competitive power, most likely providing less, not more choice to customers). (-3-)

Last but not least, if the planet is going to get desperate with the never-ending race to the bottom for more, then Bezos will bring those who can afford outer space, where ‘Blue Origin’ will offer them a safe, extraterrestrial haven. Cynical? No, it’s just about customer dedication, technology and the modern world, stupid.

Markus Hesse

Further related readings
Hesse, M./Carr, C. (2018) The Corporate City Looming Part II: The “smart” City competes
Carr, C. (2018) Wagering the Waterfront? Angling the abc & xyz of Quayside Toronto
Carr, C./Hesse, M. (2017) The Corporate City Looming? Part I
Carr, C. (2017) Digital Cities - Toronto trying to get ahead

Notes
-1- Those who are interested in learning more about this case: Planetizen.com provides an excellent overview on the subject matter and various responses from cities, stakeholders, observers.

-2- Wondering to what extent the new, tech- and data-trading big corporation, its locational imprint and the associated ramifications for people and place(s) have already been covered by textbooks. They actually deserve the same treatment as it was the case with the industrial corporation (see e.g. Phillip O’Neill: The Industrial Corporation and Capitalism’s Time –Space Fix. In: Trevor J. Barnes, Jamie Peck, Eric Sheppard (eds.) The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Economic Geography, pp. 74-90. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell).

-3- See my book chapter on “The logics and politics of circulation. Exploring the urban and non-urban spaces of Amazon.com”, in K. Ward, A. E. Jonas, B. Miller, D. Wilson (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Spaces of Urban Politics, pp. 404-415. Abingdon/New York: Routledge (2018).

IGU Urban Geography Commission Annual Meeting - Call for Abstracts

IGU Urban Geography Commission Annual Meeting

August 4th to 9th, 2019, in Luxembourg

URBAN CHALLENGES IN A COMPLEX WORLD: Urban geographies of the new economy, services industries and financial market places

The Urban Commission of the International Geographical Union (IGU) in collaboration with the Urban Studies team of the Institute of Geography and Spatial Planning, University of Luxembourg, is pleased to invite you to its 2019 Annual Conference, taking place on Campus Belval at the University of Luxembourg, in Esch-sur-Alzette.

Deadline for abstract submission: 31 January, 2019

CALL FOR ABSTRACTS

Papers are invited to address the special topic 'The urban geographies of the new economy, services industries and financial market places’. Our aim is to emphasise urban-regional development patterns and phenomena under the influence of economic change, digitalisation, multi-level governance and sustainability imperatives. Besides focusing on services and tech capitals as well as financial market places, this includes related processes that are shaping cities in general terms.

Besides, participants can submit individual papers, and/or proposals for panel sessions/roundtables, that are linked to the following thematic foci of the Urban Commission:

1 - Complex urban systems and processes of cities’ transformation

2 - Technological innovations, creative activities in cities

3 - Innovative and smart building and transportation in cities

4 - Polycentrism, small and medium-sized cities

5 - Sustainable to resilient cities

6 - Shrinking and ageing cities

7 - Urban governance, planning and participative democracy

8 - Contested social spaces

9 - Subjective/objective well-being in cities

10 - Urban heritage and conservation

11- New concepts and methods in urban studies

CONFIRMED KEYNOTE SPEAKERS

Dr. Sabine Dörry, LISER, Luxembourg, on “Urban geographies of financial market places and business services centres”

Prof. Natacha Aveline, CNRS-Geographie Cités, Paris, France, on “The financialisation of real estate in East Asian cities”

Prof. Manuel Aalbers, KU Leuven, Belgium, on “The financialisation of housing”

Dr. Iván Tosics, Metropolitan Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary, on “The failure of EU efforts for an urban policy and the promise cities can offer”

Abstracts may be submitted via, and following the recommendations indicated on, the commission website, where more detailed scientific and practical information is also available. Please note: only abstracts submitted via the platform will be accepted.

VENUE

University of Luxembourg – Campus Belval

2, avenue de l’Université

L-4365 Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg

We will be delighted to welcome you to this conference,

Prof. Dr. Celine Rozenblat, University of Lausanne, Chair of the IGU Urban Commission

Prof. Dr. Markus Hesse, University of Luxembourg, for the Local Organising Committee

Further contact information: IGU2019@uni.lu 

There is no one human scale - Reflections on urban development practice in Luxembourg

In this entry of Urbanization Unbound, 
Constance had the pleasure of working with
 Rebecca Lutz and Kevin Schutz, 
students from our Masters programme in
Geography and Spatial Planning, UL. 

A pdf. version of this paper is available here
bonne lecture!

Last month, we had the pleasure of participating in Prosud's showing of the documentary, “The Human Scale” at the University of Luxembourg, that was followed by a panel discussion with Markus Hesse of the University of Luxembourg, Eva Westermark from Gehl People, Francois Bausch, Minister of Sustainable Development and Infrastructure, and the Mayor of Esch/Alzette, Georges Mischo. It was a great opportunity for members of the University – students of urban studies and architecture in particular – to exchange thoughts with members of Luxembourgish civil society, and to reflect on the themes presented in the movie and their relevance (or lack thereof) for Luxembourg. Particularly welcome was that the University was used as venue for dialogue and open debate, Prosud and the guests should be recognized for their commitment in this regard. In this entry of Urbanization Unbound, after briefly recapping the main messages of the film, we want to address a couple of the associated hidden dimensions of urban development that we as urban geographers know are relevant if not central, and yet were not addressed in the film.

The film
In essence, the documentary showcased some of examples of Jan Gehl’s work in various cities around the globe – notably New York City’s car free Time Square, traffic calming in Dhaka, pedestrian network in Chongqing, revitalization in downtown Melbourne, and post-quake redevelopment in Christchurch. The underlying argument was that urbanization processes are accelerating and city populations are growing faster than cities can expect to keep up with, so good urban design is necessary. Good (dense) design would not only be able to mitigate this pressure but it can/will revolutionize the way people use urban space. To assure some degree of local acceptance to what is essentially a foreign expert coming in and designing a space with which they have little knowledge, the Jan Gehl approach aims at generating interaction with people on the street. How barriers such as language, or other methodological issues are dealt with, were not explained. But okay, the Gehl approach understands that people are important, and so the general aim is to consider people when planning cities – an angle that, in his view, was not taken seriously enough in years prior. Jan Gehl, together with his bureau, thus tries to reconfigure urban spaces that were initially very accommodating for cars in such a way that people can better use the space walking, biking, and socializing.
   The Human Scale documented first and foremost the positive side of design, or perhaps the ‘beautiful sides’ of urban design that show people hanging about, socializing, and using the space. And, of course, this is great: Indeed, there are plenty of plans in circulation where, astonishingly, people are completely absent. Still, this notwithstanding, it is hardly a secret that,

"any general plan or master plan for a metropolitan area 
is in effect a policy statement as to how that area should be
spatially arranged," (Foley 1964).

And further, following for example Lefebvre (1991), spatial practice is inseparable from ideology – meaning that spatial arrangements in urban space are reflections of the certain modes of their production. Design is therefore political, and therefore reflects certain dynamics of power and social modes. There are thus further dimensions that need exploring that are not included in the beautiful plans. These include the less comfortable topics such as addressing those who might be excluded or profit a little less than others. It could also include a palate of unforeseen negative externalities. And, last but not least, these dimensions might be about the consequential struggles and conflicts. Ignoring these dimensions is not merely the practice of looking through rose coloured glasses at beautiful plans, it arguably constitutes just plain bad urban planning.

Looking for the secret recipe to urban development
There is a habit (a seemingly North American one?) of looking to the medieval European city for town planning inspiration. This is seen particularly in searches for the ideal green city, in which authors (e.g Wheeler and Beatley 2014) point to Europe's (apparent) compact cities, and use them as model designs, in their search for modes of town planning where commuter distances are reduced and the odds for neighbourly contact and civic participation are increased. In a recent publication in the Journal of Urban Affairs, Lutt (2018), from the University of Cincinnati, even spoke of his "pilgrimage" to Copenhagen – the setting that inspired Jan Gehl’s people oriented cities. This search for the sustainable city is an understandable reaction to prevailing problems of urban development that accommodates and encourages car-dependent lifestyles and associated value chains of production. However, the wholesale search for optimal dense design – based on European models – is misguided because policies and designs developed elsewhere in different contexts, and as a consequence of different historical trajectories cannot simply be packaged, imported, and unboxed, ready-to-wear. This is the main message of the policy mobilities literature: Urban policy-making cannot be about finding solutions/recipes because policies cannot simply be transferred from one place to another (Carr 2014; Temenos & McCann 2014; Ward 2009). Context matters.
   This is one fundamental problem about the product (pedestrian zones, bike lanes) that Gehl People sells. First, such plans rarely reflect properly the city-regional morphologies and functions of current lived urban spaces, nor do they reflect local socio-political and economic contexts and respective pressures. Take Kirchberg, for example. This is one of Luxembourg’s large-scale projects (Leick 2016) where the interests of global corporate finance, the institutions of the European Union, the ministries of the Grand Duchy, cross-border commuters, high school students, moviegoers, and shoppers all collide. On a single tram ride, alone, one can expect to engage with at least five languages. The routines, practices, structures of power, flows and pathways that constitute this space are simultaneously global, international, local, multilingual, and multi-level. The corresponding needs and problems are equally diverse and pressing. There is no one human scale. So, a single pedestrian path will serve only limited impact (that only certain persons will feel). Second, Luxembourg has undergone a specific growth trajectory that was based on the car. Even in the Ville de Luxembourg, a lot of space was and remains dedicated to cars (e.g. the Glacis area, or the former EU-parking spot on Kirchberg). Sure, it would be nice if these were people-friendlier. Any imported design, however, would need take into account the sociopolitical dynamics of the rental markets and the consequences on, for example, cross-border labour. Third, there is another underlying problem concerning the general feeling that many have about Luxembourg being a car-addicted nation. It is continually debated what the root of this phenomenon is – whether it is a reflection of Luxembourg’s rural legacy, whether it is a kind of “wealth sickness” (Wohlstandskrankheit) (MDDI 2010), whether it is a necessary flexibility in a small state vulnerable to economic volatility, whether it is a result of cheap gasoline prices, or whether it is something else altogether. It is clear, however, that imposing a sudden people-friendly zone (as enticing as that sounds!) will hardly address the underlying issues, and thus remain sort of incomplete.

The dialectics of conceiving, perceiving, and living the Cité de Sciences
All of the above issues come together in Belval, which in retrospect was the perfect setting for the event. Belval, a local lieu-dit referring to the brownfield urban redevelopment project in the southern part of Luxembourg, is the site of the University of Luxembourg, other knowledge sector industries, and government institutes that together constitute the Cité de Sciences. It, like Kirchberg, is another one of Luxembourg’s large-scale projects (Leick 2016), with its own special set of problems. Like Kirchberg Plateau, too, there is no one singular human scale at Belval.
   As a large-scale planning project, one could perceive it as Luxembourg playing the long game. That is, Belval is supposed to be a land use development scheme that will ensure decades of prosperity derived from the international knowledge sector and associated economic activities (commerce, rental markets for office space and housing). The actors in this game that structure development land use relations are big businesses and big government, involving inputs from starchitects and possibly, as was suggested during the panel discussion, starplanners. Actually, it looks as though Luxembourg is trying to reproduce the Bilbao Effect, which has already been problematized in urban studies (González 2011). More to the point, however, Belval is a place where the lived experiences of thousands of cross-border workers, international specialists, and students unfold. Like two sides of the same coin, one conceives the long term, the other lives the immediate term, and both simultaneously contradict and constitute one another. Academically, this discussion closes in on the thoughts of Lefebvre (1991) again, where one could explore the moments of social production of space – Lefebvre’s “triad of the perceived, the conceived, and the lived,” (p. 39) – and conceptualize how they are dialectically constructed.
   While many are worrying about the elections (also part of the long game), there is an urgent need to address immediate shortages that students and staff are currently coping with, such as a functioning transport system to reach the area. There is a need for bike lanes connecting to the City of Esch-sur-Alzette for students and staff who, more and more, are settling there. There is also a desperate need for faster trains connecting Belval to Bettembourg and/or Luxembourg City (that don’t predictably stop for 10-20 minutes just 500m before reaching the main central station, Gare …). If these are too difficult or complicated to realise, a fleet of buses would suffice as well. Students also voice needs for free spaces (Freiräume) and meeting points. The emergence of urban gardening at Belval, Gaart Belval, was a great start here(!) – as a place to meet, exchange, and be creative without also being someone’s customer. From this perspective, the long game of starstruck development is perceived as exceptionally slow and altogether missing the mark. How is the bold promise of a high-speed tram that won’t materialise for another 20 years useful? From this perspective – on this Other scale – what is needed is not dreams, conjecture, and speculation about what might be awesome later, but for someone with the power to make decisions to represent the everyday at the relevant political economic platforms and address these imminent problems.
   The panel discussion was an excellent venue to begin these discussions, and students of urban planning and architecture at the UL really took advantage of the opportunity to articulate their perspective as well as their analytical standpoints. So, let’s do it again. Bring it on! Let’s talk some more.

Constance Carr, Rebecca Lutz, Kevin Schutz

See also

Hesse, M. (2018) Come, let’s watch a film and discuss cities!!
Hesse, M (2018) Another tale of large-scale urban planning: The quandaries of mobility into and out of Campus Belval

Hesse, M., Doerr, J., and Carr, C. (2018) Keep off the grass - even if the grass is not grass

References
Carr, C. (2014) Discourse yes, implementation maybe: An immobility and paralysis of sustainable development policy. European Planning Studies 22, 1824-1840.

Foley, D. (1964) An approach to metropolitan spatial structure. In Webber, M.M., Dyckman, J.W., Foley, D.L., Guttenberg, A.Z., Wheaton, W.L.C., Bauer Wurster, C. Explorations into urban structure. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

González, S. (2011) Bilbao and Barcelona ‘in motion’. How urban regeneration ‘models’ travel and mutate in global flows of policy tourism. Urban Studies 48(7) 1397-1418.

Lefebvre, H. (1991, translation) The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell.

Leick, A. (2016) Kleines Land, große Projekte. Diskurse, Praktiken und soziale Welten im Entscheidungs- und Planungsprozess der Großvorhaben Belval und Kirchberg in Luxemburg. Dissertation, Institute of Geography and Spatial Planning, University of Luxembourg.

Lutt, F. (2018) People cities: The Life and Legacy of Jan Gehl. Book Review in the Journal of Urban Affairs. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2018.1507215

Ministerium für Nachhaltige Entwicklung und Infrastrukturen (MDDI) (2010) PNDD, Ein Nachhaltiges Luxembourg für mehr Lebensqualität. Luxembourg

Temenos, C. & McCann, E., (2012) The local politics of policy mobility: Learning, persuasion, and the production of a municipal sustainability fix, Environment and Planning A, 44(6), 1389-1406.

Ward, K. (2009) Towards a relational comparative approach of cities. Progress in Human Geography. 34 issue: 4, page(s): 471-487.

Wheeler, S. & Beatley. T. (Eds.) (2014) The Sustainable Urban Development Reader, New York: Routledge.

3rd Affordable Housing Forum: Towards New Cultures of Affordable Housing?

The Affordable Housing Forum of ETH CASE Centre for Research on Architecture, Society & the Built Environment is holding its 2018 conference, on the 12th and 13th of November, at the Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER), on Belval Campus.

Save the date, because I hope to see you there, as I (Constance) will be presenting a paper. A glimpse of my paper is provided below. A more detailed program will follow in due course.

Abstract

This paper explores non-market housing in urban regions under growth pressure, and aims to open up a conversation about how modes of housing and related policies might be conceptualized in urban geographical scholarship, in order to broaden the possible range of housing policy measures beyond the rather narrow imperative of market solutions that prevail. The project is extension of a larger project that Markus Hesse and I have been working on for many years, examining spatial planning problems and governance in urban regions under in Luxembourg and Switzerland. Now we are moving on towards one component that is central to the topic: housing and housing in non-market contexts. But how might one effectively conceptualize housing, given what we know about recent scholarship in urban studies? I argue that, first, there is much to be learned with urban comparison. For inspiration here, I draw on the works of Schmid et al. (2018) who understand that there is a vast diversity of urbanization processes that produce an equally diverse and differentiated palate of urban spaces. This challenges urban geographical scholarship to understand urban space as well as the way processes that constitute those spaces (housing) as context specific. The policy mobilities literature (Ward 2017) iterates a similar message: Urban studies cannot simply be about finding solutions/recipes to particulate problems because context matters. I also argue that Storper's (2014) application of bricolage in conceptualising urban transformation is also useful for conceptualising non-market housing processes in the context of that are forever changing and in flux.

Schmid, C., Karaman, O., Hanakata, N.C., Kallenberger, P., Kockelkorn, A., Sawyer, L., Streule, M. & Wong, K.P. 2017. Towards a new vocabulary of urbanization processes: A comparative approach. Urban Studies, 55(1) 19-52.

Storper, M. 2014. Governing the Large Metropolis. Territory, Politics, Governance, 2, 115-134.

Ward, K. 2009. Towards a relational comparative approach of cities. Progress in Human Geography. 34 issue: 4, page(s): 471-487.


-- Constance Carr