Developing urban growth and urban quality: Entrepreneurial governance and urban redevelopment projects in Copenhagen and Hamburg

被引:43
作者
Bruns-Berentelg, Juergen [1 ]
Noring, Luise [2 ]
Grydehoj, Adam [3 ]
机构
[1] HafenC Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
[2] Copenhagen Business Sch, Copenhagen, Denmark
[3] Zhejiang Univ, Isl & Coastal Zone Inst, Urban & Rural Innovat Design Res Ctr, Xixi Campus,Tianmushan Rd 148, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, Peoples R China
关键词
governance; housing; local government; planning; redevelopment; regeneration; state-owned enterprises; urban growth; BUSINESS DISTRICT; CITY; DISCOURSES; CRISIS;
D O I
10.1177/0042098020951438
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
This paper considers the cases of urban redevelopment at waterfront and brownfield sites in Copenhagen (Denmark) and Hamburg (Germany) to explore how two municipal governments have pursued divergent kinds of entrepreneurial governance, even as they have aimed to create similar kinds of new-build neighbourhoods. Copenhagen and Hamburg have both engaged in large-scale speculative development projects, simultaneously raising urban land values and adding urban public good. The cities follow a long tradition of using land value capture to raise funds for municipal activities, yet their scopes of action and tools for achieving progress have been shaped by local economic and political conditions. Although both cities began redevelopment at similar kinds of sites in the 1990s, Copenhagen's municipal government was relatively impoverished, while Hamburg's municipal government was relatively wealthy. As a result, even though both cities deployed state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and revolving funds models to reinvest revenues in future development, they possessed different potential strategies for increasing intercity competitiveness: Copenhagen's immediate aim in redeveloping its orestad and harbour districts was to fund a citywide mass transit system and thereby enhance competitiveness through infrastructure development, while Hamburg sought to use its HafenCity waterfront redevelopment to boost competitiveness through port modernisation, increased in urban quality and commercial expansion in the city centre. By comparing these two cases, we can better understand the contingent nature of entrepreneurial governance and urban redevelopment processes.
引用
收藏
页码:161 / 177
页数:17
相关论文
共 55 条
[1]   Financial geography III: The financialization of the city [J].
Aalbers, Manuel B. .
PROGRESS IN HUMAN GEOGRAPHY, 2020, 44 (03) :595-607
[2]  
Agnew J.A., 2007, The City in Cultural Context
[3]   Can a future city enhance urban resilience and sustainability? A political ecology analysis of Eko Atlantic city, Nigeria [J].
Ajibade, Idowu .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISASTER RISK REDUCTION, 2017, 26 :85-92
[4]  
Allen R, 2013, INTERNATIONAL HANDBOOK OF PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, P685
[5]   On the waterfront: Neoliberal urbanism and the politics of public benefit [J].
Boland, Philip ;
Bronte, John ;
Muir, Jenny .
CITIES, 2017, 61 :117-127
[6]  
By & Havn, 2019, LYN
[7]   Municipal land allocations: a key for understanding tenure and social mix patterns in Stockholm [J].
Caesar, Carl ;
Kopsch, Fredrik .
EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES, 2018, 26 (08) :1663-1681
[8]   Sustainable development indicator systems for island cities: The case of Zhoushan Maritime Garden City [J].
Chen, Qianhu ;
Dong, Hanning .
ISLAND STUDIES JOURNAL, 2019, 14 (02) :137-156
[9]  
Clark E., 2015, FESSUD Working Paper Series, P1
[10]   The Expatriate Real Estate Complex: Creative Destruction and the Production of Luxury in Post-Socialist Prague [J].
Cook, Andrew .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN AND REGIONAL RESEARCH, 2010, 34 (03) :611-628