Changing Interpretations of ‘Flexibility’ in the Planning Literature: From Opportunism to Creativity?

Taşan‐Kok, Tuna

doi:10.1080/13563470802521382

Cited by 60 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At the urban level, neo-liberal or 'entrepreneurial' development represents a mode of socio-economic regulation that incentivises market agents to invest, develop, and create workplaces, infrastructure, and social and spatial amenities (Harvey, 1989;Swyngedouw et al, 2002;Enright, 2014). The preliminary push to urban entrepreneurialism came in the 1970s, as municipalities in the us and uk faced bankruptcy due to the severe cutbacks of federal aid (Tasan-Kok, 2008;Theodore et al, 2011). To support public budgets and encourage private investment, municipalities both privatised centrally located public land and advanced megaprojects (Fainstein, 2008;Sagalyn, 2007).…”

Section: Neo-liberal Urban Development Institutional Justifications mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It included flexible, local spot-zoning amendments to statutory planning schemes, made with the purpose of advancing site-specific projects and public-private (pp) ventures. To this end, authorities strike specific planning 'deals' with private actors that allow the exchange of public goods and tasks-'side benefits'-for extra floor rights (Fainstein, 2008;Tasan-Kok, 2008;Alfasi, 2006;Sagalyn, 2007;Margalit, 2014;Fox-Rogers and Murphy, 2015). The increase of high-rise ventures designed for local and international elites (Sklair and Gherardi, 2012) was intimately linked to entrepreneurial paradigms of urban growth and development.…”

Section: Neo-liberal Urban Development Institutional Justifications mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These negotiations are managed by local government, which plays the double role of regulator and economic stakeholder (Sagalyn, 2007;Gielent and Tasan-Kok, 2010), and is often eager to maintain a 'good business' atmosphere by making compromises that work mostly for the benefit of private developers (Margalit, 2013 andFoxRogers and Murphy, 2015). Negotiating public goods is even harder when flexible planning and 'deal-making' are used as commercial assets for municipal governments' global competitive agendas (Tasan-Kok, 2008).…”

Section: Neo-liberal Urban Development Institutional Justifications mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Development as a Battlefield

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. This is an open access book distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC license at the time of publication, which permits any non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. Terms of use: Documents inCover illustration: Street scene in the old town of Iiaret, Algeria, 18 December 2012. Photographer © Aurélie Lecarpentier [Aalek] The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available online at http://catalog.loc.gov lc record available at

show abstract

Section: Neo-liberal Urban Development Institutional Justifications mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Neo-liberal Urban Development Institutional Justifications mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Neo-liberal Urban Development Institutional Justifications mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Development as a Battlefield

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a comparative study, the European Commission found a double trend in planning practice: countries operating with rigid plan-led systems tend indeed to incorporate flexibility, but those operating in development-led systems seek to provide greater certainty (European Commission, 1997, p. 45). There are various arguments behind the shifts towards more or less flexibility in planning practice (Tasan-Kok, 2008). Moroni (2007, pp.…”

Section: Flexibility and Certainty In Planning: Where To Draw The Line?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Flexibility in Planning and the Consequences for Public-value Capturing in UK, Spain and the Netherlands

Gielen

Taşan‐Kok

2010

European Planning Studies

Self Cite

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the 1960s, flexibility was often seen in planning literature as a negative feature, whereas today it is perceived by planners and policy-makers as a positive asset to cope with the challenges of growing complexity, opportunism and diversity in cities. The discussion seems to rest between two approaches. While planning should be flexible to facilitate a non-linear and multi-layered decisionmaking system, implementation should not be too flexible as the public sector might lose the controlling power and the private sector might gain increasing influence in urban development. This paper uses empirical data from case-based research on British, Spanish and Dutch urban regeneration projects, and provides an analysis of the effects of an important feature of flexibility on public-value capturing. Public-value capturing is the level at which public bodies manage to make developers pay for public infrastructure-infrastructure provision, public roads and space, public facilities and buildings, affordable and social housing-and eventually capture part of the economic value increase. This important aspect of flexibility is the level of certainty about future development possibilities before negotiations between developers and local planning bodies take place.

show abstract

“…Suggested incremental improvements to rectify planning deficits include bringing more certainty into planning processes through clearer and more detailed codes and zones [1], allowing more flexibility and discretion to be exercised by planners [2], and increasing the professional skills of planners through better initial training and continuing professional development [3]. Calls for more radical changes range from the de-nationalisation of development rights and a return to an almost total reliance on market mechanisms to regulate processes of urban development [4] through to the need for more insurgent and radical forms of planning [5,6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Urban Planning in Australia Hindered by Poor Metropolitan Governance?

Burton

2017

Urban Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are many calls for urban planning in Australia to be reformed, although often in contradictory ways. For example, some argue it should be capable of delivering greater certainty to developers while others call for more flexibility in processes of urban development regulation; some would like to roll back its regulatory impact while others argue for a renewal of planning's commitment to promoting social and spatial justice. The Australian planning system is also held to be hindered by a comparative lack of planning at and for the metropolitan scale. This is connected to the absence of well-developed structures of metropolitan governance in what is a three-tier federal system, with most power over planning concentrated at the State and Territory government scale. The paper explores this putative hindrance by considering three important issues in Australian urban policy debates about the efficacy of contemporary multi-level governance arrangements: spatial scale; identity and legitimacy; and efficiency and effectiveness. It includes some analysis of the case made for a more explicit and rigorous national urban policy and how this might relate to lower level planning regimes. The paper focuses on recent urban policy and planning initiatives in South East Queensland, one of Australia's fastest growing metropolitan regions, and concludes that while incremental but nonetheless significant improvements in planning policy and practice are possible, these are unlikely to satisfy those calling for more radical changes to improve the Australian planning system.

show abstract

Changing Interpretations of ‘Flexibility’ in the Planning Literature: From Opportunism to Creativity?

Cited by 60 publications

References 28 publications

Development as a Battlefield

Development as a Battlefield

Flexibility in Planning and the Consequences for Public-value Capturing in UK, Spain and the Netherlands

Is Urban Planning in Australia Hindered by Poor Metropolitan Governance?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About