The governance of public space by legally unique bodies: A case study of Vancouver’s Granville Island

IF 4.2 1区 经济学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Urban Studies Pub Date : 2024-09-07 DOI:10.1177/00420980241264636
Alexandra Flynn, Claire Stevenson-Blythe
{"title":"The governance of public space by legally unique bodies: A case study of Vancouver’s Granville Island","authors":"Alexandra Flynn, Claire Stevenson-Blythe","doi":"10.1177/00420980241264636","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article focuses on the governance of Granville Island, a former industrial stretch of land that operates as an arts destination abutting the City of Vancouver’s waterfront. While Granville Island might look like any other neighbourhood in Vancouver, it is in fact owned and managed by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, a federal agency, on behalf of the Government of Canada. This article examines what it means, democratically speaking, for the federal government to operate public space in a city. Public entities are each legally unique, raising questions as to how they and their relationships with other entities can be understood, evaluated and adjudicated. This article animates how public entities are understood under Canadian law by demonstrating the difficulty in crafting inclusive, participatory governance models that respond to the many interests involved in public space, especially spaces that are explicitly identified as ‘innovative’. Drawing on qualitative data and document review, the article highlights the manner in which Granville Island has been structured and operated by the federal government, its singular focus on commerce and tourism and its weak commitments to accountability, transparency and representation. Granville Island is rendered ‘invisible’ in its governance: it blends into the urban form as though part of the City of Vancouver, while at the same time lacking in accountability, transparency and representation. We conclude that while Granville Island governs public space, making it seem like a neighbourhood in a municipality, it cannot be conceptualised as a ‘democratic body’.","PeriodicalId":51350,"journal":{"name":"Urban Studies","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urban Studies","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980241264636","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article focuses on the governance of Granville Island, a former industrial stretch of land that operates as an arts destination abutting the City of Vancouver’s waterfront. While Granville Island might look like any other neighbourhood in Vancouver, it is in fact owned and managed by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, a federal agency, on behalf of the Government of Canada. This article examines what it means, democratically speaking, for the federal government to operate public space in a city. Public entities are each legally unique, raising questions as to how they and their relationships with other entities can be understood, evaluated and adjudicated. This article animates how public entities are understood under Canadian law by demonstrating the difficulty in crafting inclusive, participatory governance models that respond to the many interests involved in public space, especially spaces that are explicitly identified as ‘innovative’. Drawing on qualitative data and document review, the article highlights the manner in which Granville Island has been structured and operated by the federal government, its singular focus on commerce and tourism and its weak commitments to accountability, transparency and representation. Granville Island is rendered ‘invisible’ in its governance: it blends into the urban form as though part of the City of Vancouver, while at the same time lacking in accountability, transparency and representation. We conclude that while Granville Island governs public space, making it seem like a neighbourhood in a municipality, it cannot be conceptualised as a ‘democratic body’.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
法律上独一无二的机构对公共空间的管理:温哥华格兰维尔岛案例研究
本文重点介绍格兰佛岛(Granville Island)的管理情况,格兰佛岛以前是一片工业用地,现在是温哥华市海滨的艺术胜地。虽然格兰维尔岛看起来与温哥华的其他街区没什么两样,但它实际上是由联邦机构加拿大按揭与住房公司代表加拿大政府拥有和管理的。本文从民主角度探讨了联邦政府运营城市公共空间的意义。公共实体在法律上各具特色,这就提出了如何理解、评估和裁决公共实体及其与其他实体的关系的问题。本文展示了如何根据加拿大法律理解公共实体,从而说明在制定包容性、参与性治理模式以应对公共空间(尤其是被明确认定为 "创新 "的空间)所涉及的众多利益方面存在的困难。文章利用定性数据和文件审查,强调了联邦政府构建和运营格兰维尔岛的方式,其对商业和旅游业的单一关注,以及对问责制、透明度和代表性的薄弱承诺。格兰维尔岛的治理被 "隐形 "了:它融入了城市形态,就像温哥华市的一部分,但同时又缺乏问责制、透明度和代表性。我们的结论是,虽然格兰维尔岛管理着公共空间,使其看起来像一个城市中的居民区,但它不能被概念化为一个 "民主机构"。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Urban Studies
Urban Studies Multiple-
CiteScore
10.50
自引率
8.50%
发文量
150
期刊介绍: Urban Studies was first published in 1964 to provide an international forum of social and economic contributions to the fields of urban and regional planning. Since then, the Journal has expanded to encompass the increasing range of disciplines and approaches that have been brought to bear on urban and regional problems. Contents include original articles, notes and comments, and a comprehensive book review section. Regular contributions are drawn from the fields of economics, planning, political science, statistics, geography, sociology, population studies and public administration.
期刊最新文献
Book review: The Routledge Handbook of Architecture, Urban Space and Politics, Volume II: Ecology, Social Participation and Marginalities Book Review: Markets, Capitalism and Urban Space in India: Right to Sell The entrepreneurial creative city and its discontents: The politics of art-led urban regeneration in Incheon, South Korea The unequal spread of digital neighbourhood platforms in urban neighbourhoods: A multilevel analysis of socio-demographic predictors and their relation to neighbourhood social capital Everyday practices of administrative ambiguation and the labour of de-ambiguation: Struggling for water infrastructure in Mumbai
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1