围绕两极分化的规划:基于伦敦和Gdańsk再生项目寻找共同点的组成部分

IF 1.7 Q3 URBAN STUDIES Urban Planning Pub Date : 2023-05-16 DOI:10.17645/up.v8i2.6608
P. Lorens, Agnieszka Zimnicka
{"title":"围绕两极分化的规划:基于伦敦和Gdańsk再生项目寻找共同点的组成部分","authors":"P. Lorens, Agnieszka Zimnicka","doi":"10.17645/up.v8i2.6608","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Various forms of public participation in urban design and planning—as presented and discussed in literature—have recently been challenged by the needs and expectations of different stakeholders, including those coming from the private sector. This comes with a redefinition of the public good and the roles and responsibilities of municipal authorities in post-liberal times. As a result, contemporary participatory processes need to evolve to accommodate not only the wishes and ideas of the local communities, but also those of institutional stakeholders including investors, developers and land owners. This is also accompanied by the demands, expressed by all partners in this process, associated with having a much stronger influence on the final shape of the development policies and planning regulations. The gradual democratisation of spatial planning results in more engagement of stakeholders in the process. The article focuses on the co-design method as a way to bridge the polarisation of interests and find a consensus. The article focuses on identifying co-design components leading to the successful bridging of divisions and the realisation of large-scale regeneration initiatives that could be replicated. The authors have selected examples of large-scale regeneration areas in London and Gdańsk for a qualitative assessment, given the growing polarisation in both Polish and British societies. The discussion will focus on aspects of inclusivity, partnership working in co-design and political risks associated with co-design.","PeriodicalId":51735,"journal":{"name":"Urban Planning","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Planning Around Polarisation: Components of Finding Common Ground Based on Regeneration Projects in London and Gdańsk\",\"authors\":\"P. Lorens, Agnieszka Zimnicka\",\"doi\":\"10.17645/up.v8i2.6608\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Various forms of public participation in urban design and planning—as presented and discussed in literature—have recently been challenged by the needs and expectations of different stakeholders, including those coming from the private sector. This comes with a redefinition of the public good and the roles and responsibilities of municipal authorities in post-liberal times. As a result, contemporary participatory processes need to evolve to accommodate not only the wishes and ideas of the local communities, but also those of institutional stakeholders including investors, developers and land owners. This is also accompanied by the demands, expressed by all partners in this process, associated with having a much stronger influence on the final shape of the development policies and planning regulations. The gradual democratisation of spatial planning results in more engagement of stakeholders in the process. The article focuses on the co-design method as a way to bridge the polarisation of interests and find a consensus. The article focuses on identifying co-design components leading to the successful bridging of divisions and the realisation of large-scale regeneration initiatives that could be replicated. The authors have selected examples of large-scale regeneration areas in London and Gdańsk for a qualitative assessment, given the growing polarisation in both Polish and British societies. The discussion will focus on aspects of inclusivity, partnership working in co-design and political risks associated with co-design.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51735,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urban Planning\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urban Planning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v8i2.6608\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"URBAN STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urban Planning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v8i2.6608","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"URBAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

正如文献中所介绍和讨论的那样,公众参与城市设计和规划的各种形式最近受到了不同利益相关者(包括私营部门的利益相关者)的需求和期望的挑战。随之而来的是对公共利益以及后自由时代市政当局的角色和责任的重新定义。因此,当代的参与进程需要发展,不仅要适应当地社区的愿望和想法,还要适应包括投资者、开发商和土地所有者在内的机构利益攸关方的愿望和思想。在此过程中,所有合作伙伴都提出了要求,要求对发展政策和规划条例的最终形式产生更大的影响。空间规划的逐步民主化导致利益相关者更多地参与这一过程。这篇文章的重点是共同设计方法,作为一种弥合利益两极分化并达成共识的方法。这篇文章的重点是确定共同设计的组成部分,从而成功弥合分歧,实现可以复制的大规模再生举措。鉴于波兰和英国社会的两极分化日益加剧,作者选择了伦敦和格但斯克大规模重建地区的例子进行定性评估。讨论将集中在包容性、合作设计中的伙伴关系以及与合作设计相关的政治风险等方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Planning Around Polarisation: Components of Finding Common Ground Based on Regeneration Projects in London and Gdańsk
Various forms of public participation in urban design and planning—as presented and discussed in literature—have recently been challenged by the needs and expectations of different stakeholders, including those coming from the private sector. This comes with a redefinition of the public good and the roles and responsibilities of municipal authorities in post-liberal times. As a result, contemporary participatory processes need to evolve to accommodate not only the wishes and ideas of the local communities, but also those of institutional stakeholders including investors, developers and land owners. This is also accompanied by the demands, expressed by all partners in this process, associated with having a much stronger influence on the final shape of the development policies and planning regulations. The gradual democratisation of spatial planning results in more engagement of stakeholders in the process. The article focuses on the co-design method as a way to bridge the polarisation of interests and find a consensus. The article focuses on identifying co-design components leading to the successful bridging of divisions and the realisation of large-scale regeneration initiatives that could be replicated. The authors have selected examples of large-scale regeneration areas in London and Gdańsk for a qualitative assessment, given the growing polarisation in both Polish and British societies. The discussion will focus on aspects of inclusivity, partnership working in co-design and political risks associated with co-design.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Urban Planning
Urban Planning URBAN STUDIES-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
5.60%
发文量
124
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Urban Planning is a new international peer-reviewed open access journal of urban studies aimed at advancing understandings and ideas of humankind’s habitats – villages, towns, cities, megacities – in order to promote progress and quality of life. The journal brings urban science and urban planning together with other cross-disciplinary fields such as sociology, ecology, psychology, technology, politics, philosophy, geography, environmental science, economics, maths and computer science, to understand processes influencing urban forms and structures, their relations with environment and life quality, with the final aim to identify patterns towards progress and quality of life.
期刊最新文献
Subaltern Politics at Urban Borderlands Between the “Structural” and the “Everyday”: Bridging Macro and Micro Perspectives in Comparative Urban Research Bordering Practices in a Sustainability-Profiled Neighbourhood: Studying Inclusion and Exclusion Through Fluid and Fire Space Migrants in the Old Train Wagons Borderland in Thessaloniki: From Abandonment to Infrastructures of Commοning Social Media Groups in Interaction With Contested Urban Narratives: The Case of Koper/Capodistria, Slovenia
×
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