RESUMO
There has been growing interest in the expansion of global investment in urban areas, and the financialisation of urban development, both of which bring new business logics into the production of the built environment and shape urban outcomes. At the same time, mega urban projects have continued and spread as a significant format of urban expansion and renewal, often strongly linked to transnational investors and developers. Nonetheless, the distinctive regulatory and political contexts within which transnational actors must bring such projects to fruition matter greatly to outcomes, with territorialised governance arrangements both shaping and being shaped by transnational dynamics. However, there has been little systematic comparative consideration of these diverse regulatory contexts in their own right, rather than as contributors to wider circulating processes such as neoliberalisation. As a result, the implications of different regulatory regimes for urban outcomes have not been effectively assessed. In this paper we therefore broaden the discussion from globalised processes of "financialisation" to consider three large-scale urban development projects from the perspective of their distinctive "business models", including their place in achieving wider strategic objectives at national and metropolitan scales, their agile and often bespoke institutional configurations, and their different forms of financing, taxation and land value capture. Our cases are Lingang, Shanghai (one of nine planned satellite cities), the Corridors of Freedom project in Johannesburg (a linear transport oriented development seeking to integrate the racially divided city), and Old Oak and Park Royal in north-west London (under a mayoral development corporation, associated with significant new metropolitan and national transport investments). We observe that the business models adopted, notably in relation to financial calculations and income streams associated with the developments, are a result of strongly path dependent formats of governance and income generation in each case. However we want to move beyond seeing these as residual, as contingent and contextual to wider accounts of urban development focussed on globalised financial flows and calculations. Using a comparative approach we initiate a systematic analytical conversation about the implications of different business models for the form and socio-economic potential of mega-urban development projects.
RESUMO
The epistemologies and politics of comparative research are prominently debated within urban studies, with 'comparative urbanism' emerging as a contemporary lexicon of urban studies. The study of urban gentrification has, after some delay, come to engage with these debates, which can be seen to pose a major challenge to the very concept of gentrification. To date, similar debates or developments have not unfolded within the study of rural gentrification. This article seeks to address some of the challenges posed to gentrification studies through an examination of strategies of comparison and how they might be employed within a comparative study of rural gentrification. Drawing on Tilly (Big structures Large Processes Huge Comparisons. New York: Russell Sage), examples of four 'strategies of comparison' are identified within studies of urban and rural gentrification, before the paper explores how 'geographies of the concept' and 'geographies of the phenomenon' of rural gentrification in the United Kingdom, United States and France may be investigated using Latour's (Pandora's Hope. London: Harvard University Press) notion of 'circulatory sociologies of translation'. The aim of our comparative discussion is to open up dialogues on the challenges of comparative studies that employ conceptions of gentrification and also to promote reflections of the metrocentricity of recent discussions of comparative research.
RESUMO
Abstract Following on from calls to reformat comparative urban methods to support global urban studies, this paper draws inspiration from policy mobilities to explore how the genetic interconnectedness of urban processes and outcomes can be mobilised methodologically to critique and extend concepts in urban theory through comparison. What might be the scope and tactics for a practice of comparison through connections, which can start anywhere and build comparisons and analytical insights across a very great diversity of urban experiences? This paper explores three possible ways to take this forward. Firstly, tracing a specific connection, such as a policy link, from one context to another or across a number of different contexts contributes to understanding specific urbanization processes. Secondly, following connections brings into view the range and variety of processes and outcomes in different contexts. In the highly transnationalised world of urban policy this method potentially links a very wide variety of diverse urban contexts and draws attention to a multiplicity of repeated instances of urban forms. Finally, the paper considers the potential to work with the array of transnational processes shaping distinctive policy outcomes and development paths as they come together in one specific place - to explore how "elsewhere" is folded in to localised growth paths. Thus, comparative practices could follow policy mobilities to explore the potential of a more topological imagination of thinking across different contexts, and bringing a diversity of urban contexts into analytical conversation. Along these lines, the invention of concepts and understandings of the urban might emerge anywhere, and perhaps find wider relevance across different situations. Following the trajectories of policy mobilities is thus not only a pathway to inventing new methods but also potentially new grounds for theorizing the urban.
Resumen En respuesta a la urgencia de encontrar nuevos formatos de métodos urbanos comparativos que fundamenten los estudios urbanos globales, este artículo se inspira en la movilidad de políticas para explorar cómo la interconexión genética de procesos y resultados urbanos puede movilizarse metodológicamente para criticar y extender conceptos en la teoría urbana a través de la comparación. ¿Cuáles podrían ser el alcance y las tácticas para una práctica de comparación mediante conexiones, que comiencen dondequiera que sea y que construyan comparaciones e insights analíticos en una gran diversidad de experiencias urbanas? Este artículo explora tres formas posibles de llevar esto adelante. En primer lugar, rastrear una conexión específica, como un enlace de políticas, de un contexto a otro o entre varios contextos diversos, contribuye a comprender procesos de urbanización específicos. En segundo lugar, las conexiones siguientes ponen de manifiesto la gran variedad de procesos y resultados en diferentes contextos. En el mundo altamente transnacionalizado de la política urbana, ese método vincula potencialmente una amplia variedad de contextos urbanos y llama la atención sobre una multiplicidad de instancias repetidas de formas urbanas. En tercer lugar, el artículo considera el potencial para trabajar con la gama de procesos transnacionales que configuran resultados de políticas y vías de desarrollo distintos a medida que se unen en un lugar específico -para explorar cómo "en otro lugar" se combinan a vías de crecimiento localizado-. Así, prácticas comparativas podrían seguir la movilidad de políticas para explorar el potencial de una imaginación más topológica de pensamiento en diferentes escenarios, y llevar una diversidad de contextos urbanos a conversaciones analíticas. En esa línea, la elaboración de conceptos y entendimientos de lo urbano puede surgir en cualquier lugar y, tal vez, encontrar una mayor relevancia en diferentes situaciones. Seguir las trayectorias de la movilidad de políticas es, por lo tanto, no solo un camino para crear nuevos métodos, sino también, potencialmente, nuevos fundamentos para teorizar lo urbano.
Resumo Em resposta à urgência por reformatar métodos urbanos comparativos que proporcionem embasamento para estudos urbanos globais, este artigo se inspira na abordagem da mobilidade de políticas públicas para explorar como a interconexão genética de processos e resultados urbanos pode ser mobilizada metodologicamente para criticar e estender conceitos na teoria urbana por meio da comparação. Quais poderiam ser o escopo e as táticas para uma prática de comparação por meio de conexões, que comecem onde quer que seja e que construam comparações e insights analíticos em uma grande diversidade de experiências urbanas? Este artigo explora três maneiras possíveis de levar isso adiante. Em primeiro lugar, traçar uma conexão específica, como uma ligação entre políticas, de um contexto para outro ou entre vários contextos diversos, contribuindo para a compreensão de processos específicos de urbanização. Em segundo lugar, acompanhar as conexões coloca em evidência a grande variedade de processos e resultados em diferentes contextos. No mundo altamente transnacional da política urbana, esse método conecta potencialmente uma ampla variedade de contextos urbanos e chama a atenção para uma multiplicidade de instâncias repetidas de formas urbanas. Finalmente, o artigo considera o potencial para trabalhar com o conjunto de processos transnacionais que moldam resultados de políticas e caminhos de desenvolvimento distintos, à medida que eles se juntam em um lugar específico — para explorar como "o outro lugar" se envolve em caminhos que crescem de forma localizada. Assim, práticas comparativas poderiam seguir a mobilidade de políticas públicas para explorar o potencial de uma imaginação mais topológica de pensamento em diferentes cenários, e trazendo uma diversidade de contextos urbanos para conversas analíticas. Nessa linha, a elaboração de conceitos e entendimentos do urbano pode surgir em qualquer lugar e, talvez, encontrar maior relevância em diferentes situações. Acompanhar as trajetórias da mobilidade das políticas é, portanto, não apenas um caminho para criar novos métodos, mas também potencialmente novos fundamentos para a teorização do urbano.