Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
somewhat similar ideas are emerging in parallel, it is curious that most seem to be
developing with little reference to one another. This is probably a result of the very
complexity of cities, making it difficult to provide a comprehensive approach to
the study of urban places. But unless we are careful there could be yet another silo
approach to urban development, with the new ideas or themes helping to solve one
set of problems, but providing little insight on other challenges, even though most
of the themes being discussed claim to adopt wider perspectives and provide more
opportunities for community engagement. Two examples may illustrate the point.
The first is that those who have lauded the merits of the New Urbanism seem to
have ignored the very real problems of the inequalities in society which have stimu-
lated the growth of interest in more Just Cities, especially the fact that the inner
city poverty areas have shown remarkable persistence and have rarely been solved
or effectively addressed. The second is the way that advocates for the new Healthy
Cities approach have had to challenge the land use focus of urban planners, since
for much of the twentieth century they have paid little attention to health issues in
their evaluation of development projects, as Corburn (
2009
) has classically shown
in the case of San Francisco. Curiously, many of the advocates for these new themes
argue for a more comprehensive approach to planned urban change by involving
different types of people, ideas, organizations and government. Yet their focus on
one theme often ignores the wider needs of urban places. This led to the realization
that it was time a more integrated, or at least inter-related, approach to the study
of urban development was created, in addition to these single theme approaches
that dominate urban discussions today. Perhaps these single foci approaches are
inevitable since the size and complexity of towns and cities make them difficult to
comprehend let alone understand the many problems that exist. However progres-
sive urban development schemes need to consider the implications or effects of all,
or at least most, of the themes described in subsequent chapters; too often they are
restricted to one or two.
As usual, space constraints mean that not all of the themes that have emerged in
recent years can be covered. Instead the topic focuses on those that are considered
the most important in affecting and improving contemporary urban developments,
primarily in the developed world, although with some examples from the develop-
ing world. Although most of the chapters deal primarily with one main theme, a
series of related, yet not so general topics, such as Sanctuary Cities, Charter Cit-
ies, Emancipatory Cities, and Tidy Towns to name but a few, are also discussed at
relevant stages within particular chapters. However there was no room to discuss
the approaches described as Phoenix Cities (Power et al
2010
) or Heritage Cities
(UNESCO), although these do relate to quite specific types of places rather than
having the more general applicability of the themes dealt with here. In the former
case the adjective has been appended to describe the way that urban places that
have suffered severe economic depression, especially as manufacturing has moved
out and/or mining operations have closed, have developed regenerative policies
to enable them to arise from the ashes, metaphorically like the mythical phoenix.
Power's (2010) topic outlines the policies used in several major declining cities
to successfully revive these centres, showing the utility of a mixture of economic
policies to attract new industries or expanding those already present, as well as
