Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Developing urban growth and urban quality
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Developing urban growth and urban quality
Do you wish to request the book?
Developing urban growth and urban quality
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Developing urban growth and urban quality
2022
Overview
This paper considers the cases of urban redevelopment at waterfront and brownfield sites in Copenhagen (Denmark) and Hamburg (Germany) to explore how two municipal governments have pursued divergent kinds of entrepreneurial governance, even as they have aimed to create similar kinds of new-build neighbourhoods. Copenhagen and Hamburg have both engaged in large-scale speculative development projects, simultaneously raising urban land values and adding urban public good. The cities follow a long tradition of using land value capture to raise funds for municipal activities, yet their scopes of action and tools for achieving progress have been shaped by local economic and political conditions. Although both cities began redevelopment at similar kinds of sites in the 1990s, Copenhagen’s municipal government was relatively impoverished, while Hamburg’s municipal government was relatively wealthy. As a result, even though both cities deployed state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and revolving funds models to reinvest revenues in future development, they possessed different potential strategies for increasing intercity competitiveness: Copenhagen’s immediate aim in redeveloping its Ørestad and harbour districts was to fund a citywide mass transit system and thereby enhance competitiveness through infrastructure development, while Hamburg sought to use its HafenCity waterfront redevelopment to boost competitiveness through port modernisation, increased in urban quality and commercial expansion in the city centre. By comparing these two cases, we can better understand the contingent nature of entrepreneurial governance and urban redevelopment processes.
本文以丹麦哥本哈根和德国汉堡的滨水区和旧城区的城市再开发为例，探讨两个市政府如何实行不同类型的创业主义治理，尽管他们的目标是创建类似的新建社区。哥本哈根和汉堡都开展了大型投机性开发项目，这些项目同时提高了城市土地价值并增加了城市公共产品。这些城市遵循利用土地价值获取为市政建设筹集资金的悠久传统，但它们的行动范围和取得进展的工具则是由当地的经济和政治条件决定的。尽管这两个城市在20世纪90年代开始在类似的地点进行再开发，但哥本哈根市政府相对贫困，而汉堡市政府相对富裕。因此，尽管两个城市都实施了国有企业和循环基金模式，将收入再投资于未来的发展，但它们在提高城市竞争力方面则实施了不同的潜在战略：哥本哈根重建其奥雷斯塔德 (Ørestad) 和港口区的近期目标是为全市公共交通系统提供资金，从而通过基础设施发展提高竞争力，而汉堡则试图利用其哈芬西提滨水区 (HafenCity) 的再开发，通过港口现代化、提高城市品味和市中心的商业扩张来提高竞争力。通过比较这两个案例，我们可以更好地理解创业主义治理和城市再开发过程中的偶然性。
