This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
最近(次)城市扩张的多面性得到了澄清(Galster等人,2001年),同时在关于 ( 后 ) 郊 区 化 的 文 献 ( E k e r s 等人,2012年)中讨论了社会、经济和政治进程、环境内容和构成它的房地产开发的意识形态意义;Phelps和Wood,2011年; Phelps等人,2010年)。
间隙空间为城市化研究提供了一个可供选择的分析切入点。现存的文献使用了各种各样的术语,在其建筑、生态或其他术语中对间隙空间的处理是支离破碎、相当单一的。 在本文中,我们提出了一个统一的研究议程来理解城市空隙。我们首先回顾了一些文献,这些文献涉及到这些间隙空间,其中包括城市边缘地带、绿色基础设 施 、 S i e v e r t s 所 说 的 间 城(zwischenstadt)和Vidal所说的碎片间隔空间。这些文献提供了我们在随后的一个部分总结的见解,该部分提出了未来城市扩张间隙空间的研究议程中的四个主题,即:间隙空间在怎样的尺度上变得明显;它们悬而未决的性质;它们与规划的关系;和它们的关系属性。我们提供了这些主题的简短示例,这些示例取自对智利圣地亚哥大都市地区间隙空间的原始研究,包括研究官方文件和对中央、大都市和地方政府规划者、政治家、开发商和商业利益阶层、居民和环境以及其他社区团体的56次半结构化访谈(Silva,2017a)。尽管我们认为该议程对绝大多数城市都很重要,但我们并未在很大程度上依赖这个案例,只是把它作为抽象和概括的依据。智利圣地亚哥提供了一个很好的例子,说明在城市蔓延的背景下,间隙空间的重要性。在过去三十年里,该城市地区一直在经历与“自动建设”和住房及基础设施私有化建设相联系的碎片化城市扩张,这对社会隔离产生了重要影响(Borsdorf等人, 2007年; Dammert, 2004年; De M a t t o s , 2 0 0 2 年 ; H e i n r i c h s 等人,2011年;Sabatini等人,2001年)。较少受到检验的是这些作者描述的城市化进程中产生的空置空间。
目 ( F a l u d i等 人 , 1 9 9 6年 ; K ü h n, 2003年;Salet和Woltjer,2009年)。然而,“一个非预期的边缘地带可能和一个有规划特征的边缘带一样有利于促进城市的易辨认性”(Whitehand,2001: 108)。这一事实强调了间隙空间的规划和非规划性质,这一点我们稍后会再次谈到。
绿色基础设施的概念与生态现代化的前景相关联,因其作为“环境支持经济增长和投资、土地资产价值、劳动生产率、旅游业 和 农 业 ” 的 一 种 方 式 ( T h o m a s和Littlewood,2010: 217)。Van Leeuwen和Nijkamp(2006: 292)探索了“城市化乡村”作为绿色基础设施的可能性,以实现从通常是掠夺自然的过程的重生产率农业转向城市边缘农业部门,更注重食品质量、环境保护和更可持续的生态系统。
空气和噪音污染方面的生态价值似乎是毋庸置疑的(La Rosa和Privitera,2013年)。然而,根据Lafortezza等人(2013年)的说法,这些区域通常有两个主要组成部分:“枢纽”和“走廊”,它们涉及几个尺度和功能,人们可以在其中与野生动植物共存。绿色基础设施的概念还假设了与“传统”基础设施类似的、对政治和政策领导力及资源的要求( Sandström, 2002年)。绿色基础设施已纳入土地利用和空间规划政策;被理解为“生态网络工程”( Bennet和 Mulongoy, 2006年; T z o u l a s等 人 , 2 0 0 7年 ; Wa l m s l e y, 1995年),但也有提高城市环境质量的价值(La Greca等人,2011: 2193)。
我们从智利圣地亚哥案例中抽象和简化,提出了图2中描述的四种不同尺度的间隙空间。这种描述有三个条件。首先,尽管Vidal关于碎片间隔空间的概念与我们的议程相关,但他的重点是建筑尺度(例如建筑之间的空间)。我们并没有把这种建筑尺度描绘成有助于理解城市化的尺度。其 次 , 尽 管 S i e v e r t s 的 “ 间 城Zwischenstadt”涵盖了显著的过渡和区域尺度,但这一概念主要侧重于已开发土地和对城市蔓延的整体解释,而不是对间隙的明确理解。第三,很明显,一个单独的间隙空间可以与这些尺度中的一个或多个尺
保了一些空间(包括最大和私营部门最想要的空间)可以在很长一段时间内处于悬而未决的状态。上面提到的前塞利略机场无疑就是这种情况,这个黄金地段的开发被不断推迟,部分原因是城市模式的冲突:郊区开发商的“一切照旧”思维与城市规划者看到的、基于城市可持续发展、智慧增长等全球论述的新模式试验机会之间的冲突(Silva,2015,2017b)。即使在城市增长的背景下,衰退也意味着间隙空间的数量在短期内周期性变化,为临时使用 提 供 了 机 会 ( K a m v a s i n o u 和Roberts,2014年)。在城市收缩的背景下,间隙空间的数量可能会长期增加。不应低估土地的临时或短期使用(作为城市间隙数量短期和长期增加的结果)对社会群体、土地所有者和规划政策赋权的影响(Kamvasinou和Roberts,2014: 197)。
顺便强调。在美国的土地转换过程中,农田作为“未决土地”出现(Clawson, 1962: 102)。郊区的开放空间(也许是跨越式发展模式中的一个功能)实际上是开发商增加住宅开发收益的策略的核心( T h o m a s和 Wa l s h, 2 0 0 4年 ) , 正如Hovinen(1977年)和Neuman(1997年)在美国和西班牙的案例中所描述的那样。它们在提高和维护财产价值方面对居民也很重要。
绿色基础设施一词给人一种感觉,即间隙空间是城市领土整合的力量。城市蔓延造成的空隙的网络基础设施特性也隐含在Sieverts对间城(zwischenstadt)大型公共工程面临的冲突的强调中。事实上,Keil和Young(2011年)和Young和Keil(2014年)已经明确使用间城(zwischendstadt )的概念来引起人们对基础设施穿越的郊区广阔间隙土地景观的注意。道路穿越的这些地方 也 是 潜 在 的 扩 张 区 域 ( K e i l 和Young,2011: 9)。然而,它们的关系属性很少被充分调动。在加拿大的案例中,间城人口的脆弱性是“由于传统的政治空间和程序未能捕捉到市中心和远郊之间的联系而产生的”(Young和Keil,2014: 1590)。
Adams D, Russell L and Taylor-Russell C (1994) Land for Industrial Development. London: Spon.
Augé M (1995) Non-Places. Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity. London: Verso.
Bennet G and Mulongoy KJ (2006) Review of the experience with ecological networks, corri-dors and buffer zones. Technical report no.
23. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 100 pp.
Borsdorf A, Hidalgo R and Sanchez R (2007) A new model of urban development in Latin America: The gated communities and fenced cities in the metropolitan areas of Santiago de Chile and Valparaiso. Cities 24: 365–378.
Brighenti AM (2013) Introduction. In: Brighenti AM (ed.) Urban Interstices: The Aesthetics and the Politics of the In-between. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. xv–xxiii.
Bruinsma F, Pepping G and Rietveld P (1993) Infrastructure and Urban Development; The Case of the Amsterdam Orbital Motorway. Serie Research Memoranda. Faculteit der Economische Wetenschappen en Econometrie. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Careri F (2002) Walkscapes: El andar como práctica estética. Barcelona: Editorial Gustavo Gili.
Caspersen O, Konijnendijk C and Olafsson A (2006) Green space planning and land use: An assess-ment of urban regional and green structure plan-ning in Greater Copenhagen. Danish Journal of Geography 106: 7–20.
Castells M (1977) The Urban Question. London: Arnold.
Choay F (2003) Espacements, figuri del spazi urbani nel tempo. Milan: Skira.
Cidell J (2011) Distribution centers among the roof-tops: The global logistics network meets the sub-urban spatial imaginary. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 35: 832–851.
Clawson M (1962) Urban sprawl and speculation in suburban land. Land Economics 38: 99–111.
Cresswell T (2006) On the Move: Mobility in the Modern Western World. London: Routledge.
Dammert L (2004) ¿Ciudad sin ciudadanos? Fragmentación, segregación y temor en Santiago. EURE 30(91): 87–96.
De Mattos C (2002) Transformación de las ciudades Latinoamericanas. ¿Impactos de la globali-zación? EURE 28: 5–10.
Douglas I (2008) Environmental change in peri-urban areas and human and ecosystem health. Geography Compass 2: 1095–1137.
Dovey K (2012) Informal urbanism and com-plex adaptive assemblage. International Development Planning Review 34: 349–367.
Dubeaux S and Sabot EC (2018) Maximizing the potential of vacant spaces within shrinking cit-ies, a German approach. Cities. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.06.015.
14 Urban Studies
Easterling K (1999) Organization Space: Landscapes, Highways and Houses in America. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ekers M, Hamel P and Keil R (2012) Governing sub-urbia: Modalities and mechanisms of suburban governance. Regional Studies 46: 405–422.
Faludi A, Van Der Valk A and Lörzing H (1996) The green heart debate. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 87: 448–457.
Foo K, Martin D, Wool C, et al. (2013) The produc-tion of urban vacant lands: Relational place-making in Boston, MA neighborhoods. Cities 35: 156–163.
Gallent N and Shaw D (2007) Spatial planning, area action plans and the rural–urban fringe. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50(05): 617–638.
Galster G, Hanson R, Ratcliffe M, et al. (2001) Wrestling sprawl to the ground: Defining and measuring an illusive concept. Housing Policy Debate 12: 681–717.
Gandy M (2009) Interstitial landscapes: Reflections of a Berlin corner. In: Keil R (ed.) Urban Constellations. Berlin: Jovis, pp. 149–152.
Gandy M (2016) Unintentional landscapes. Landscape Research 41: 433–440.
Gillham O (2002) The Limitless City. A Primer on the Urban Sprawl Debate. New York: Island Press.
Gleeson B and Low N (2000) Australian Urban Planning: New Challenges, New Agendas. London: Allen and Unwin.
Gottlieb R (2007) Reinventing Los Angeles: Nature and Community in the Global City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gravsholt Busk A, Kristensen S, Praestholm S, et al. (2006) Land system changes in the context of urbanization: Examples from the peri-urban area of Greater Copenhagen. Danish Journal of Geography 106(2): 21–34.
Hebbert M (1986) Urban sprawl and urban planning in Japan. Town Planning Review 57: 141–158.
Heinrichs D, Lukas M and Nuissl H (2011) Privatisation of the fringes – A Latin American version of post-suburbia? The case of Santiago de Chile. In: Phelps N and Wu F (eds) International Perspectives on Suburbanization: A Post-Suburban World? Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 101–121.
Hovinen G (1977) Leapfrog developments in Lancaster County: A study of residents’ per-
ceptions and attitudes. The Professional Geographer 29: 194–199.
Ige JO and Atanda TA (2013) Urban vacant land and spatial chaos in Ogbomoso North Local Government, Oyo State, Nigeria. Global Journal of Human Social Science 13: 28–36.
Jorgensen A and Tylecote M (2007) Ambivalent landscapes: wilderness in the urban interstices. Landscape Research 32: 443–462.
Kamvasinou K and Roberts M (2014) Interim spaces: Vacant land, creativity and innovation in the context of uncertainty. In: Mariani M and Barron P (eds) Terrain Vague: On the Edge of the Pale. London: Routledge, pp. 189–200.
Keil R and Young D (2011) Introduction: In-between Canada. The emergence of the new urban mid-dle. In: Young D, Keil R and Wood P (eds) In-Between Infrastructure: Urban Connectivity in an Age of Vulnerability. Kelowna, BC: Praxis(e) Press, pp. 1–18.
Kühn M (2003) Greenbelt and green heart: Separating and integrating landscapes in European city regions. Landscape and Urban Planning 64: 19–27.
La Greca P, La Rosa D, Martinico F, et al. (2011) Agricultural and green infrastructures: The role of non-urbanized areas for ecosustainable plan-ning in metropolitan region. Environmental Pollution 159: 2193–2202.
La Rosa D and Privitera R (2013) Characterization of non-urbanized areas for land-use planning of agricultural and green infrastructure in urban contexts. Landscape and Urban Planning 109: 94–106.
Lafortezza R, Davies C, Sanesi G, et al. (2013) Green infrastructure as a tool to support spatial planning in European urban regions. iForest – Biogeosciences and Forestry (early view): e1–e7.
Larkham P (2006) The study of urban form in Great Britain. Urban Morphology 10: 117–150.
Lévesque L (2013) Trajectories of interstitial land-scapeness: A conceptual framework for territo-rial imagination and action. In: Brighenti AM (ed.) Urban Interstices: The Aesthetics and the Politics of the In-between. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 21–63.
Mohammadi J, Asghar A and Mobaraki O (2012) Urban sprawl pattern and effective factors on them: The case of Urmia city, Iran. Journal of Urban and Regional Analysis 4: 77–89.
菲尔普斯和席尔瓦 15
Molotch H (1976) The city as a growth machine. American Journal of Sociology 82: 309–322.
Nelson A (1999) Comparing states with and without growth management: Analysis based on indica-tors with policy implications. Land Use Policy 16: 121–127.
Neuman M (1997) Images as institution builders: Metropolitan planning in Madrid. In: Healey P., et al. (eds) Making Strategic Spatial Plans: Innovation in Europe. London: UCL Press, pp. 77–94.
Northam R (1971) Vacant land in the American city. Land Economics 47: 345–355.
Peiser R (2001) Decomposing sprawl. Town Planning Review 72: 275–298.
Phelps NA and Wood AM (2011) The new post-sub-urban politics? Urban Studies 48: 2591–2610.
Phelps NA, Wood AM and Valler DC (2010) A post-suburban world? An outline of a research agenda. Environment & Planning A 42: 366–383.
Raffestin C (1986) Elements for a theory of the fron-tier. Diogenes 34: 1–18.
Relph E (1976) Place and Placelessness. London: Pion.
Sabatini F, Cáceres G and Cerda S (2001) Segrega-ción residencial en las principales ciudades Chilenas: Tendencias de las tres últimas décadas y posibles cursos de acción. EURE 27: 21–42.
Salet W and Woltjer J (2009) New concepts of stra-tegic spatial planning dilemmas in the Dutch Randstad region. International Journal of Public Sector Management 22: 235–248.
Sandström U (2002) Green infrastructure planning in urban Sweden. Planning Practice & Research 17: 373–385.
Scott AJ (2012) A World in Emergence: Cities and Regions in the 21st Century. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Shaw P and Hudson J (2009) The qualities of infor-mal space: (Re)appropriation within the infor-mal, interstitial spaces of the city. Proceedings of the conference Occupation: Negotiations with Constructed Space. University of Brighton, pp.1–13. Available at: http://arts.brighton.ac.uk/____data/assets/pdf_file/0003/44850/41_Pamela-Shaw,-Joanne.Hudson_The-Qualities-of-Informal-Space.pdf
Sieverts T (2003) Cities Without Cities. An Interpretation of the Zwischenstadt. London; New York: Spon Press.
Sieverts T (2011) The in-between city as an image of society: From the impossible order towards
a possible disorder in the urban landscape. In: Young D, Keil R and Wood P (eds) In-Between Infrastructure: Urban Connectivity in an Age of Vulnerability. Kelowna, BC: Praxis(e) Press, pp. 19–27.
Silva CA (2015) Urban sprawl and infrastructural lands: Revamping internal spaces in Santiago de Chile. Geoforum 67: 36–40.
Silva CA (2017a) The interstitial spaces of suburban sprawl: Planning problems and prospects - the case of Santiago de Chile. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University College London.
Silva CA (2017b) The infrastructural lands of urban sprawl: Planning potentials and political perils. Town Planning Review 88: 233–256.
Smith N (1982) Gentrification and uneven develop-ment. Economic Geography 58: 139–155.
Sola-Morales I (1995) Terrain vague. In: Davidson C (ed.) Anyplace. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 118–123.
Stavrides S (2014) Open space appropriations and the potentialities of a ‘city of thresholds’. In: Mariani M and Barron P (eds) Terrain Vague: On the Edge of the Pale. London: Routledge, pp. 48–61.
Stone C (1989) Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta, 1946–1988. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.
Tacoli C (1998) Rural–urban interactions: A guide to the literature. Environment and Urbanization 10: 147–166.
Talen E (2010) Zoning for and against sprawl: The case for form-based codes. Journal of Urban Design 18: 175–200.
Thomas J and Walsh R (2004) Urban sprawl. Journal of Economic Perspectives 18: 177–200.
Thomas K and Littlewood S (2010) From green belts to green infrastructure? The evolution of a new concept in the emerging soft governance of spa-tial strategies. Planning Practice & Research 25: 203–222.
Tzoulas K, Korpela K, Venn S, et al. (2007) Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green infrastructure: A lit-erature review. Landscape and Urban Planning 81: 167–178.
Van Leeuwen E and Nijkamp P (2006) The urban–rural nexus; A study on extended urbanization and the hinterland. Studies in Regional Science 36: 283–303.
Vidal R (1999) Fragmentos en Tensión: Elementos para una teoría de la fragmentación urbana.
16 Urban Studies
Revista Geográfica de Valparaíso 29–30: 149–180.
Vidal R (2002) Fragmentation de la Ville et Nouveaux Modes de Composition Urbaine. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Walmsley A (1995) Greenways and the making of urban form. Landscape and Urban Planning 33: 91–127.
Whitehand JWR (2001) British urban morphology: The Conzenian tradition. Urban Morphology 5: 103–109.
Whitehand JWR and Morton NJ (2004) Urban mor-phology and planning: The case of fringe belts. Cities 21: 275–289.
Wolman H, Galster G, Hanson R, et al. (2005) The fundamental challenge in measuring sprawl: Which land should be considered? The Professional Geographer 57(1): 94–105.
Yeh A and Li X (1998) Sustainable land development model for growth areas using GIS. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 12: 169–189.
Young D and Keil R (2014) Locating the urban in-between: Tracking the urban politics if infra-structure in Toronto. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 38: 1589–1608.