首页> 外文期刊>A+BE : Architecture and the Built Environment >De wortels van de Randstad. Overheidsinvloed en stedelijke hi?rarchie in het westen van Nederland tussen de 13de en 20ste eeuw
【24h】

De wortels van de Randstad. Overheidsinvloed en stedelijke hi?rarchie in het westen van Nederland tussen de 13de en 20ste eeuw

机译:任仕达的根源。 13至20世纪荷兰西部的政府影响和城市等级制

获取原文
           

摘要

The starting point of this study concerns the origins of the polycentric nature of contemporary cities in the western area of the Netherlands, commonly known as ‘the Randstad’. Within the disciplines of planning and urban design the Randstad is considered a textbook example of a polycentric urban hierarchy. Yet, although quite a popular topic, very little is actually known about the driving forces that have given shape to existing urban hierarchies throughout the world. Moreover, the Randstad has also been dubbed ‘Holland’s paradox’ because of its assumed reversed evolution from a primate city hierarchy focused on Amsterdam in early modern times, to a polycentric hierarchy in the 19th century. Why do urban hierarchies change over time and which factors were decisive for the rise of the polycentric Randstad? This study consists of two parts and six chapters. Part I explores the determining factors of change within urban hierarchies. The first chapter gives an assessment of the usefulness of existing theory and ends in confusion: firstly, historiography turns out to be a medley of explanations that are heterogeneous and sometimes even contradictive. Secondly, comparisons of the long-term development of multiple towns are lacking, which makes it difficult to come up with a theoretical approach. In order to make such comparisons and ascertain the impact of certain factors on urban hierarchies over time, it’s necessary to look at the development of a group of towns over a long time-span. Therefore, in the second chapter, simple statistics are compared with existing theory and literature. To do so, demographic data for the nine towns of Amsterdam, Haarlem, Leiden, Delft, The Hague, Rotterdam, Dordrecht, Gouda and Utrecht were compared from their first appearance in the 13th century until the end of the 20th century by projecting their demographic hierarchy in a graph and on a map. In this manner explanations were measured on their applicability for the case of the Randstad. This explorative exercise results in both a description of long-term change in hierarchy in the Randstad and a theoretical approach. Long-term change in the urban hierarchy of the Randstad roughly proceeded in three phases. In the Middle Ages there was a polycentric hierarchy wherein the oldest cities, Utrecht and Dordrecht, were dominant. Although all towns in Holland grew rapidly in the 14th century, by the 1560s one of the youngest and smallest towns, Amsterdam, suddenly took the lead. In the second phase, between 1560 and 1795, a monocentric hierarchy developed with Amsterdam as a primate city. In this dynamic period, where many towns changed ranks, severe growth followed by shrinkage occurred simultaneously with sharpening inequality between towns. In the third phase, between 1795 and 2000, the hierarchy became polycentric once more, with a group of large towns taking the lead. This was mostly due to the extraordinary growth of Rotterdam and The Hague. In contrast with the second phase, the parallel appearance of sharp growth and inequality did not coincide with change in ranks. As a conclusion of part I, in chapter 3 the three determining factors for change in urban hierarchies over time are identified. Urban hierarchy is interpreted as a functional division of tasks between multiple centres, which is the result of differences in the towns’ competitive positions over time. The potency of a town’s competitive position is primarily determined by the interaction of (1) its properties on the one hand and (2) the conditions on the international market on the other. Additionally this interaction is structurally influenced by (3) contribution of a sovereign government. Governments can stimulate or disadvantage towns, but have done so in different ways. Part II further concretizes this approach by further investigation of the third factor. Here, governmental contribution to long-term change in urban hierarchies is given priority over the other two determining factors. Chapters 4, 5 and 6 focus successively on the constitutional periods of the Middle Ages (1200-1560), the Early Modern Age (1560-1795) and the Modern Age (1795-2000). These periods correspond to the three phases in long-term change in the demographic hierarchy from chapter 2. The aim of part II is twofold. Firstly, to identify and compare the manner in which sovereign government has been able to influence the towns’ competitive positions from the 13th until the end of the 20th century. Which trends are discernable in the toolbox of competitive advantages and their distribution by the sovereign government? How can governmental influence on change in urban hierarchies best be characterized? Secondly, if possible, to point out which governmental measures presumably contributed to change in urban hierarchy in general and, specifically, to the rise of the polycentric Randstad. Which measures show the most plausible correlation with change within the urban hierarchy? In order to identify
机译:这项研究的起点涉及荷兰西部当代城市多中心性质的起源,通常被称为“任仕达”。在规划和城市设计学科中,任仕达被认为是多中心城市等级制的教科书示例。然而,尽管这是一个颇受欢迎的话题,但实际上对于形成全球现有城市等级体系的驱动力知之甚少。此外,任仕达也被称为“荷兰的悖论”,因为它假定是从近代早期专注于阿姆斯特丹的灵长类城市体系到19世纪的多中心体系的逆向演变。为什么城市等级会随着时间而变化,哪些因素对多中心任仕达的崛起起决定性作用?本研究分为两部分和六章。第一部分探讨了城市层次结构中变化的决定因素。第一章对现有理论的有用性进行了评估,并以混乱而告终:首先,史学证明是混杂的解释,有时甚至是矛盾的。其次,缺乏对多个城镇长期发展的比较,这使得很难提出一种理论方法。为了进行这样的比较并确定某些因素随时间推移对城市等级体系的影响,有必要研究长时间内一组城镇的发展。因此,在第二章中,将简单统计与现有的理论和文献进行了比较。为此,比较了阿姆斯特丹,哈勒姆,莱顿,代尔夫特,海牙,鹿特丹,多德雷赫特,古达和乌得勒支这9个镇的人口统计数据,从其13世纪首次出现到20世纪末,通过对其人口统计进行投影图和地图上的层次结构。通过这种方式,对有关任仕达案适用性的解释进行了衡量。这种探索性的练习既可以描述任仕达的层次结构的长期变化,也可以得出一种理论上的方法。任仕达城市等级体系的长期变化大致分为三个阶段。在中世纪,有一个多中心的等级制,其中最古老的城市乌得勒支和多德雷赫特占主导地位。尽管荷兰的所有城镇在14世纪都迅速发展,但到1560年代,最年轻和最小的城镇之一阿姆斯特丹突然成为领头羊。在第二阶段,即1560年至1795年之间,以阿姆斯特丹为主要城市发展了单中心等级制。在这个充满活力的时期,许多城镇改变了等级,严重的增长随后是萎缩,城镇之间的不平等加剧。在第三阶段,即1795年至2000年之间,等级制再次变得多中心化,由一群大城镇带头。这主要是由于鹿特丹和海牙的飞速发展。与第二阶段相反,急剧增长和不平等的并行现象与等级变化并不一致。作为第一部分的结论,在第三章中,确定了随时间推移城市等级结构变化的三个决定性因素。城市等级被解释为多个中心之间任务的功能划分,这是城镇竞争力随时间变化的结果。城镇竞争优势的能力主要取决于(1)一方面的属性和(2)另一方面国际市场的条件的相互作用。此外,这种互动在结构上受到主权政府(3)贡献的影响。政府可以刺激或不利于城镇,但是采取了不同的方式。第二部分通过进一步研究第三个因素,进一步具体化了这种方法。在这里,政府对城市层次结构的长期变化的贡献要优先于其他两个决定性因素。第4、5和6章依次集中讨论了中世纪(1200-1560),近代早期(1560-1795)和近代(1795-2000)的宪法时期。这些时期对应于第2章中人口层次的长期变化的三个阶段。第二部分的目的是双重的。首先,确定并比较从13世纪到20世纪末主权政府对城镇的竞争地位产生影响的方式。竞争优势及其由主权政府分配的工具箱中可以看出哪些趋势?如何最好地描述政府对城市层次结构变化的影响?第二,如果可能的话,指出哪些政府措施大概有助于总体上改变城市等级,特别是多中心任仕达的崛起。哪些措施显示出与城市等级变化最合理的相关性?为了识别

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号