首页> 外文OA文献 >New East Manchester: urban renaissance or urban opportunism?
【2h】

New East Manchester: urban renaissance or urban opportunism?

机译:新东曼彻斯特:城市复兴还是城市机会主义?

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

In this paper we ask how a shrinking city responds when faced with a perforated urban fabric. Drawing on Manchester's response to its perforated eastern flank —and informed by a parallel study of Leipzig—we use the city's current approach to critique urban regeneration policy in England. Urban renaissance holds out the promise of delivering more sustainable—that is more compact, more inclusive and more equitable—cities. However, the Manchester study demonstrated that the attempt to stem population loss from the city is at best fragile, despite a raft of policies now in place to support urban renaissance in England. It is argued here that Manchester like Leipzig is likely to face an ongoing battle to attract residents back from their suburban hinterlands. This is especially true of the family market that we identify as being an important element for long-term sustainable population growth in both cities. We use the case of New East Manchester to consider how discourses linked to urban renaissance—particularly those that link urbanism with greater densities—rule out some of the options available to Leipzig, namely, managing the long-term perforation of the city. We demonstrate that while Manchester is inevitably committed to the urban renaissance agenda, in practice New East Manchester demonstrates a far more pragmatic—but equally unavoidable—approach. This we attribute to the gap between renaissance and regeneration described by Amin et al. (Cities for the Many Not for the Few. Bristol: Policy Press, 2000) who define the former as urbanism for the middle class and the latter as urbanism for the working class. While this opportunistic approach may ultimately succeed in producing development on the ground, it will not address the fundamental, and chronic, problem; the combination of push and pull that sees families relocating to suburban areas. Thus, if existing communities in East Manchester are to have their area buoyed up—or sustained—by incomers, and especially families, with greater levels of social capital and higher incomes urban policy in England will have to be challenged.
机译:在本文中,我们问一个萎缩的城市在面对穿孔的城市结构时如何应对。借助曼彻斯特对东部穿孔侧翼的反应,并在对莱比锡的一项平行研究中得知,我们使用曼彻斯特市目前的方法来批判英格兰的城市更新政策。城市复兴抱负着提供更可持续,更紧凑,更具包容性和更公平的城市的希望。然而,曼彻斯特的研究表明,尽管现在已经出台了许多支持英格兰城市复兴的政策,但阻止城市人口流失的尝试至多脆弱。这里有人争辩说,像莱比锡这样的曼彻斯特可能会面临一场持续的战斗,以吸引居民从郊区腹地返回。家庭市场尤其如此,我们认为家庭市场是两个城市人口长期可持续增长的重要因素。我们以新东曼彻斯特为例,考虑与城市复兴相关的话语,尤其是那些与城市化与更高密度相关的话语,排除了莱比锡可用的一些选择,即管理城市的长期发展。我们证明,尽管曼彻斯特不可避免地致力于城市复兴议程,但实际上,新东曼彻斯特展示了一种更为务实的方法,但同样不可避免。这归因于Amin等人描述的复兴与再生之间的差距。 (许多人不为少数人居住的城市。布里斯托尔:政策出版社,2000年)将前者定义为中产阶级的城市主义,而将后者定义为工人阶级的城市主义。尽管这种机会主义的方法最终可能会成功地促成实地的发展,但它不会解决根本的长期问题。推拉结合,使家庭搬到郊区。因此,如果东曼彻斯特的现有社区要由收入者,尤其是家庭来建立或维持其地区,则社会资本水平较高且收入较高的英格兰城市政策将受到挑战。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

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