Framing space and time in the city: Urban policy and the politics of spatial and temporal scale

Journal of Urban Affairs

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 159-178

  McCann, Eugene J ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

POWER RELATIONS; URBAN PLANNING; URBAN POLICY; URBAN POLITICS;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 0042244375     PISSN: 07352166     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1467-9906.t01-1-00004     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Agnew, J. (1997). The dramaturgy of horizons: Geographical scale in the "reconstruction of Italy" by the new Italian political parties, 1992-95. Political Geography, 16, 99-122.
2. Alford, A. (2000, December 15). East Austin zoning changes approved: Industrial-use limits, proposed in East Cesar Chavez plan, pass after battle. Austin American-Statesman, p. B7.
3. Almanza, S. (2000, Summer). Displacement and gentrification. Xinachtli en PODER, 7.
4. Atkinson, P., & Hammersley, M. (1994). Ethnography and participant observation. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research, (pp. 248-261). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5. Barnes, T. J., & Duncan, J. S. (1992). Introduction: Writing worlds. In T. J. Barnes & J. S. Duncan (Eds.), Writing worlds: Discourse, text and metaphor in the representation of landscape. (pp. 1-17). New York: Routledge.
6. Brenner, N. (1998a). Between fixity and motion: Accumulation, territorial organization and the historical geography of spatial scales. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 16, 459-481.
7. Brenner, N. (1998b). Global cities, glocal states: Global city formation and state territorial restructuring in contemporary Europe. Review of International Political Economy, 5, 1-37.
8. Brenner, N. (2000). The urban question as a scale question: Reflections on Henri Lefebvre, urban theory and the politics of scale. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24, 361-78.
9. Burawoy, M., Gamson, J., & Burton, A. (1991). Ethnography unbound: Power and resistance in the modern metropolis. Berkeley: University of California Press.
10. Checkoway, B. (1984). Two types of planning in neighborhoods. Journal of Planning Education, and Research, 3, 102-109.
11. Citizens' Planning Committee. (1995). Citizens' planning committee report. Austin: City of Austin.
12. Citizens' Planning Committee. (1996). From chaos to common ground: A blueprint for Austin and surrounding communities. Austin: City of Austin.
13. City of Austin. (1997). Smart growth guide: Enhancing Austin's quality of life neighborhood by neighborhood. Austin: City of Austin Planning, Environmental and Conservation Services Department.
14. City of Austin. (1999). The East César Chávez neighborhood plan: An amendment to the city of Austin's comprehensive plan. Austin: East César Chávez Neighborhood Planning Leadership Team. Austin, TX. Available: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/zoning/downloads/ecc_np.pdf [January 2003].
15. City of Austin. (2000a). Neighborhood planning workbook. Austin: Planning, Environmental and Conservation Services Department. Austin, TX.
16. City of Austin. (2000b). Cherrywood Neighborhood Planning Team and the City of Austin neighborhood planning memorandum of understanding. Austin: Planning, Environmental and Conservation Services Department. Austin, TX
17. Cox, K. R. (1997). Governance, urban regime analysis, and the politics of local economic development. In M. Lauria (Ed.), Reconstructing urban regime theory: Regulating urban politics in a global economy (pp. 99-121). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18. Cox, K. R. (1998a). Spaces of dependence, spaces of engagement and the politics of scale, or: Looking for local politics. Political Geography, 17, 1-24.
19. Cox, K. R. (1998b). Representations and power in the politics of scale. Political Geography, 17, 41-44.
20. Cox, K. R. (2002). Territory, divisions of labor, and the new politics of scale. In A. Herod & M. Wright (Eds.), Geographies of power: Placing scale. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
21. Cox, K. R., & Mair, A. (1988). Locality and community in the politics of local economic development. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 78, 307-325.
22. Cox, K. R., & Mair, A. (1989). Urban growth machines and the politics of local economic development. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 13, 137-146.
23. Dear, M. J. (1986). Postmodernism and planning. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 4, 367-384.
24. Dear, M. J. (1989). Survey 16: Privatization and the rhetoric of planning practice. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 7, 449-462.
25. Delaney, D., & Leitner, H. (1997). The political construction of scale. Political Geography, 16, 93-97.
26. Engelking, S. E. (1996). Austin's opportunity economy: A model for collaborative technology development. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, April, 29-47.
27. Fainstein, S. S., Fainstein, N. I., Hill, R. C., Judd, D., & Smith, M. P. (Eds.). (1987). Restructuring the city, the political economy of urban development. New York: Longman.
28. Filion, P. (1996). Metropolitan planning objectives and implementation constraints: Planning in a post-Fordist and postmodern age. Environment and Planning A, 28, 1637-1660.
29. Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce. (2000). The state of the regional economy. Austin, Texas: Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce.
30. Gregory, D. (1994). Geographical imaginations. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
31. Harvey, D. (1989). From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: The transformation of urban governance in late capitalism. Geografiska Annaler, 71B, 3-17.
32. Helling, A. (1998). Collaborative visioning: Proceed with caution! Results from evaluating Atlanta's Vision 2020 project. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64, 335-349.
33. Jessop, B. (1994). Post-Fordism and the state. In A. Amin (Ed.), Post-Fordism: A reader. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
34. Jonas, A. E. G. (1994). United States urban policy: A question of scale? Urban Geography, 15, 395-405.
35. Jonas, A. E. G., & Ward, K. G. (2002). A world of regionalisms: Towards a US-UK urban and regional policy framework comparison. Journal of Urban Affairs, 24, 377-401.
36. Jones, B. (1990). Neighborhood planning: A guide for citizens and planners. Chicago: Planners Press.
37. Knaap, G., & Nelson, A. C. (1992). The regulated landscape: Lessons on state land use Planning from Oregon. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
38. Lake, R. W. (1994). Negotiating local autonomy. Political Geography, 13(5), 423-442.
39. Lake, R. W. (1996). Volunteers, NIMBYs, and environmental justice: Dilemmas of democratic practice. Antipode, 28, 160-174.
40. Logan, J. R., & Molotch, H. (1987). Urban fortunes: The political economy of place. Berkeley: University of California Press.
41. Marston, S. A. (2000). The social construction of scale. Progress in Human Geography, 24, 219-242.
42. MacLeod, G., & Goodwin, M. (1999). Space, scale and state strategy: Re-thinking urban and regional governance. Progress in Human Geography, 23, 503-527.
43. McCann, E. J. (1997). Where do you draw the line? Landscape, texts, and the politics of planning. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 15, 641-661.
44. McCann, E. J. (2001). Collaborative visioning or planning as therapy? The politics of public-private policy-making. Professional Geographer, 53, 207-218.
45. McGuirk, P. (1994). Economic restructuring and the realignment of the urban planning system: The case of Dublin. Urban Studies, 31, 287-308.
46. Moscoso, E. (1997, November 28). Split slows neighborhood planning: East Austin divided on delegates to impending city guideline sessions. Austin American-Statesman, p. B1.
47. Murdoch, J., & Marsden, T. (1995). The spatialization of politics: Local and national actor spaces in environmental conflict. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, NS 20, 368-380.
48. Myers, D., & Kitsuse, A. (2000). Constructing the future in planning: A survey of theories and tools. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19, 221-231.
49. Nash, K. (2000). Contemporary political sociology: Globalization, politics, and power. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
50. Oregon Visions Project. (1993). A guide to community visioning: Hands-on information for local communities. Portland. OR: Oregon Chapter, American Planning Association.
51. Peterman, W. (2000). Neighborhood planning and community-based development: The potential and limits of grassroots action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
52. Shipley, R., & Newkirk, R. (1999). Vision and visioning in planning: What do these terms really mean? Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 26, 573-591.
53. Smith, N. (1992). Contours of a spatialized politics: Homeless vehicles and the production of geographical scale. Social Text, 33, 55-81.
54. Smith, N. (1993). Homeless/global: Scaling places. In J. Bird (Ed.), Mapping the futures (pp. 87-119). London: Routledge.
55. Snow, D., & Benford, R. (1992). Master frames and cycles of protest. In A. Morris & C. Mueller (Eds.), Frontiers in social movement theory (pp. 133-155). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
56. Soja, E. (1985). The spatiality of social life: Towards a transformative retheorization. In D. Gregory & J. Urry (Eds.), Social relations and spatial structures (pp. 90-122). London: Macmillan.
57. Stoker, G. (1995). Regime theory and urban politics. In D. Judge, G. Stoker, G., & H. Wolman (Eds.), Theories of Urban Politics (pp. 54-71). London: Sage.
58. Stone, C. N. (1989). Regime politics: Governing Atlanta, 1946-1988. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
59. Sustainability Indicators Project of Hays, Travis, and Williamson Counties. (2000). Central Texas indicators 2000: A report on the economic, environmental, and social health of the Central Texas region. Austin, Texas: Sustainability Indicators Project, University of Texas, Urban Issues Program.
60. Swyngedouw, E. (1997). Neither global or local: "Globalization" and the politics of scale. In K. R. Cox (Ed.), Spaces of globalization: Reasserting the power of the local (pp. 137-166 . New York: Guilford.
61. Tarrow, S. (1992). Mentalities, political cultures, and collective action frames: Constructing meanings through action. In A. Morris & C. Mueller (Eds.), Frontiers in social movement theory, (pp. 174-202). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
62. Taylor, P. J. (2000). World cities and territorial states under conditions of contemporary globalization. Political Geography, 19, 5-32.
63. Trower, T. (1998, June 21). Rift bogs down neighborhood plan: Interest groups divided in early stages of city's East César Chávez experiment. Austin American-Statesman, p. B1.
64. Walzer, N. (1996). Common elements of successful programs. In N. Walzer (Ed.), Community strategic visioning programs (pp. 183-198). Westport, CT: Praeger.
65. Wilson, D., & Wouters, J. (2002). Space and growth discourse: The restructuring of America's rust belt cities. Journal of Urban Affairs, 25(2).
66. Winter, I., & Brooke, T. (1993). Urban planning and the entrepreneurial state: The view from Victoria, Australia. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 11, 263-278.
67. Wolman, H., & Goldsmith, M., (1992). Urban politics and policy: A comparative approach. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
68. Woodmansee, J. (1994). Community visioning: Citizen participation in strategic planning. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association. Management Information Service.