Political dilemmas in peripheral development: Investment, regulation, and interventions in metropolitan Amsterdam

Planning Theory and Practice

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 333-348

  Savini, Federico ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Amsterdam metropolitan area; politics; urban periphery

Indexed keywords

METROPOLITAN AREA; SPATIAL PLANNING; URBAN DEVELOPMENT; URBAN GROWTH; URBAN PLANNING; URBAN POLITICS;

AMSTERDAM [NORTH HOLLAND]; NETHERLANDS; NORTH HOLLAND;

EID: 84884498858     PISSN: 14649357     EISSN: 1470000X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14649357.2013.820340     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Albrechts, L. 2003. Reconstructing decision-making: Planning versus politics. Planning Theory, 2: 249 - 268.
2. Allers, M. A. 2011. Atlas rijksuitkeringen aan gemeenten, Groningen: COELO. [Atlas of municipal income from national government transfers]
3. Amsterdam, Haven. 2009. " Slimme Haven, Havenvisie Gemeente Amsterdam, 2008-2020 [Harbour Strategic Vision Amsterdam, 2008-2020] ". Amsterdam: Haven Amsterdam.
4. Boelens, L. 2010. Theorizing practice and practising theory: Outlines for an actor-relational-approach in planning. Planning Theory, 9: 28 - 62.
5. Bogart, W. T. 2006. Don't call it sprawl: Metropolitan structure into the twenty first century, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Bontje, M. and Burdack, J. 2005. Edge cities, European-style: Examples from Paris and the Randstad. Cities, 22: 317 - 330.
7. Campbell, H. 2001. Planners and politicians: The pivotal planning relationship?. Planning Theory & Practice, 2: 83 - 85.
8. Cochrane, A. 1998. Illusions of power: Interviewing local elites. Environment and Planning A, 30: 2121 - 2132.
9. Counsell, D. and Haughton, G. 2003. Regional planning tensions: Planning for economic growth and sustainable development in two contrasting English regions. Environment Planning C: Government Policy, 21: 225 - 239.
10. Dembski, S. and Salet, W. 2010. The transformative potential of institutions: How symbolic markers can institute new social meaning in changing cities. Environment and planning A, 42: 611 - 625.
11. Ekers, M., Hamel, P. and Keil, R. 2012. Governing suburbia: Modalities and mechanisms of suburban governance. Regional Studies, 46: 405 - 422.
12. Fainstein, S. S. 2008. Mega-projects in New York, London and Amsterdam. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32: 768 - 785.
13. Faludi, A. 1994. Coalition building and planning for Dutch growth management: The role of the Randstad concept. Urban Studies, 31: 485 - 507.
14. Feiock, R. C. 2004. Politics, institutions and local land-use regulation. Urban Studies, 41: 363 - 375.
15. Fischer, F. and Forester, J. 1993. The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning, Durham: Duke University Press Books, NC.
16. Friedmann, J. 2000. " Toward a non-Euclidian mode of planning ". In Readings in planning theory, Edited by: Campbell, J. and Fainstein, S. Oxford: Blackwell.
17. Gerring, J. 2006. Single-outcome studies: A methodological primer. International Sociology, 21: 707 - 734.
18. Gordon, D. L. A. 1997. Managing the changing political environment in urban waterfront redevelopment. Urban Studies, 34: 61 - 83.
19. Grant, J. L. 2009. Theory and practice in planning the suburbs: Challenges to implementing new urbanism, smart growth, and sustainability principles. Planning Theory & Practice, 10: 11 - 33.
20. Hamers, D. and Piek, M. 2012. Mapping the future urbanization patterns on the urban fringe in the Netherlands. Urban Research & Practice, 5: 129 - 156.
21. Harvey, D. 2001. Globalization and the spatial fix. Geographische Revue, 2: 23 - 30.
22. Healey, P. 2007. Urban complexity and spatial strategies: Towards a relational planning for our times, New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
23. Innes, J. E. and Booher, D. E. 1999. Consensus building and complex adaptive systems. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65: 412 - 423.
24. Janssen-Jansen, L. B. 2011. From Amsterdam to Amsterdam metropolitan area: A paradigm shift. International Planning Studies, 16: 257 - 272.
25. Janssen-Jansen, L., Lloyd, G., Peel, D. and van der Krabben, E. 2012. Planning in an environment without growth, Invited essay for the Raad voor de leefomgeving en infrastructuur The Netherlands: Raad voor de leefomgeving en infrastructuur (Rli). [Dutch Council for Living Environment and Infrastructure]
26. Keil, R. 2000. Governance restructuring in Los Angeles and Toronto: Amalgamation or secession?. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24: 758 - 781.
27. Knox, P. 2008. Metroburbia, USA, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
28. Korthals Altes, W. K. K. 2006. Stagnation in housing production: Another success in the Dutch planner's paradise?. Environment Planning B: Planning Design, 33: 97 - 114.
29. Lang, R. and Knox, P. K. 2009. The new metropolis: Rethinking megalopolis. Regional Studies, 43: 789 - 802.
30. Logan, J. R. and Molotch, H. L. 1987. Urban fortunes: The political economy of place, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
31. Long, N. E. 1959. Planning and politics in urban development. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 25: 167 - 169.
32. Louter, P. and van Eikeren, P. 2012. Een nieuwe politieke kaart: Ruimtelijke verschillen in politieke voorkeuren verklaard, Delft: Bureau Louter. [The political map of 2012]
33. Louter, P. and van Eikeren, P. 2012. De politieke kaart van 2012, Delft: Bureau Louter. [The political map of 2012]
34. Mäntysalo, R. 2002. Dilemmas in critical planning theory. Town Planning Review, 73: 417 - 436.
35. Mazza, L. 2002. Technical knowledge and planning actions. Planning Theory, 1: 11 - 26.
36. Ministerie van VROM. 1990. Vierde nota over de ruimtelijke ordening extra, The Hague: Sdu. [Fourth note on spatial planning]
37. Ministerie van VROM. 1991. Vierde nota over de ruimtelijke ordening extra (VINEX), Den Haag: Sdu. [Fourth note on spatial planning extra]
38. Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu. 2011. Ontwerp structuurvisie infrastructuur en ruitme, Den Haag: Sdu. [Draft structural vision on infrastructure and environment]
39. Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu. 2012. MIRT projectboek 2012, Den Haag: Sdu.
40. McLaughlin, R. B. 2012. Land use regulation: Where have we been, where are we going?. Cities, 29: S50 - S55.
41. Needham, B. 2005. The new Dutch spatial planning act: Continuity and change in the way in which the Dutch regulate the practice of spatial planning. Planning Practice and Research, 20: 327 - 340.
42. Orfield, M. 2002. American metropolitics: The new suburban reality, Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.
43. Phelps, N. A. 2010. Suburbs for nations? Some interdisciplinary connections on the suburban economy. Cities, 27: 68 - 76.
44. Phelps, N. A. 2012. An anatomy of sprawl, London: Routledge.
45. Phelps, N. A. and Wood, A. M. 2011. The new post-suburban politics?. Urban Studies, 48: 2591 - 2610.
46. Phelps, N. A., Wood, A. M. and Valler, D. C. 2010. A postsuburban world? An outline of a research agenda. Environment and Planning A, 42: 366 - 383.
47. Portugali, J. 2008. Learning from paradoxes about prediction and planning in self-organizing cities. Planning Theory, 7: 248 - 262.
48. Priemus, H., Boelhouwer, P. and Kruythoff, H. 1997. Dutch urban policy: A promising perspective for the big cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 21: 677 - 690.
49. Provincie Noord Holland. (2013). Noordzeekanaalgebied Visie 2040 [Vision of the North Sea Canal Area 2040]. Concept, 6 May, Den Haag
50. Robinson, C. J. 1989. Municipal approaches to economic development: Growth and distribution policy. Journal of the American Planning Association, 55: 283 - 295.
51. Roodbol-Mekkes, P. H., van der Valk, A. J. J. and Korthals Altes, W. K. 2012. The Netherlands spatial planning doctrine in disarray in the 21st century. Environment and Planning A, 44: 377 - 395.
52. Rooijendijk, C. 2005. That city is mine! Urban ideal images in public debates and city plans, Amsterdam & Rotterdam 1945-1995, (PhD Thesis) Amsterdam: Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, University of Amsterdam.
53. Sagalyn, L. B. 1997. Negotiating for public benefits: The bargaining calculus of public-private development. Urban Studies, 34: 1955 - 1970.
54. Salet, W., Thornley, A. and Kreukels, A., eds. 2003. Metropolitan governance and spatial planning: Comparative case studies of European city-regions, London: Spon Press.
55. Savini, F. 2012a. Who makes the (new) metropolis? Cross-border coalition and urban development in Paris. Environment and Planning A, 44: 1875 - 1895.
56. Savini, F. 2013. The governability of national spatial planning: Light instruments and logics of governmental action in strategic urban development. Urban Studies, 50: 1592 - 1607.
57. Savini, F. 2013. Urban peripheries: Political dynamics of planning project, (PhD Thesis) Amsterdam: Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research, University of Amsterdam.
58. Schuiling, D. 1996. Key projects for urban regeneration: The Dutch experience. Planning Practice and Research, 11: 279 - 290.
59. Segeren, A., Needham, B. and Groen, J. 2005. De markt doorgrond. Een institutionele analyse van grondmarkten in Nederland, Rotterdam/Den Haag: NAi Publishers/Netherlands. [The market understood: An institutional analysis of land market in The Netherlands]
60. Sieverts, T. 2003. Cities without cities: An interpretation of the Zwischenstadt, London: Spon Press.
61. Stone, C. 1989. Regime politics, Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, KS.
62. Terhorst, P. and van De Ven, J. 1995. The national urban growth coalition in the Netherlands. Political Geography, 14: 343 - 361.
63. Uitermark, J. 2009. An in memoriam for the just city of Amsterdam. City, 13: 347 - 361.
64. van Rijswick, M. and Salet, W. 2012. Enabling the contextualization of legal rules in responsive strategies to climate change. Ecology and Society, 17: 18
65. Van der Cammen, H. and De Klerk, L. 2012. The self-made land, Spectrum: Houten.
66. Young, D. and Keil, R. 2010. Reconnecting the disconnected: The politics of infrastructure in the in-between city. Cities, 27: 87 - 95.