Do ‘city shapers’ really support urban consolidation? The case of Brisbane, Australia
Do ‘city shapers’ really support urban consolidation? The case of Brisbane, Australia
复制标题
“城市塑造者”真的支持城市整合吗？澳大利亚布里斯班的案例
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2018
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
T. Matthews
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Katrina Raynor;Severine Mayere;T. Matthews
近几十年来，世界各地的城市都启动了对城市整合的政策支持。城市整合的理由侧重于其实现可持续发展目标的能力，包括减少对汽车的依赖、增强社会凝聚力和更大的步行能力。尽管如此，国际上很少有城市整合政策的实施实现了其既定目标。本文探讨了城市规划师、开发商、建筑师和地方政治家对城市整合的看法的性质和特征。这些“城市塑造者”所持有的观点是城市整合辩论和交付不可或缺的，但他们的具体观点的性质和特征在城市研究文献中尚未得到充分探讨。本文结合社会表征理论的理论透镜和Q方法论的方法论途径，解读澳大利亚布里斯班城市塑造者对城市整合的共识。它识别，综合和批判性地讨论了城市塑造者所采用的社会表征，以理解，促进和沟通城市整合。调查结果表明，城市整合的辩论和理由显着偏离既定的政策意图，是基于不同的观点，“好”的城市形态，规划和社区咨询的作用和高密度住房的价值。我们的结论是，有效用和价值，确定城市整合战略的影响，共同的信念，神话和城市塑造者的看法。理解这些叙述及其影响，对于理解权力对政策定义和发展成果的操纵至关重要。
Cities all over the world have activated policy support for urban consolidation in recent decades. Rationales for urban consolidation focus on its perceived ability to achieve sustainability goals, including decreased automobile dependence, increased social cohesion and greater walkability. Despite this, there are few international examples of urban consolidation policy implementation that has achieved its stated aims. This paper explores the nature and character of perceptions of urban consolidation held by urban planners, developers, architects and local politicians. The perspectives held by these ‘city shapers’ are integral to urban consolidation debates and delivery, yet the nature and character of their specific views are underexplored in urban studies literature. This paper combines the theoretical lens of Social Representations Theory with the methodological approach of Q-methodology to understand the common sense understandings of urban consolidation held by city shapers in Brisbane, Australia. It identifies, synthesises and critically discusses the social representations employed by city shapers to understand, promote and communicate about urban consolidation. Findings indicate that urban consolidation debates and justifications diverge significantly from stated policy intentions and are based on differing views on ‘good’ urban form, the role of planning and community consultation and the value of higher density housing. We conclude that there is utility and value in identifying how urban consolidation strategies are influenced by the shared beliefs, myths and perceptions held by city shapers. Understanding these narratives and their influence is fundamental to understanding the power-laden manipulation of policy definitions and development outcomes.