Land Re-Use, Complexity And Actor-Networks: A Framework For Research

This paper will present a conceptual framework for the examination of land redevelopment based on a complex systems/networks approach. As Alvin Toffler insightfully noted, modern scientific enquiry has become exceptionally good at splitting problems into pieces but has forgotten how to put the pieces back together. Twenty-five years after his remarks, governments and corporations faced with the requirements of sustainability are struggling to promote an ‘integrated’ or ‘holistic’ approach to tackling problems. Despite the talk, both practice and research provide few platforms that allow for ‘joined up’ thinking and action. With socio-economic phenomena, such as land redevelopment, promising prospects open up when we assume that their constituents can make up complex systems whose emergent properties are more than the sum of the parts and whose behaviour is inherently difficult to predict. A review of previous research shows that it has mainly focused on idealised, ‘mechanical’ views of property development processes that fail to recognise in full the relationships between actors, the structures created and their emergent qualities. When reality failed to live up to the expectations of these theoretical constructs then somebody had to be blamed for it: planners, developers, politicians. However, from a ‘synthetic’ point of view the agents and networks involved in property development can be seen as constituents of structures that perform complex processes. These structures interact, forming new more complex structures and networks. Redevelopment then can be conceptualised as a process of transformation: a complex system, a ‘dissipative’ structure involving developers, planners, landowners, state agencies etc., unlocks the potential of previously used sites, transforms space towards a higher order of complexity and ‘consumes’ but also ‘creates’ different forms of capital in the process. Analysis of network relations point toward the ‘dualism’ of structure and agency in these processes of system transformation and change. Insights from actor network theory can be conjoined with notions of complexity and chaos to build an understanding of the ways in which actors actively seek to shape these structures and systems, whilst at the same time are recursively shaped by them in their strategies and actions. This approach transcends the blame game and allows for inter-disciplinary inputs to be placed within a broader explanatory framework that does away with many past dichotomies. Better understanding of the interactions between actors and the emergent qualities of the networks they form can improve our comprehension of the complex socio-spatial phenomena that redevelopment comprises. The insights that this framework provides when applied in UK institutional investment into redevelopment are considered to be significant.chaos theory, complex systems, actor-networks, redevelopment, land re-use

Greece

Although there is no regulation by law for capturing planning gains, Greece as a whole has a number of tools for public value capture. Taxes on property provide significant tax receipts, much higher than the average in the EU, as a percentage of GDP (3.126%, the 5th highest in the OECD in 2019). Some aspects of the tax regime have been heavily criticised for their negative effect on growth (IOBE, 2018) and are due to be reformed with a view to reducing the overall tax burden, promoting investment and making the system more equitable. The non-recurring forms of public value capture are not particularly functional nor are they very efficient. The allocation of development rights in Greece, according to Karadimitriou and Pagonis (2019), follows 11 pathways that encompass both planned and unplanned development as explained in Section 2.3. There are also a few exceptional arrangements for big projects, which actually have explicit public value capturing arrangements (e.g. the old Athens Hellinikon airport regeneration project). In the cases where public value capture occurs, the process is cumbersome mainly due to the primacy that the Greek constitution and legislation give to private property rights

Everyone wins? UK housing provision, government shared equity loans, and the reallocation of risks and returns after the Global Financial Crisis

The 2008 Global Financial Crisis was an extreme shock to the UK housing market. Frozen international capital markets resulted in highly restrictive mortgage lending by UK retail banks, and the collapse in homebuying threatened the heavily indebted housebuilding industry. To counteract the threat, between 2008 and 2013, the UK Government issued shared equity loans requiring matching loans from housebuilders alongside retail bank mortgages and deposits from homebuyers. In 2013, it introduced a new shared equity scheme, Help to Buy (HtB), which no longer required matching loans from housebuilders. This article explores the distribution of the benefits of the UK Government’s issuance of shared equity loans for homebuyers to buoy demand through its effects on the UK’s three largest publicly listed housebuilders. The article found that the housebuilders increased their output by 29,000 homes and generated an additional £1.4 billion in cash between 2013 and 2017 as a direct result of HtB. Over the same period, the housebuilders paid shareholders £3.5 billion in dividends and their share prices rose by an average of 140 per cent, suggesting a clear transfer of income and wealth from taxpayers to housebuilders to shareholders and the emergence of a new mode of housing provision

Immigrant integration in ITI/SUD strategies: The case of Athens, Greece

Foreign immigration from low-income countries to the Athens Functional Urban Area (FUA), started in earnest in the early 1990s. However, the first integrated territorial development instrument which covers immigrant integration (the Integrated Territorial Investments- ITI), was introduced in the mid-2010s as a result of adopting relevant EU Regulations. In the Programming Period 2014-2020 there were 4 ITIs approved for funding in Athens FUA. They focus on innovation, economic growth and social cohesion but rarely mention immigrants and refugees per se. The paper argues that this approach, followed by all four Strategies, is a rather generic feature of the country’s governance modalities, in an ongoing process of Europeanization. The paper explores the rationale behind the way ITIs were implemented in Athens’ FUA, and offers insights as to how immigrant issues could be further mainstreamed in Sustainable Urban Development strategies in the future

Immigrant integration in ITI/SUD strategies: The case of Athens, Greece

Foreign immigration from low-income countries in the Athens Functional Urban Area (FUA), started in earnest in the early 1990s. However, the first integrated territorial development instrument which covers immigrant integration (the Integrated Territorial Investments- ITI), was introduced in the mid-2010s as a result of adopting relevant EU Regulations. In the Programming Period 2014-2020 there were 4 ITIs approved for funding in Athens FUA. They focus on innovation, economic growth and social cohesion but rarely mention immigrants and refugees per se. The paper argues that this approach, followed by all four Strategies, is a rather generic feature of the country’s governance modalities, in an ongoing process of Europeanization. The paper explores the rationale behind the way ITIs were implemented in Athens’ FUA, and offers insights as to how immigrant issues could be further mainstreamed in Sustainable Urban Development strategies in the future

Immigrant integration in ITI/SUD strategies: The case of Athens, Greece

Foreign immigration from low-income countries in the Athens Functional Urban Area (FUA), started in earnest in the early 1990s. However, the first integrated territorial development instrument which covers immigrant integration (the Integrated Territorial Investments- ITI), was introduced in the mid-2010s as a result of adopting relevant EU Regulations. In the Programming Period 2014-2020 there were 4 ITIs approved for funding in Athens FUA. They focus on innovation, economic growth and social cohesion but rarely mention immigrants and refugees per se. The paper argues that this approach, followed by all four Strategies, is a rather generic feature of the country’s governance modalities, in an ongoing process of Europeanization. The paper explores the rationale behind the way ITIs were implemented in Athens’ FUA, and offers insights as to how immigrant issues could be further mainstreamed in Sustainable Urban Development strategies in the future

Editorial

oai:transactions-journal.aesop-planning.eu:article/2It is with great pleasure and excitement that we introduce this inaugural issue of Transactions of the Association of European Schools of Planning. The journal is a new venture of AESOP and aims to provide a platform for the planning community to share research, innovative practices, and provocative thoughts among peers. It expands the already rich opportunities for networking and scholarly dialogue that AESOP offers via annual congresses, Thematic Group activities, specialist meetings such as the Heads of Schools workshops, and summer schools. Transactions seeks to incorporate the spirit that guided AESOP from its beginning – to be inclusive, openminded, and to embrace the diversity of national cultures and milieus of planning and planners represented in Europe and beyond. The journal follows a genuine open access publishing model: it is free of charge to submit a paper for a doubleblind peer review, and accepted papers are accessible online, to everyone, for free. AESOP covers the relevant editorial and publishing costs. This inaugural issue contains an essay from Rachelle Alterman, as well as five contributions on a wide range of topics. All the papers published in this issue had initially been nominated for the Best Congress Paper award by the AESOP Congress track chairs in 2014 and 2015. We would like to offer our sincere thanks to Professor Alterman for her introductory essay, to Professor Anna Geppert, the President of AESOP, for her Introduction, and the authors who contributed a paper to this issue for their willingness to participate in this endeavour and for their patience as the initiative has taken shape

Editorial

We are pleased to present the second issue of Transactions of the Association of the European Schools of Planning, the open-access, double-blind peer-reviewed journal of AESOP. In keeping with the journal’s aim, this issue brings together a variety of reflective and research papers, associated with AESOP events and activities

Editorial

In summer 2017 during the Annual AESOP Congress in Lisbon we were delighted and proud to present the inaugural issue of Transactions of the Association of the European School. Starting this journal took the editorial team on an enjoyable (ad)venture where we discussed format innovations, approaches, and procedures that would be suited to encapsulating the very inclusive, open-minded and nurturing character of the AESOP community while also measuring up to academic standards and scrutiny. It was a venture that was co-created by a mixed gendered team of complementary strengths, experiences, and competencies – as one would expect from a functional team. The papers in this issue of the journal again embrace the diversity of planning cultures in Europe and beyond. They address themes ranging from transport to open space planning. Interdisciplinarity, qualitative and quantitative analytical approaches, design and strategy, and research and education are all covered in varying depth and breadth. (Post-)modern planning is diverse, and requires flexibility and openness to change; in our complex world the future is not predetermined but shaped and evolving. This fourth issue is a good example of this diversity; with a geographical focus spanning from Mexico, Portugal to Russia and Italy, it explores planning approaches (resilience-based planning) as well as knowledge management issues and social behaviours

Editorial

We are pleased to present the third issue of Transactions of the Association of the European Schools of Planning, the open-access, double-blind peer-reviewed journal of AESOP. The purpose of AESOP is promoting within Europe the development of teaching and research in the field of planning. Since its foundation it has always sought to foster the development of planning education, with the original AESOP Charter signed in Dortmund in 1987 placing a particular emphasis on this dimension of planning school activity. Reflecting this, the focus of the present issue of Transactions is on new experiences and issues in planning education. The papers presented here address a range of contemporary issues in the design and delivery of planning education in Europe and other parts of the globe. The focus of the contributions is diverse, ranging from wider structural and contextual issues such as the internationalisation of higher education, through to papers which report and reflect on, experiences of teaching in different institutions and contexts, and using different modes of delivery